HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.07.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 9, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman ..Graham on Monday, July 9, 1990 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham,
Jacobs, Kelly, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Larry
Lautenschlager, Zoning Technician; Frank
Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire
Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the June 25, 1990 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - CP noted an item at 1273 E1 Camino Real which had -been
removed from the agenda as well as an item at 1216 E1
Camino Real which had been continued. Both of these
items will be renoticed for the meeting of July 23,
1990. Order of the agenda was then approved
unanimously.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1240 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Item set for public hearing July 23, 1990.
2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
EXTEND A STRUCTURAL SUPPORT INTO THE SIDE YARD AREA AT 1445
EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Requests: what has changed since the application approved earlier
in the year, why was this variance not added at that time;
dimension of parking stalls, is guest parking located at the rear
and is this appropriate; elevation of the decorative fence above
the beam extension, is it part of the gate, if so it would be over
71 tall; front elevation is not the elevation that was approved, it
still shows exterior plywood panels; parking stall #1 has a backup
grade over 20%, is this allowed. Item set for public hearing July
23, 1990.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
July 9, 1990
3. PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT AT 1204 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL
AREA
Requests: present square footage of the restaurant; increase in
seating area, compare to present; number of customers expected
before 5:00 P.M. and after 5:00 P.M.; is this a franchise operation
and if so are there others nearby which could be looked at; there
is reference to mezzanine storage but there is no mezzanine;
clarify number of employees; if seating area will increase by 20%
would like a count of the use of on -street parking during eating
hours; ask applicant to set a time when Commission can look inside
the building; is additional space only for handicapped facilities
and extra storage; existing seating capacity of the building. Item
set for public hearing July 23, 1990.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONDUCT CLASSES AT 1240 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY,
ZONED C-4
Requests: define 'temporary' use; would like some time specific
when this use will stop; how many parking spaces are there for the
building and who is using them, would some spaces be designated to
this use; clarify number of conference rooms; subject of the
seminars for applicant's own business; further explanation of this
company's business. Item set for public hearing July 23, 1990.
5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL TWO DOUBLE FACED SIGNS AT 1007
ROLLINS ROAD AND 1008 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED C-2
Requests: note on the plans for proposed Sign G states 'cabinet
measurements and paint color will be field verified to match
existing', want a fixed size for this sign at the action meeting.
Item set for public hearing July 23, 1990.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED
GARAGE WITH STORAGE AT 2525 HILLSIDE DRIVE. ZONED R-1
Reference :,staff report, 7/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, previous variance requests for
this site, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Ben Nielsen, applicant, was
present. His comments: the driveway is capable of holding two cars
with 2' behind, there is a new project nearby with an 11'-6"
driveway, his is longer; they dug down to locate the sewer lateral,
plumbing contractor said there might be a drainage problem with too
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
July 9, 1990
much bend in the lateral; water. line would be no problem; they
would like to keep the area behind the garage which is the only
area where they have any privacy, they hope to add a deck; they
need the 17'-6" height of the garage for storage space, he is 6'-3"
tall and due to a back injury cannot bend over; there is a basement
in the house but they have had water problems, sump pumps have not
alleviated the problem.
Commission comments: the drawings show slope on grade, there is a
requirement that any wood be 6" above earth grade, either the
building will have to be taller or there must be a concrete curb
all the way around. It seems applicant is making a trade of the
storage shed in the back for a higher roof line on the garage;
applicant stated shed was used for storage and a children's doll
house. Commissioner thought there is ample room on the lot to move
the garage back, open space section of the general plan addresses a
purpose to provide unencumbered sight lines and view lines down the
block, that is the reason for front setbacks; with this proposal a
car will be parked in the front setback which will violate the
neighbor's rights to view; as long as there is space on the lot why
not move the garage back, give up the doll house, gain storage
space above the garage and make a trade. Applicant replied it was
because of the sewer lateral, problem not the slope of the lot but
a bend in the sewer lateral. Commissioner comment: applicant could
go either way, put bend in the sewer line or go under the garage
with sewer lateral, either way would work.
Audience comments in favor follow. Tim Regan, 1351 Montero Avenue:
he lives on the southwest corner of Hillside and Montero directly
across the street from the applicants; he has been backing in and
out of his driveway for the last 13 years ever since applicants
have lived there, it has presented no problem, he has nicked one of
their cars only once; their remodeling will benefit the
neighborhood and the city, existing garage has presented no
problem, he would like to see it remain as is for applicants'
convenience, it will not disrupt the neighborhood if driveway stays
the same. Mordechai Lichtenstein, 2509 Hillside Drive: he had no
objection to leaving the garage the way it is, if moved back the
children would not have space to play in the back yard, playing in
front close to Hillside would be dangerous. There were no comments
in opposition and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment/discussion: have two concerns, setback and
height; regarding setback of the garage, would not want to see the
rear yard reduced, parking is adequate, there is 20' up to the
sidewalk; think height of the building should be 141, applicant has
had opportunity to put in storage; can support additional height of
the garage, it won't affect the neighbors, but a car parked in the
driveway will seem to be sitting in the neighbor's front yard,
think garage should be moved back; have no problem with height,
garage is below curb height and will appear lower, there is a 5'
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
July 9, 1990
easement in the back, there is no neighbor's fence directly behind
it; regarding the driveway, it is happenstance that the property
line is not behind the sidewalk, if it had been directly behind the
sidewalk applicant would have had 20' and would not have needed the
parking variance, he is expanding the garage to 20' x 201, do not
have a problem with either request.
C. Galligan found there are special circumstances with this
particular project, there is substantial street frontage on
Hillside and the side street for parking, parking on site is
unusual because of the setback, there is still 20' to the sidewalk,
property is unique in that it has a minimum of six on -street
parking sites whereas most homes have only two, it has parking
available on the street as well as off the street. C. Galligan
moved for approval of the parking variance 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 22, 1990 with the face of the new garage no closer than 16'-1"
from side property line and with a maximum height from adjacent
grade of 17'-6"; (2) that the interior dimension of the garage
structure shall be 20' x 20' and the maximum height in the storage
attic shall be 6'-611; (3) that the building shall conform to all
the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code
as amended by the City of Burlingame; (4) that the only utility in
the garage structure shall be electricity; and (5) that no part of
the detached garage structure shall ever be used for dwelling
purposes or as a second dwelling unit.
Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 6-1 on roll call vote,
C. Mink dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Kelly found the project as proposed will not be detrimental to
property or improvements in the general vicinity, the proposed use
will be conducted in accordance with the general plan, grade of the
land will not make the garage look 17'-6" tall, it will fit in with
the neighborhood and will not be detrimental. C. Kelly moved for
approval of the special permit by resolution with the five
conditions listed in the motion for the parking variance.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 5-2 roll call
vote, Cers Deal and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were
advised.
7. VARIANCES (FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, PARKING DIMENSION)
AND A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT AT 313 CHAPIN
LANE ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 7/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter,
study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, CP
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
July 9, 1990
advised removal of the driveway was not included under condition #4
because applicant had not proposed this.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants, Winnie and
Bruce Homer -Smith, were present. Mrs. Homer -Smith advised they
intended to remove the driveway beyond the front corner of the
house to the rear. A Commissioner felt a significant amount of
driveway around the tree should be removed, it appeared from the
plans applicants could continue the arc line around the tree, go to
property line and free up the tree roots. Mr. Homer -Smith referred
to their beautiful redwood and bamboo fence, in the future when
they move their garage to the back of the property they would like
to extend that fence all the way back. Staff had no objection and
advised fence height regulations.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Mink moved for approval of the three variances and special
permit with findings supported by testimony this evening and
documentation from the applicants. Motion was by resolution with
the conditions in the staff report and an addition to Condition #4
regarding removal of the driveway. Motion was seconded by C.
Kelly.
In comment on the motion Commission discussed a suggestion that a
condition be added addressing removal of the variance if the tree
dies or is removed, in this circumstance the carport in the front
setback would have to be relocated. CP advised she had discussed
legal requirements with the Acting. City Attorney and suggested a
condition to cover this concern focusing on a time limit on the
variance. Following further discussion the maker of the mdtion and
the seconder accepted a 6th condition.
Conditions follow: (1) that the carport accessory structure shall
be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped June 28, 1990; (2) that the Director of
Parks shall review and approve the final plans before a building
permit is issues or any
and that any requirements
included in the paving an(
property line shall be rel
maximum height from grade
garage structure at the re
existing driveway to the i
tree; (5) that the propo
with walls except as reqs
the Uniform Building Code
City of Burlingame;_ and
for 15 years or shall
Heritage tree be removed.
xemoli.tion or construction worx is begun
or modifications he might make shall be
structure; (3) that if the fence at the
ocated the replacement fence shall have a
of five feet (51); (4) that the existing
ar of the lot shall be demolished and the
-ear of the lot shall be removed past the
ped carport shall not be fully enclosed
ired to comply with the requirements of
and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the
5) that this variance shall be in effect
lapse sooner should the Coast Redwood
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
July 9, 1990
Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Recess 8:45; reconvene 8:55.
8. SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SIX
UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 7/9/90, with attachments. ZT
Lautenschlager reviewed details of the request, staff review,
Planning staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting
questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at
the public hearing. ZT advised the new drawings meet exiting
requirements.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. David Sierra, applicant and
property owner, was present and requested his architect discuss the
project. Jim Guthrie, architect, commented: this is a difficult
site, triangular shaped lot with large front yard and basically no
rear yard, they are pleased with their final solution, it is a
handsome building and will be an asset to the city, project has
required them to ask for variances they feel will not impact the
living units, there will be three 1 -bedroom and three 2 -bedroom
units with two tiers of parking, there was a problem in maneuvering
cars given the shape of the site, they have lowered the height of
the building based on comments at the study meeting, reduced
ceiling height to 81, they have the structure down to the minimum
371-6" while still maintaining required clearance of the garage at
ground level, mechanical/elevator/stair structures exceed more than
5% of the roof area, they could reduce the stair structure by half
and might come close to 5%; they feel three compact stalls is
appropriate, not an unusual request given the number of small care
on the road today; they are requesting the side setback because of
the odd shape of the lot, could conceivably increase the setback to
9' at the top floor meeting code requirements but are reluctant to
do this, structurally difficult to bring walls in at that level.
Responding to a question, architect advised parking spaces 1, 2, 3,
9, 10 and 11 can be exited in three maneuvers with a mid-sized car.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition. Bob Wilson, 1511 Carol Avenue: he lives. next door to
51 El Camino Real, his concern was the proposed height, had no
concern with a condominium next door since he knew it was zoned
R-3, there is an apartment building on the corner of E1 Camino and
Carol and it is the tallest building on the block, with this new
structure at its proposed height he was concerned it would block in
his property, it will have some effect on his sunlight, the other
structure impacts light now, people live in Burlingame for the
sunlight, could have an adverse effect on his property value.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
July 9, 1990
Mike Mustachia, 1533 Carol Avenue: he was concerned about line of
sight, a single story dwelling was torn down behind his house and a
two story dwelling put up, a garage 10' tall was also allowed on
his property line, there is another two story building to the left
of his property and now this one; he commented he did not come to
the Commission to help him with his bad investments, he was opposed
to the variance requests for that reason as well.
Bruce Eberly, 1529 Carol Avenue: he was surprised by the number of
exceptions to the code requested and thought this should have been
considered before the property was purchased, so many variances
should not be requested after the fact; E1 Camino has changed, at
one time one could see trees, now just walls; a dangerous condition
has developed at the El Camino/Peninsula intersection, two or three
single family dwellings have been replaced by multiple family
buildings along with the Senior housing in San Mateo, this has
added to traffic congestion in the area, six units in the proposed
condominium may not seem like a lot but these people will have
guests, there is no on -street parking on E1 Camino so guests will
go to the side streets such as Carol along with people from the
other units; in view of water conservation why not limit the number
of water hookups; he was opposed to the application.
There were no further comments in opposition. Mr. Sierra spoke in
rebuttal: he would never have considered this investment if he had
not seen the existing buildings on E1 Camino, larger buildings
outnumber single family homes; he has reduced the height of the
project; he thought the home at 1511 Carol would be worth more
close to a large building with prices as they are today; his intent
is to develop a good building, Burlingame can use some buildings
which are aesthetically appealing.
Commission commented: there are only two buildings west of
California that are over 3/4 stories; applicant is requesting
enclosures on the roof which exceed 5% of the roof area (11%
proposed); somehow have the feeling applicant is saying he is doing
the city a favor by giving it a taller building. Applicant
comment: there are other buildings in the city 4/5 stories tall,
one right across from city hall; to get the building and its units
on that site and make it aesthetically appealing he needs the
471-6" height.
Further Commission/applicant discussion: Mr. Sierra bought this
property within the year, he did research the city requirements
before he purchased it. A Commissioner commented the reason for
code requirements is to guide an architect; when a developer asks
for so many exceptions to the code for one project, why have a
zoning code. Applicant responded: he is asking only for small
variances, for 1' on the compact spaces, other cities have allowed
this, he could obtain statistics to show what other cities have
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
July 9, 1990
done, no one has large cars now. A Commissioner stated parking
standards were set with full knowledge of standards in other
cities. Applicant did not think his requests were unreasonable,
only 1' on the side setback and 11' on the roof. Staff confirmed
developer is asking for 1' on the side and 3' on the length for the
compact stalls. Architect said they could reduce the structure to
37'-6" but they are required tohave the elevator/stair go up to
the roof, these two roof structures are small and are on the front
of the building so would not affect the neighbor at the rear,
general plan maximum density for land use on E1 Camino is 21-50
units per acre, there is a need to provide affordable housing for
people on the Peninsula.
A Commissioner was concerned about three compact spaces only 17' in
length, this would not be a big problem with apartments but with a
condominium project spaces are assigned, they are independent of
the size of cars. Architect stated one stall per unit will be full
size, it's the overflow that will be compact. Regarding the 1'
side setback variance, a Commissioner commented that with the two
straight sides of the building, roughly 300 feet long, there is
approximately 5% encroachment into the side setback. Responding to
a question regarding affordability, Mr. Sierra said he did not know
what he would be marketing the units for, they would not be subject
to affordable housing credits, he wants to build an upscale good
quality building, with only four units it would make no sense to
excavate, he might keep the units awhile and then sell them but did
not want to be another victim of this parcel. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement she had
nice project, the city has
do vary as to location,
special permit is asking
of 11% of the roof area
within code requirements
the site, C. Jacobs move
by C. Mink.
no problem with the developer building a
codes and it does vary from them, codes
this project with two variances and a
for too much, particularly roof enclosures
and a 47'-6" height, applicant could stay
for height, this project is too big for
d for denial of the application, seconded
Comment on the motion: commend architect and applicant, it is a
nice plan, would be uncomfortable approving roof enclosures
covering more than 5% of the roof area, do not have a problem with
a 37'-6" height or with roof enclosures within 5%, the side setback
variance seems reasonable in view of the size and shape of the lot;
do have a problem with the parking, if six full size spaces, one
for each unit, are assigned and three compact spaces allowed
downstairs, 50% of the overflow parking will be compact; with 50%
of the overflow in small cars they will run into a problem in a
condominium project. Project is too big for the site,
uncomfortable with so many applications for property purchased for
investment purposes which result in the need for variances, at some
point this will have to stop. Think architect has done a good job
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
July 9, 1990
of design, have a problem with the height, many condominiums which
have been before this Commission have not been granted a special
permit for height, what do we say to all these people who have
worked by the rules if we approve this special permit for height,
think the city wants shorter buildings; could vote for the 11 side
setback variance; parking is not adequate for the building, city
has created a problem by allowing guest parking to be taken away
from the per unit assignment of parking, think it is reasonable to
allow a few compact stalls, would go along with one full size and
one small per unit plus guest parking from unit assignment.
Motion to deny the application was approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP
- PORTION OF LOTS 25 AND 26, BLOCK 1, GLENWOOD PARK -
51 EL CAMINO REAL
Reference CE's agenda memo, 7/9/90. C. Ellis moved to recommend
denial of these maps to City Council, seconded by C. Galligan and
approved unanimously on voice vote.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 1330 ROLLINS
ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 7/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: suggested condition #4 states applicant will not store
any cars out of doors at any time; potential number of cars on site
for this business.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Del. Boscacci, applicant,
was present. His comments: the outside display area would have
been ideal but it is not a necessity, cars will be kept inside,
kept clean, no gasoline or chemicals will be kept on site; his
business is basically a car collection brokerage for some of his
clients and himself, mainly on the Peninsula; customers come by
referral, he does some advertising, some mail -outs to clients; a
few people keep cars with him, the rest are delivered to clients,
homes; he had no problem with the suggested conditions, 11 cars can
be put inside based on full size parking spaces, many of these cars
are smaller.
There was a Commissioner concern if the vacant part of the building
were rented; applicant said he has been allocated four spaces, with
the number of employees (two full time and one part time including
the business owner) „ and expected visitors four spaces is
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
July 9, 1990
optimistic, the other full time employee is an outside wholesaler
who will be off the site all the time.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: have read condition #4 and believe
what the applicant says regarding parking but am still concerned
about the parking, cars have a way of suddenly appearing outside or
on the sidewalk, there was a similar situation at the corner of Oak
Grove and Carolan, this is probably a good place for this business
but still have a parking concern; that concern is addressed by
condition #6 with review in a certain period of time or upon
complaint.
With the statement there will not be a parking problem since cars
will be parked inside, applicant has given assurances this is a
relatively benign business and limited in sales, and there is a
review and complaint process, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the
special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1)
that this retail automobile sales, leasing and brokerage business
shall occupy 2,160 SF of warehouse area with 2.40 SF of office area,
shall operate from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and
10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Saturday, closed Sunday, with a maximum of
three employees (two full time and one part time) including the
business owner; (2) that only automobile waxing and rinsing with
clear water will occur on this site and no repair or maintenance
work shall be done on the site; (3) that the conditions of the
Chief Building Official's June 4, 1990 memo and City Engineer's
June 11, 1990 memo shall be met; ( 4 ) that no cars shall be stored
or displayed in the required parking on this site, e.g., outside of
the warehouse building area, and that three on-site parking stalls
shall be designated reserved for the employees and customers of
this business, and at no time shall more than 15 cars associated
with any aspect of this business be stored in the warehouse area;
(5) that any change to the hours of operation, number of employees,
size of the area used by this business, type of maintenance or
preparation done to vehicles owned or displayed as a part of this
business on this premise shall require an amendment to this use
permit; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for
compliance with these conditions in six months (January, 1991) and
every two years thereafter or upon complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: if
applicant can accept condition #4 have no problem. Motion was
approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Ellis dissenting. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
July 9, 1990
11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A RETAIL USE AT 1199 BROADWAY,
ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
Reference staff report, 7/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, history of special permits granted
this use on this site, staff review, applicant's letter, study
meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. It was staffs understanding
this business would be open Monday through Saturday.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Ann Parsons, owner of The
Doll P1aCe ., 1202 Broadway was present in support of the
application; since applicant was not present she requested a
continuance. Chm. Graham continued the public hearing to the
meeting of July 23, 1990 on motion by C. Jacobs, second C. Mink,
all aye voice vote. FM Reilly noted if application is not made for
a building permit prior to July 18 they may have to sprinkle the
entire building because of changes to the Fire Code which become
effective on that date.
12. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP - 1216 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Continued to the meeting of July 23, 1990.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORT
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its July 2, 1990 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles W. Mink
Secretary