Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.11.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Tuesday, November 13, 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; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the October 22, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. A ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO BUILD A COVERED PORCH AT 16 ARUNDEL ROAD ZONED R-1 Requests: what is unique about this property to support the variance request; do porches on other houses in the block extend 5' into the front setback; explanation of why special permits for carport/garage were dropped from the application. Item set for public hearing November 26, 1990. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED AT 1645 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 Requests: what is unique about this property such as use of the rear yard or use of the yard of neighbor to the rear; on the supplemental sheet, #2, applicant has said 2' lattice can be dislodged easily, is this a misstatement. Item set for public hearing November 26, 1990. 3. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A PARCEL SPLIT OF THE LANDS OF ROBERT AND JOANN O'CONNOR AT 2811 HILLSIDE DRIVE/2108 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: summary table showing how two residences would comply or not comply with current zoning code requirements; is there a proposal to show how they will reduce the height of the 2108 Summit residence 'to meet the 30' code requirement, a large portion of the lot has Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 13, 1990 various grades, has this variation been taken into consideration for height of the building; would like to have all technical engineering work done prior to action at the public hearing; is there any lighting at the existing play court; is there a proposal to relocate the existing fence to property line; explain handling of zoning requirements by conditions on the map. Item set for public hearing pending receipt of responses to all Planning Commission questions/requests and staff's developmental concerns. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO AMEND THE SIGN PROGRAM AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Requests: is applicant aware they will need a use permit for a second floor realtors office; what is exceptional about this building other than it is large; why are they asking for a revision to the sign program at this time with no tenants for these locations. Item set for public hearing November 26, 1990. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL NEW SIGNS AT THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL (OLD IBIS HOTEL) AT 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Item set for public hearing November 26, 1990. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ORTHOGNATHIC/ORTHODONTIC CLASSES, USE DETERMINATION AS A CLINIC AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY #135, ZONED M-1 Requests: explain statements in the application that these facilities will be used for one week once a month but the Marriott agreement shows use of hotel rooms every week; applicant states no parking will be used, how will instructors and staff get to the site; how is required parking determined; how many employees will be on site during sessions; will patients be driving to the site, what about parking for personnel in the reception area, the lab and other staff; clarification of how the program works, it was stated course participants work on each other. Item set for public hearing November 26, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 804 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/13/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in support (November 6, 1990) from Jim Seggern, 808 Burlingame Avenue was noted. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Michael Short, applicant and property owner, was present and commented on his hobby of assembling Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 13, 1990 wooden utility "Heritage Stools"; it is something he enjoys, keeps him occupied in retirement, he does not plan to make a big business of it, if his orders ever reached 3,000 he would turn it over to a larger operation. Responding to Commissioner questions Mr. Short advised he does not park his cars in the garage, he has a long driveway where the two cars are parked, it is an older garage for narrower cars; he has a wide 173 Pontiac and a smaller car, his wife drives only the smaller car so they have to leave it in back of the Pontiac rather than putting it in the garage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the findings that applicant is proposing a business which is merely an extension of his hobby; if the business grows significantly he will have it done elsewhere; it will not cause excessive noise or be a safety hazard, C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit with the conditions in the staff report and an additional condition to allow the applicant to use a hand saw, saber saw and drill press. Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 9, 1990; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo dated October 15, 1990 shall be met - that no woodworking or spray finishing will take place and the home occi}pation is for assembly and hand finishing only; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo dated October 22, 1990 shall be met - that the special permit shall be reviewed in a three year period (November, 1993); (4) that the 203 SF garage shall be used only for storage, and for the assembly and hand finishing of wood stools using hand tools, and shall never be used as a living area or for any other purposes; (5) that the tools to be allowed shall include a hand saw, saber saw, drill press and other portable tools; and (6) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: concerned that Commission is being asked to approve a nonconforming garage, approval would be saying applicant doesn't have to park in his garage and instead can do business in it, wish there was some other way for him to build an area for this activity that did not include his garage. Fire Marshal advised hand tools would not be a concern, portable tools are acceptable. Commissioner comment: the difficulty with getting the vehicle in the garage is not that he is working in the garage, but the garage door is too narrow for the vehicles applicant owns; have difficulty finding this to be a home occupation business, even two stools a day is a going concern, CA stated that legally this is a home occupation under the city's ordinance. Motion was approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 13, 1990 8. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE TO RETAIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A NEW LOT AT 2807 HILLSIDE DRIVE, PARCEL 2, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/13/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, Council's action (with conditions) approving the tentative map to divide the lot at 2807 Hillside Drive into three parcels. Two conditions were suggested for Commission consideration at the public hearing. Staff confirmed that two covered and one uncovered parking spaces are required by code; if this variance were granted for this project and sometime in future the existing house were demolished the variance would be void. With the statement that the only issue before Commission this evening is a rear setback variance to retain the existing single family dwelling on a new lot at 2807 Hillside Drive, Chm. Graham opened the public hearing and requested any audience comments relate only to the variance application. Joseph Karp, applicant and property owner, was present and distributed copies of photographs of the old house. He stated he would like to preserve the house without changing the architectural integrity of the interior, the only neighbor who can see the back of the house is at 2811 Hillside, applicant has spoken to him and he had no objection. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. A. C. Olshen, 2800 Hillside Drive: he commended Commission for recommending denial of the tentative map and spoke at length regarding this issue. The Chair suggested these concerns should be taken to City Council since Council had approved the tentative map and pointed out again that the issue tonight is the variance to rear setback. Dr. Olshen concluded his remarks with the statement he is opposed to commercial development of this land. Dan McCarthy, 1388 Hillside Circle, requested clarification of the tentative map conditions, CP explained one of the conditions was that the existing house meet current zoning code requirements or get a variance. Mr. MgCarthy commented the developer brought need for the variance on himself by reorienting Parcel 2, he purchased the property and knew what he was getting into, he could have subdivided into two lots and not changed the orientation of the lot on which this house was situated; he has to do major construction anyway, see no reason not to bring it up to code without a variance; variances are for people who need them such as those with expanding families, do not think there is need in this case. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 13, 1990 Commission/staff discussion: if the 15' rear setback were required and 9'-5" not allowed it would. affect a rear corner of the building, both stories; the beauty of the structure would be substantially diminished without the variance because of architectural changes required, it would be a tragedy to create blight, impact on neighbor would not change with the variance, Commission would not be showing courage if it opposed the variance just because of its vote on the tentative map. C. Galligan found that without the variance there would be substantial diminution of the beauty of the building and the interior functional use of the building, the variance is necessary for the continued preservation and enjoyment of the property. He then moved for approval of the rear setback variance with the following conditions: (1) that the existing house on Parcel 2 should be retained with a 91-5" rear setback as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 25, 1990; and (2) that the new garage and all structural and other improvements on the site shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame now in effect. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. In comment on the motion a Commissioner found there were exceptional circumstances in that the need for the variance was created by the fact that the lot lines were adjusted and by doing so the location of the rear setback was changed; the existing building is there, what is changed is the definition of the setback requirements, for that reason there are exceptional circumstances which pertain to the actual shape and orientation of the property. Another Commissioner commented on setbacks, front setbacks are for the general public to create open space along streets, side setbacks are established to protect privacy of nearby neighbors, rear setbacks are designed for the enjoyment of the people who live on the property, giving them private open space; this space will be impacted slightly by this corner of the house but the person being impacted is the_pgrson who owns the house, not the neighbor, this is an unfortunate circumstance but an acceptable one. Maker of the motion stated he had 'tried to stay away from findings for exceptional circumstance because the need for the variance was induced by the applicant himself; a Commissioner responded he felt it was a chain reaction, applicant did not apply for one item and then come back later for another, he tried to apply for them all at the same time, therefore this Commissioner did not look upon it as a sequential change but as a part of the original request to divide the lot, due to procedure the application had to be taken in the order it was addressed. Another comment: it was considered to be self-induced because if there had been a lot split into two lots with the frontage then on Hillside there would not have been a problem with the rear setback since the rear would have been the side. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 13, 1990 Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. 9. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXTEND STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS INTO THE SIDE YARD AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 11/13/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of condominium permit approved in April 1990, staff review, applicant's structural engineer's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a Commissioner question CP explained in detail the change being requested. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Dr. Mohsen Najafi, applicant and property owner, was present. Using a model of the project he discussed his request for a variance in order to extend two beams and two structural columns into the side setback, this will be more expensive to build but will provide the building with more support and residents with more safety. Renan Dominguez, applicant's structural engineer, was also present and responded to Commission questions. He stated structure is not designed on a post tension slab, there are steel beams with wood joists, it is within engineering capabilities to design it as it is and comply with code, his experience with earthquakes has been that an asymmetrical design is more vulnerable to damage, a symmetrical design is better and fewer cracks will occur; the cantilever cannot be designed stronger, it must be flexible, a beam is needed. Speaking to a suggestion this is a self-induced need for a variance, why not redesign the building and avoid the variance, Mr. Dominguez said it is just a matter of providing additional safety and more positive support for the building. Mr. Najafi commented this is a variance to the side setback and will not affect anyone's privacy, the changes will add proper support to the building. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: safety is a concern of Commission but this is a self-induced variance, do not think Commission should be adding variances to help with that safety, applicant could reduce the building in area and increase safety, it appears he wants to create more living space within the units, cannot support that aspect of it, have reservations about the post for the sliding nate. For the reasons expressed this evening and the fact that this building can be built without this exception, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Galligan. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 13, 1990 Comment: will support the motion, nothing can be designed to stand up in all earthquakes or not experience some cracking; this is another case where there are too many units which have driven the problem of the driveway and driven the problem of raising the building, this is self-inflicted by greed. Motion to deny the variance request was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1044 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 11/13/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in opposition (November 12, 1990) from Bob and Edith Leon, 1036 Laguna Avenue was noted. CA and CP explained condominium ownership, this site is zoned R-2 and the proposed project is a duplex condominium; there are no variances requested, just a condominium permit. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Lee Wurlitzer, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Bernard Transano, 1030 Laguna Avenue: he was concerned about loss of the quiet, tree lined, stable neighborhoods in the community, huge apartment buildings are replacing neighborhood homes intruding on residents' privacy, the streets are filled with cars, Laguna is a narrow street, granting this proposal will add to a deteriorating situation; apartment parking is inadequate and they use the neighborhood streets, both sides are parked with cars and trucks, developers/speculators are making it impossible for young families to stay in Burlingame, there is no guarantee this condominium will be owner occupied. Arleen Bennett, owner of the property at 1041-43 Laguna Avenue: she owns this duplex, can understand the desire for a quiet neighborhood, this is no longer possible; a guest parking space for this condominium_ will help the congestion but not enough, people from apartment buildings down the block park in front of homes in the area, Fire Department has trouble getting through, she was not in favor of any more large units in the area. Brian Donnelly, 1024 Laguna Avenue: they moved to this street because it was a quiet area and Burlingame had a character they liked, looking out the back of his house now he can see a three story apartment building going up, there will be a parking problem on the block with two condominium units three bedrooms each; two duplexes were built on Paloma, there is no land left because of paving and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 13, 1990 absence of landscaping; the city needs to be concerned about continued growth in the neighborhoods. Robert Leon, 1036 Laguna Avenue: he grew up in Burlingame and does not like what is happening in the neighborhoods, the city needs to say no to projects such as this in order to retain its character. Dorothy Transano, 1030 Laguna Avenue: on most days she cannot park in front of her house, transportation for her mother has to double park in the middle of the street to pick her up; commuters park on this street, they are a traffic hazard, residents are continuously inconvenienced by outsiders; trucks are another problem; this area is too congested for three bedroom units. A further comment from the audience: developer stated in the application he wanted to build this condominium for affordable housing in Burlingame, do not think this three bedroom condominium is low income housing. Ms. Wurlitzer, property owner, spoke in rebuttal. She felt it was her right to develop her property in accordance with the city's regulations and guidelines, she could have a duplex with a larger building and less parking, they have tried to make something that would be desirable for the neighborhood. Peter Sun, Designer, was present and discussed a concern about the length of the driveway access to the garage and the possibility of moving the garage back to increase the parking area in front of the garage. It was his understanding all city requirements had been met by the project including all curb cuts along Carmelita; by reducing private open space in back or on the side he could increase the driveway space but in his opinion 18-1/21 from curb to garage door was- more than adequate if it is being used as a parking space. Responding to a Commissioner suggestion that the driveway be used for parking purposes and thus parking had to be on the property not across the sidewalk, Mr. Sun said it could be done but would have to be redesigned structurally.. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: can appreciate comments on both sides of this issue, there is a problem with congestion in many areas of the city but this application meets all the condominium guidelines and zoning code regulations, the area is zoned R-2 and project meets the requirements for a condominium duplex including parking; duplexes have become two story in this day and age, don't know'what Commission or the neighbors can do, perhaps discuss with Council; agree with these statements, Commission likes to have neighborhood input and may even agree but it must make its decisions based on code requirements; everyone in the neighborhood has the right to build a second floor, economic value of development cannot be a factor in Commission decisions. Incorporating all the statements made previously, C. Deal moved for approval of the condominium permit by resolution with the following Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 November 13, 1990 conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 19, 1990 (Topographic Survey and Sheets A-2 through A-7) and September 21, 1990 (Sheet A-1 and Tentative Map); (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of October 12, 1990 and the Fire Marshal's memo of September 24, 1990 shall be met; (4) that the guest parking stall shall be designated and marked on the plans and tentative map and not assigned to a unit but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; (5) 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 (6) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each 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, common area carpets, drapes and furniture. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: there seems to be an aversion to the term condominium, there are existing.one story and two story duplexes all over the city, think this condominium duplex will be better for the neighborhood; Planning Commission does not have the discretion or authority to resolve these concerns at this type of hearing, the difference between two and three bedroom projects will increase number of cars for a premise, if this project could move the garage back it would provide two to four additional spaces on site should these be needed in the future, would like to see that considered, if not cannot support the motion; commend the designer of this building, he met all the city's rules, if the rules are wrong that's the city's fault; Commission does not have the right to expect more from this applicant than it does from other applicants, would suggest we might look into parking for condominiums and apartments in the future. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Galligan abstaining, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. TENTATIVE MAP FOR A TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM - LOT 27, BLOCK 9, EASTON ADDITION NO. 1 - 1044 LAGUNA AVENUE Reference Engineering staff memo recommending map be forwarded to City Council for approval. C. Mink moved to recommend this tentative condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Ellis and approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 November 13, 1990 12. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR UNITS - LOT 23, BLOCK 10, EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME - 1022 CHULA VISTA AVENUE Reference City Engineer's memo recommending map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Ellis moved to recommend this final condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Mink and approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. 13. PARKING VARIANCE TO EXPAND THE EXISTING RESTAURANT.AT 1351 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B Reference staff report, 11/13/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted letter in opposition (November 9, 1990) from DeWayne W. Moore, President of the Board of Trustees, The United Methodist Church of Burlingame, 1443 Howard Avenue. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Cathy Hoy, owner of Brothers Deli, 1351 Howard Avenue, was present. She told Commission she needs the extra space, the restaurant is crowded, tables too close together, with this extra space she can have a service entrance instead of unloading in front; she will provide handicapped restrooms and will be able to have a small office area. John Cockcroft, owner of the building that houses Brothers Deli, spoke in favor: he commented on his involvement in the Burlingame Parking District #1 in the 1960's and Clause 14 of the resolution of that district which suggests properties not taking credits for existing parking and paying the full amount of the bonds were exempt from parking requirements. He asked what authority there is for requiring this parking variance. CA advised this issue is before the state Court of Appeals, when the city amended the zoning ordinance in 1976-78 Council determined that those clauses were not in perpetuity and on that basis passed the parking requirements in effect today. Mr. Cockcroft asked that the Commission grant this parking variance. There were no further comments in favor. DeWayne Moore, President of the Board of Directors of the Methodist Church related problems they have had with other people using their parking lot; at the time of their Sunday Thanksgiving service members started arriving early carrying food in, people going to Brothers Deli took spaces in the church lot, church people then had to find other places to park; this has been an increasing problem and will get worse if Brothers gets more popular; the church needs its own space and they expect church activities to increase. Due to a 1986 state law they are no longer able to have cars parked there less than one hour towed away; often church members will see someone parking in the lot to go to Brothers, when they are told the church will need' the space shortly for a wedding or some other activity some of these people will leave but most will not. The church has daytime five days a week nursery and F Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 November 13, 1990 day care schools, parents sometimes must park in the street because there is no space in the lot. The church feels adding the opportunity for more customers at the deli will aggravate the problem of others using the church parking lot. CA advised Mr. Moore that the city's traffic sergeant agrees with him that the church can have cars parking less than an hour towed away; this lot is a private posted lot, the 1986 statute applies to public lots. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item. Commission comment: have no problem with this application, it will not create a significant change, am concerned about abuses of the church's parking lot, would like to see a sign inside the deli advising patrons if cars are parked in the church lot they will be towed. Ms. Hoy said she would put up such a sign. With the Chair's permission Mr. Moore commented on the fact that the parking fee in the lot behind the deli has been raised to $1.00, people used the lot more when it was $.25. C. Jacobs made findings: this restaurant is in Sub Area B, Commission has given leeway to other businesses in Sub Area B, this is a congested area but the deli will be adding only eight new seats, the improvements will relieve congestion in the restaurant itself, there is a parking lot on Howard now available, the project will not add to the footprint of the building and traffic to the dry cleaners will be eliminated, the variance will not be detrimental to other properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the remodeling of the space shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 29, 1990; (2) that there shall be eight more seats in the remodeled restaurant taking the total from 98 to 106 -seats; (3) that the improvements shall comply with all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that the owner of Brothers Deli shall place a highly visible sign in the restaurant which tells her patrons that violators will be towed from the private parking lot of the Methodist church. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-0 on roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP reviewed City Council actions at its November 5, 1990 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 November 13, 1990 - 1991 Planning Commission Calendar and Schedule: approved. - Minor Modification - 812 Newhall Road: no comment. - ABANDONMENT OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR AN AMBULANCE COMPANY AND DWELLING UNIT AT 1801 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 11/13/90, with attachments. C. Ellis moved for adoption of Resolution Approving Abandonment of Special Use Permit for Ambulance Company at 1801 Adrian Road, seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on unanimous voice vote of all seated Commissioners, C. Kelly absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary