Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.10.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, October 28, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the October 15, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The Chair noted there would be no public hearing for Agenda Item #5 (Final Parcel Map, Lands of O'Connor); Item #6 (Condominium permit, 962 Chula Vista Avenue) has been continued to the meeting of November 12, 1991; Item #7 (Special Permit, 401 Primrose Road) has been withdrawn); and Item #10, (Special Permit, 1800 El Camino Real) has been continued to the meeting of November 25, 1991. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA - 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: photographs indicating how visible the dish antennas will be from the area across the freeway; more detail on the technical reasons why they need the second dish. Item set for public hearing November 12, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. PARKING VARIANCE AT 812 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review,, applicant's letter, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 28, 1991 CP clarified garage is not located in the rear 30% of the lot, if it were expanded at its present location it would not meet side setback requirements; she reviewed improvements to the site, property owners received a building permit for addition to the house with the understanding they would meet code requirements for the garage, work on the house is in progress, applicants do not wish to upgrade the garage and are now requesting a parking variance for 4" "in interior length and 4" in interior width; if the parking variance is not granted the existing garage will have to be removed and replaced in the rear 30% of the lot. It was pointed out the plans Commission has are not the drawings submitted for the building permit, these plans were submitted for the variance request; if any part of a new garage is outside the rear 30% of the lot it must meet side setback requirements. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Dennis Mayer, applicant and property owner, was present. Responding to a question about the fence to the right, he advised the gates open into the backyard and into the garage, they do park both cars behind the gate; they felt it would be redundant to replace the garage for only 4" in length and 4" in width, they had been told the garage needed to be upgraded and when they received their building permit for improvements to the house they agreed to do so since they wanted to get started before winter. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Gerald Bosworth, 816 Park Avenue, who submitted a letter in opposition from Linda Fisher, 917 Park Avenue. He questioned the square footage figures for the garage; he was concerned about the amount of square footage being added to the house, a 100% increase; applicants do not park in the existing garage, they use the driveway and carport; they have three vehicles and are living in a mobile home across the street at present, will these vehicles be parked on site or on the street; applicants began without a building permit, got red tagged, obtained a building permit (later in the meeting CP confirmed the chronology of these events) and now they do not want to build a garage to code; why are applicants concerned about compatibility of the garage with the surrounding structures in the neighborhood when they are constructing a large two story home, all other homes on the street are single story; because adjacent properties all have garages in the rear 30% of their lots, why should applicants be exempt from meeting code requirements for garages; building a new garage would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He was concerned about more vehicles parked on the street or blocking driveways. A Commissioner clarified Mr. Bosworth's question regarding square footage of the existing garage, code requires 10' x 20' interior dimension. Responding to questions, Mr. Bosworth stated he has lived at 816 Park Avenue for nine years, applicants have been at 812 Laurel for nine years three months, he had not had problems about parking prior to construction on the site, only with the motor home on the street for a week, prior to that time applicants were able to park two vehicles in the driveway, the garage is not being used to park a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 28, 1991 vehicle at the present time; if a garage to code dimensions were required Mr. Bosworth thought applicants could put one car in the garage and one in the driveway, it would reduce the number of vehicles on the street and would be beneficial to him. James Lenardon, 814 Laurel Avenue: his concern was the fact that the house has been substantially enlarged but still has a very small garage, present residents are using the driveway to park cars; this is a large house for the neighborhood, if it is sold a new family could be larger with more cars. The Chair advised code requirement for a four bedroom house is one covered and one uncovered space. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: after hearing concerns of the neighbors about parking in the area and with the extensive improvement to the house, would like to see this property have a garage to code requirements, it would be beneficial to the applicant, to the city and to the neighbors; applicant's architect confirmed the carport will be removed, it was suggested a condition be added to this effect. Further comment: applicant's architect has designed a good addition, with that much work being done to the property think the garage should be upgraded with the proper dimensions or a little more for storage, this may mean the garage will have to be moved back; agree generally applicants might as well go all the way and bring garage up to code, it doesn't appear the garage structure is being used for parking; size doesn't make much difference if it's not being used for parking purposes but am not certain moving it to the rear of the property will solve the problem, better to leave space there for the mobile home; if a variance is approved would suggest requiring an automatic garage door opener and that the variance terminate if garage is damaged or destroyed. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the parking variance with findings incorporating statements in the previous discussion, seconded by C. Graham. Seconder comment: it is distressing to have someone submit plans for a renovation of this magnitude, with full knowledge they will have to make adjustments to the garage structure, go ahead with construction and then apply for a parking variance; 4" may not be a significant amount but it is important to get a garage to code requirements so it can be more easily used for parking purposes. Motion to deny the parking variance was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AT 810 EDGEHILL DRIVE ZONED C-R Reference staff report, 10/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in support from Sharon and David Cheek (October 28, 1991) was noted. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 28, 1991 Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. John Jones, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised they are not using their garage for parking currently, basically the children use it for a play room and his wife as a laundry room; the door is operational and he has had a truck parked there; with the addition they will have three bedrooms and three baths. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion staff was asked to confirm lot coverage, a Commissioner thought it would be a little over 46%, not 48%; CP reviewed C-R zoning regulations. Comment: not wild about a large amount of lot coverage for what is an R-1 use but this lot is unusual because it is C-R zoning; if looked at as commercial, size would not be a factor, size of the lot dictates lot coverage, would be more inclined to allow increased lot coverage for this type of use on this small 3,600 SF lot; regarding a second story, declining height envelope on this narrow 40' lot would reduce the amount of addition so that it would not be practical; am somewhat reluctant to allow this lot coverage since a second floor is available, it would be all right if over commercial. Do not have a problem with the proposal whether lot coverage is 46% or 48%, this is a 200 SF addition on a small lot, the area is in transition, do not believe in 10 years this will be residential, there will be more commercial in the future; do not have a problem either, this is a mixed use, could have commercial use lot line to lot line on California frontage and still allow area for residential use on the second floor, this is less than what could be put on the site, it is a small lot, a small addition, they are trying to do the best they can and still maintain character of the neighborhood, it is a common sense approach; agree with these remarks, this is a difficult lot because of its size with unique zoning which defines lot coverage in two ways, Commission should give options. With the statement the possibilities for expansion are limited because the lot is so small, applicant should be allowed to make the best use he can of his property, a second story would require further variances, C. Graham moved to grant the variance for 48% lot coverage with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 21, 1991, Sheet 1; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SETBACK VARIANCES FOR REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD AT 1000 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 28, 1991 findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff and Commission discussed the fact that a portion of this property which is one lot with two assessor's parcel numbers is in Hillsborough. The possibility of annexing the entire lot to Burlingame was discussed. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Michael'Martuscello, applicant and property owner, was present. He commented on his two lots: he receives two tax bills for portion of lot in Burlingame and portion in Hillsborough and there is one legal lot description. He does not want to go through annexation procedures. On the city limits side he will be 3' from his own property in Hillsborough and therefore 18' from his nearest neighbor in Hillsborough; the addition will be no closer than 12' from the rear property line with a 15' average rear setback, he has talked to the neighbors and they have not objected; he has tried to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Applicant/staff/Commission discussed the two lots, there was a concern if one lot were sold; applicant did not believe anyone would buy the long, narrow Hillsborough lot, it could not be built upon. CA commented that required Burlingame setbacks stop at the city boundary, he thought it would be safer to treat this matter as a variance. Robert Shafer, 1008 Bernal Avenue, spoke in support: he lives across the narrow portion of the lot and had no objection to the project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement the Hillsborough portion of this lot is not buildable, this is an unusual property, a classic example of exceptional circumstances, C. Graham moved for approval of the setback variances 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 September 26, 1991 Sheets 1 and 2; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: in its action believe Commission should make a determination that in fact a variance is required; Commission's action in granting the variance is not an idle act and it confirms Commission's finding that it is one lot; support the motion, the rear setback is no closer than 12' to property line and the nearest neighbor's house is quite a distance away. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 28, 1991 5. FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR TWO PARCEL RESUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF O' CONNOR - BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 - 2811 HILLSIDE DRIVE AND 2108 SUMMIT DRIVE - APN 027-104-020 Reference staff report, 10/28/91, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed the item, tentative map approval and conditions. Four conditions were suggested for any recommendation of approval to City Council. CE clarified catch basins. C. Graham moved to recommend this final parcel map to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) that prior to the City Engineer's signature on the map, all survey ties to adjacent blocks be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; (2) that approval of the map is subject to Council's approval of the subdivider's agreement; (3) that all improved area drainage from 2108 Summit Drive shall exit directly into the creek or the storm drainage system; and (4) that all the new storm drainage facilities installed for street drainage shall be maintained by owner of Parcel A. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Staff will forward to City Council. 6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A FOR A FOUR UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 962 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Item continued to the meeting of November 12, 1991. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL DRY CLEANING PICK UP AND DROP OFF SERVICE AT 401 PRIMROSE ROAD ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1 Item withdrawn. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 10/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Dennis Hernandez, representing Walker Sign Service, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found that based on the information given by staff on the total area of signage and number of signs this would not be a grant of special privilege, there is ample record that this sort of signage is present and functional in the area. C. Mink moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 12, 1991 Site Plan and Section and Elevations of sign; and (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 28, 1991 Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO CREATE THREE LOTS, PARCEL "B", BEING A - RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF BLOCK 10, UNIT NO. 5, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK - 1645 ROLLINS ROAD Reference staff report, 10/28/91, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed details of the request, subdivision code review criteria, staff review, study meeting questions. If forwarded to City Council for approval seven conditions were suggested. CE clarified access for walk area, no sidewalks are shown at this time. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Pierson Forbes, Simeon Properties, was present. He advised at this time they did not know what businesses would be going on the site. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: the configuration of the lots is because of location of existing buildings, there would be other options if this were a vacant property; Commission did not create this situation, am uncomfortable with the division and cannot support it, would rather wait until more definite uses for these lots are proposed. With the statement it is disturbing to recommend approval for a parcel map for a complete unknown, Commission has no idea what will be put on the sites, will zoning code requirements be met, C. Graham moved to recommend to City Council denial of this tentative and final parcel map, seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion followed. CP clarified permitted uses in this zone and that the map as presented indicates each parcel can be used or developed within the present limitations of the zoning code and general plan. Commissioners' comments: the lot split is adequate, it has been divided appropriately, the only other alternative would be to tear down the buildings, this map gives them a usable plan; the buildings are already there, as long as they meet parking requirements have no problem with the map; share concerns about future uses but all three parcels have required street frontages and access, if a use were not a permitted use they would need to come back to the Planning Commission. Addressing subdivision code criteria, CE has stated in his opinion all criteria have been met, would not want to tie denial of a map to land use, city has ultimate control over use. Further comment: the ultimate use of this property might determine whether it should be two parcels instead of three, have a problem with the long easement access, would like some idea of what type of activity is proposed rather than having them come back for variances in the future; concerned about lot size and one lot with 50' frontage, this proposal is a mixture, what is compatible, the area is a hodgepodge, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 28, 1991 this division will just add to it. If the buildings were relatively small would not share the concern, these are large buildings compatible with a large retail business, if this occurred the vacant site could be needed for parking, if manufacturing were put back there would not be a problem; would like more definitive information from the applicant. Mr. Forbes was asked to comment. He stated the 254,000 SF building on Parcel B has 150,000 SF leased to Metro Furniture, this is furniture manufacturing; 100,000 SF of that building is not yet leased, their development plan for this remaining space would be one to three tenants, in order to provide maximum truck access around the back of the building they thought it was appropriate to have a dogleg area behind Parcel A, as Parcel A narrows it becomes less of a development possibility; the building on Parcel B has more than adequate land for parking and landscaping to support the uses in the building on Parcel B. The reason they are subdividing is because of the economics involved in their purchase and the excess land that is there which they may develop themselves or sell to another developer. A Commissioner commented he assumed Mr. Forbes was fully aware that by selling off Parcel A he would be limiting uses that could be put on Parcel B. Applicant said they have studied how these lots all function and are confident they function very well for their potential development schemes; these development schemes do not include retail use. Motion to recommend to City Council denial of this tentative and final parcel map failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Mink and Kelly voting no. C. Mink moved to recommend to City Council approval of the tentative and final parcel map with the seven conditions listed in the City Engineer's staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 4-3 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Graham and Jacobs voting no. Staff will forward to City Council Recess 9:20 P.M., reconvene 9:28 P.M. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION - 1800 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Item continued to the meeting of November 25, 1991. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. Minor Modification - 1632 Lassen Way, zoned R-1 A Commissioner asked to review minor modification regulations. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 28, 1991 PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its regular meeting of October 21, 1991. 1992 Planning Commission Schedule - Accepted unanimously Regulation of Bay Windows and Decks Commission and staff discussed CP's memorandum on regulations for bay windows and decks. It was noted that lumping greenhouse windows with bay windows was unfortunate. Commission asked staff to do further study to see if greenhouse windows, particularly on interior lots with 3' minimum setbacks, could somehow be allowed without a permit. they were concerned with the extension of "occupiable space" in the interior side setback and the definition of bay window. Staff's suggestion for decks was accepted. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary