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withdrawn); and Item #10, (Special Permit, 1800 El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