HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.10.15CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 15, 1991
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Kelly on Tuesday, October 15, 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; Frank Erbacher, City
Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the September 23, 1991 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. TENTATIVE MAP, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - FOUR
UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM - 962 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3
Requests: how many stories in the structure; garage shows 7'-6"
clearance, how will they get plumbing through the garage; will they be
able to keep to the 35' height limit; how will BFI get to the cans in
the garage since there is a gate, how will guests get to the parking;
is there a limit to depth of decks, these are 36" deep; clarification
of parking space 18, it appears to be at grade and to be in the rear
setback, does this interfere with the appropriate use of common open
space. Item set for public hearing October 28, 1991.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETAIL DRY CLEANING PICK UP AND DROP OFF - 401
PRIMROSE ROAD. ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1
Requests: does applicant plan to use the existing mezzanine and, if so,
for what; are there any plans for a pickup and delivery service;
applicant's comment on the fact that this location is some distance
from city parking lots, there is no parking immediately adjacent. Item
set for public hearing October 28, 1991.
3. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED M-1
Requests: recompute signs on the primary frontage as if they were a
single envelope, is that envelope within the 175 SF allowed; is the
purpose of the signage to attract new customers or identify the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
October 15, 1991
location for present customers; are there any restaurants with
readerboards in the area; plan showing the location of the signs. Item
set for public hearing October 28, 1991.
4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1645 ROLLINS ROAD
Requests: how many flag lots are there in this area, concerned about
creating a situation similar to the Lands of Dore; comment from CA on
proposed joint access easements between Parcels A and B; Parcel A
terminates prior to rear property line, why not extend it; regarding
use of Parcel C, if it were retail what are parking requirements and
what about access in that event; future plans for the water tower and
the other structure in the rear; Park & Recreation Commission have
asked to review Parcel A, what was City Council's response; has there
been a feasibility study on any of the three proposed parcels having
access across the S.P. line to California Drive, has staff considered
this, does any information exist. Item set for public hearing October
28, 1991.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT
1516 ADELINE DRIVE ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, letter in
support from the neighbor at 1512 Adeline Drive, study meeting
questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed the requirement for
a 4' separation between structures.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Zita Escobosa, property owner
and Michael Murphy, designer and applicant were present. They
questioned the requirement for retroactive building permits since the
existing garage addition build without building permits was made prior
to the time the Escobosas purchased the property. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/ comment: the Escobosas have lived here for 20
years, this is an old building, cannot recall requiring retroactive
building permits from everyone with nonconforming conditions;
possibility of waiving this penalty fee.
C. Galligan found this is a substandard lot and imposition of the 4'
requirement between structures would be a burden to the property
owners. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit 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 October 1, 1991 Sheets One and Two; (2) that the ceiling
height in the storage area shall not exceed 7' and the plate line in
the laundry area shall not exceed 10' from the adjacent grade; (3) that
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
October 15, 1991
no portion of this accessory structure shall be used for living or
sleeping purposes; and (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building
and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame and no
building permit penalty fees shall be charged. Motion was seconded by
C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: Title 25, Zoning is constructed in order to meet
the goal of upgrading the housing stock in the city, this accessory
structure should be demolished and rebuilt as a single structure to
current code, cannot support an action to patch up three structures
into one, it would not be an appropriate structure which meets the
intent of the code; this is not just repair, there will be a new
foundation and new roof, walls will have to be replaced, there will be
no fire walls, the existing structure needs to be corrected; speaking
to findings in support of the request, the proposed use will not be
detrimental to property in the vicinity, it will improve a continuing
use, can understand the 4' separation requirement because of mass and
bulk but that is not an overriding concern in this case; Commission has
established a pattern of accepting substandard garages where it is
difficult to improve the garage and meet code but has been severe in
its review of accessory structures, this is an accessory structure and
to be consistent this proposal is not acceptable; this is a small lot
and would benefit from a regular sized garage since they cannot park on
the street.
Comments in support: if denied the alternative would be no improvement;
to require replacement would be a financial burden, they are just
trying to repair the roof; grew up nearby and often passed this site,
1516 and 1512 Adeline are substandard lots and are impacted by the
narrow street (Adeline) and the Adeline Market shopping center, on -
street parking is very difficult, providing the property owners some
mitigation is a good idea.
Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Jacobs and Mink
voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. PARKING AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE
EXISTING GARAGE AND AN ADDITION ABOVE THE NEW GARAGE AT 1508 ARC
WAY, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Mel Thompson, husband of the
property owner and applicant, was present. He noted they can only park
one car in their garage, the driveway from the street to the garage has
an 18% grade which makes getting in and out of a car difficult, parking
on Arc Way is limited to one side of the street, they would like to
redo the garage and add a second parking space. Mark Gorrell,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
October 15, 1991
architect, discussed the project with Commission: kitchen could be
lowered if they rebuilt the entire back of the house, in this proposal
most of the foundation will not be removed, new floor of the garage is
2-1/2' lower than existing, going back farther would mean taking out
existing foundations and structure above, they do not want to lose part
of the kitchen. Staircase location, minimum clearance requirements in
the garage, encroachment into the parking stall were discussed; they
are trying to keep the overall height down and reduce slope on the
driveway. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances with this
property, there are apartments to the north and east, applicant is
trying to park two cars on site and gain a little extra room, there is
a sound foundation, this is an improvement to the property; height of
the surrounding multi -unit buildings will not change, the proposal will
be an improvement to the area and to this property. C. Jacobs moved
for approval of the variances 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 5, 1991 Sheets One
through Five and Site/Floor Plan; (2) that the first level of the
garage shall be used for storage of vehicles only; and (3) 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: the project is well designed, there will be more
on-site parking than exists at present, would like the record to show
the parking stall is a little smaller than shown on the drawings;
applicant has made an effort to mitigate some real problems, reducing
the height therefore reducing apparent bulk of the building, it will
create problems with the stairway and alleged difference in a parking
space, but it is a reasonable compromise.
Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
7. LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT
2845 MARIPOSA DRIVE ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP noted some problems with the
elevations presented, if applicant maintains a 4 in 12 pitch as
proposed the roof ridge peak would be 2.5' higher and the dormer ridge
would be about 2' higher than shown on the plans date stamped September
30, 1991.
Commission/staff discussion: the error in elevation does not make this
proposal require a hillside area construction permit since that permit
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
October 15, 1991
applies only to second stories; front setback is measured from the
closest portion of the structure to the street; CBI has advised a 3 in
12 pitch is permitted by code, it is more expensive and drainage can be
a problem in stormy, windy weather; the manufacturer will not guarantee
a 3 in 12 pitch roof; if roof ridge were increased so that it did block
views, the hillside area ordinance would not apply since it only
addresses second stories; suggested condition -12 must be changed to
reflect the elevation changes.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. William Joseph, architect, Kai -
Yee Woo & Associates was present. He noted the previous hillside area
construction permit which was denied, the alternative was to explore a
one story expansion; they have looked at the garage carefully, have
reoriented the entrance, there is a concrete pad across the front which
will be removed and the area will be landscaped; they had a problem
with the existing garage elevation, garage floor must be lowered to
reduce the slope on the driveway which makes the transition between
house and garage require some changes, there is need for an interior
stair, this would leave an 18' width for the garage. Architect
discussed the roof elevations which were designed at the request of the
uphill neighbors to ensure existing ridge is -.held to allow these
neighbors a continuation of their present view; he noted a problem in
the design of the roof and the ridge would be higher than shown on the
plans with the present design.
A Commissioner thought with the roof ridge at 217' the view would be
lost. Architect said all slopes seem to be in order except for the
front slope which is too shallow for proper drainage, to get 4 in 12
slope the elevation will be 217.5' and all roof pitches in the
neighborhood will be consistent. A Commissioner asked if consideration
had been given to moving the stairway into the pantry area which would
keep the garage at 20' x 221. Architect stated the house has little
storage to meet the family's needs and the pantry space is needed to
store kitchen items; if the stairway were put in the pantry area
ingress/egress to the garage would be in front of the automobiles and
a problem for loading or unloading; if it were possible to keep the
stairway to the side of the cars they would like to do this.
Responding to a question about why the foyer was 25' long and 19' wide,
architect said it acts as an entrance and as gallery space for the
property owners' art collection; the living room is already a
combination living room/family room, with the exception of the library
all remaining rooms are utilitarian such as bedrooms, kitchen, etc.
Architect advised that during remodel whenever possible they will
leave existing foundation, roof and walls. A Commissioner commented
they wouldn't be able to save much of the roof, fireplace would still
be there but chimney may have to be extended; he was concerned about
the garage, with all the work being done and amount of square footage
of the house, applicants are still asking for a variance for the
garage, he would like the variance problem addressed and thought
something else could be done.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
October 15, 1991
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comments: this is an 8,000 SF lot with 49% lot
coverage, it is essentially a new house; regarding storage area, the
three bedroom closets total 180 SF, if added to other storage there is
space for a two car garage; there are many other options, the foyer art
space could be somewhere else, the hallways could be narrower, in order
to reduce lot coverage; the types of homes in this area do not lend
themselves to a large art gallery approach. Architect has taken time
to talk to the neighborhood and bring Commission a project acceptable
to the property owners and the neighbors; it will not affect neighbors'
views; feel strongly about the 40% lot coverage requirement but
sometimes Commission must look at the entire picture and see what
alternatives there are, an 8,000 SF lot is large but.they are only
adding 1,100 SF, in another area of the city they could have 40% lot
coverage and a two story home; do not see the need for a parking
variance, they can meet the parking requirement; if this proposal is
acceptable to the neighborhood and to the property owners, could find
the lot coverage request to be a unique circumstance.
C. Jacobs found this will be precedent setting, going from a second
story proposal to a large one story house; residents of the area are
not happy with such large homes, it will be detrimental to the
neighborhood; 49% lot coverage is outrageous, there is no need for a
parking variance. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variances for the
reasons stated in discussion, seconded by C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: much could be done on this site within 40% lot
coverage; since they cannot add a second story would go along with 44-
45% lot coverage but not 49%;, the parking variance should not be
allowed, suggest application be denied without prejudice; lot coverage
issue does not seem as difficult to deal with as it might be in other
locations, because of a unique characteristic of the lot the rear lot
line is up against a downslope which is unbuildable, if the lot line
were half way down that slope this wouldn't be an issue; technically it
is large lot coverage, actually in the sense of aesthetics it is not so
bad; applicant has gone a long way to meet the neighbor's requests and
tried to stay within height limits; am not upset about the stairway and
garage, pleased with this improved proposal, it is acceptable because
of the mitigating circumstances of the slope behind.
Further comment: the difference between this garage and the application
considered previously this evening is basically it is being rebuilt,
the parking variance can be eliminated; when two stories are not
allowed in the hillside area and with the economics of development
there will be more applications for lot coverage over 40%, this house
could be made smaller, perhaps 44-45% lot coverage. Basically this is
new construction, if it were a simple addition could approve lot
coverage slightly over 40% and perhaps even the parking variance; this
much lot coverage for new construction is disturbing. The city cannot
always correct a property owner's problems, this is a large lot and
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
October 15, 1991
codes of the city should have been carefully checked prior to purchase
of the property; no effort was made to keep the roof line the way it
was for the uphill neighbors; when approving lot coverage and parking
variances the house must fit into the neighborhood and the roof line
should be somewhat the same as it is now.
C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny this application without
prejudice, seconded by C. Graham.
Comment: the proposed roof line is not a problem, a 4 in 12 pitch is
the shallowest possible; if this is denied the applicants could
demolish the house and rebuild with a 30' height, 40% lot coverage and
cathedral ceilings all within code, with this proposal they have worked
with the neighbors to be sure everyone is satisfied.
Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote,
Cers Galligan and Mink dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:25 P.M., reconvene 9:35 P.M.
8. PARKING VARIANCE FOR ONE COVERED STALL AT 1429 CABRILLO AVENUE,
ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required
findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Leslie Timpe, property owner,
was present. He was asked what is exceptional about this property to
support the variance request. Mr. Timpe stated the garage was built
prior to the current code, there is space for one car in the garage and
two cars in the driveway, existing garage is substandard in width and
length, it has an odd shape but serves the purpose. Applicants did not
feel it would serve any purpose to demolish the garage and build a new
one to park one car. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found this property has a long driveway with room to park two
cars, applicants would like to keep the back yard for family use, down
the street a house on the corner has four cars parked in the driveway,
homes on this side of the street are quite large. She did not think
granting of the variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood and
moved for approval of the parking variance 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 Sheets A-1, A-2 and A-3; (2) that the 9'-8" x 19'-2" area of the
garage shall only be used to store vehicles; (3) that the conditions of
the City Engineer's September 16, 1991 memo (all roof drainage shall be
drained to the street) shall be met; and (4) that the project shall
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
October 15, 1991
meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended
by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL,
ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the staff report. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Douglas
Smith, American Savings Bank, applicant was present. He had questions
regarding location on the first floor, procedure should they wish to
decrease or increase the size of their operation, signage. He advised
plans had not been approved by his firm's upper management or the
property owner.
Commissioners asked for a more definitive project, a clearly delineated
floor plan, location of ATM machines, concurrence with the proposal by
upper management of American Savings, awareness and endorsement of the
proposal by the property owner. Application should include
restrictions and entitlements for this use.
C. Jacobs moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of
October 28, 1991, seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on voice
vote.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT
1400 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Bill Hammett, applicant, noted
this proposal requires no variances to Burlingame codes, just a special
permit for office expansion; they anticipate no changes as a result of
the expansion, visitors are infrequent. George Sinclair, architect,
stated they are extending the pattern of offices and functional uses
within the building, they have attempted to keep a low profile, the
addition will blend in. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found about half the addition will be warehouse and garage,
with the restrictions in the conditions and addition of a bathroom and
lunchroom she saw no problem with this expansion and moved for approval
of the special permit 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 6, 1991 Sheets One
through Three; (2) that the three car garage (20' x 291) will be used
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
October 15, 1991
to store vehicles of employees on the site and not used for any other
storage or office purpose; and (3) that the project shall meet Uniform
Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
11. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1873-1881 ROLLINS
ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Bill Van Housen, architect, was
present. A Commissioner asked if the nature of the business had
changed since February, 1991 since the number of signs, height and area
have increased. Architect said there was confusion in the number of
signs in the February application, an existing double faced sign was
reported as single faced; he was not aware of any difference in
location, height or area of signs. There were no audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
With the comment this Bekins sign looks fine compared with the one
which was on Broadway, the need for the size is because there is more
street frontage, the project looks under control, C. Jacobs moved for
approval of the sign exception for a master signage program with the
following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on
the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August
21, 1991, Sheet A-1; (2) that the existing 3' x 5' 'Magic Press' sign
on the secondary frontage will be removed and replaced with a three
square foot identification sign; and (3) that the project shall meet
Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of
Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
12. DECLINING HEIGHT VARIANCE - 1109 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Application withdrawn.
PERMIT EXTENSIONS
13. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION FOR AN EIGHT UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 518 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 10/15/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request. One condition was suggested if the one year extension is
granted. C. Graham moved to recommend extension of the tentative
condominium map to October 15, 1993 to City Council for approval and
moved for approval of a one year extension of the condominium permit to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
October 15, 1991
October 15, 1992 with the following condition: (1) that the project
shall meet all current Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by
the City of Burlingame in effect at the date of the planning permit
extension. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 on voice
vote.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Minor Modification - 1516 La Mesa Drive, zoned R-1.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its October 7, 1991 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry L. Deal
Secretary