Loading...
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