Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.09.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, September 23, 1991 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Jacobs Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the September 9, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 1516 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: will roof drainage from the accessory structure run onto the neighbor's property; clarify zoning regulations for accessory structures and applicant's options. Item set for public hearing October 15, 1991. 2. PARKING AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AND AN ADDITION ABOVE THE NEW GARAGE AT 1508 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1 Requests: what is the area inside the dwelling between the kitchen and garage; why can't the staircase be relocated to increase depth of garage; what prevents them from making the garage 20' deep by moving it to the rear; table indicating other front setbacks on Arc Way on this side of the street. Item set for public hearing October 15, 1991. 3. LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A ONE STORY ADDITION AT 2845 MARIPOSA DRIVE ZONED R-1 Requests: clarify parking requirements; why can't the garage be made 20' wide, wide enough for two cars; is front setback 15' or 191. Item set for public hearing October 15, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 23, 1991 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF PROPOSED NEW FOUR STORY BUILDING AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED C-1 Requests: number of parking spaces at the nearby savings and loan on E1 Camino in Millbrae, have they been adequate; applicant address comments of the CBI regarding exiting and handicap requirements, would like this resolved before the public hearing. Item set for public hearing October 15, 1991. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1400 ROLLINS ROAD. ZONED M-1 Requests: verify with applicant there will be only one visitor per week, plans show a 15' x 24' reception area. Item set for public hearing October 15, 1991. 6. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1873-1881 ROLLINS ROAD ZONED M-1 Requests: table comparing this request and what was considered in February, 1991. Item set for public hearing October 15, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DECKS AND WALKWAY OVER CREEK AT 433 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/23/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of previous applications for a deck on this property, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions and responses by staff and applicant. She noted two letters in opposition received after preparation of the staff report from: Irene Neasham, 1545 Bellevue Avenue, Hillsborough and Nancy Connolly, 401 Occidental Avenue, Burlingame. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised the 72 SF deck is existing and does not encroach into the rear setback; the 10' fence along rear property line was placed there by the neighbor to the rear whose property is in Hillsborough, it s height would be governed by Hillsborough regulations. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Donald Asplund, applicant, discussed their lack of outdoor living space and safe access to the rear of the residence for maintenance and repairs; all his neighbors have usable back yards, 4,000 SF of his property is dominated by the creek and its banks; he believed this proposal is reasonable to solve their lack of outdoor living area, it is a hardship situation; the 10' to 12' fence of his neighbor to the rear will address the neighbor's previous concerns about visibility and noise. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 23, 1991 Pamela Asplund, applicant, commented on the letter in opposition from Mrs. Donnolly and her suggestion applicants leave the creek in its natural state, this would be fine for someone who has other land but they do not; this is the only section of Ralston Creek in Burlingame that is in its natural state, they do not want to culvert it, just enjoy the natural environment. Regarding a Commissioner's remarks about flooding others, they have a large investment in this property and would not do anything to jeopardize their property or their neighbors' property, that is why they hired a civil engineer for the project. The following members of the audience spoke in favor: Kay Smanovich, 1616 Chapin Avenue; Jeff and Maureen Krug, 405 Occidental Avenue; Richard Jones, 407 Occidental Avenue. Their comments: this is a fair and reasonable request, applicants need a place for their family to enjoy the outdoors and they have gone through proper and appropriate procedures to make sure they will not damage the environment; at present this family is confined to their home, front yard and driveway, the variance should be allowed so they can utilize their property as fully as possible; in no way will this proposal interfere with any other neighbor on the block. Charles Kavanagh, applicants' civil engineer, discussed his studies of the creek, structural calculations and design for the deck, he did as much as possible to keep the creek free flowing by keeping the piers back; creek is in an 8' x 5' culvert upstream under Pepper, any matter in the creek would have to go through that box before it gets to the location of the proposed deck; at Occidental the creek is slightly under capacity, as it backs up it spreads out and slows down, the velocity of the water under the deck area would be about 4' per second, smaller debris might get caught but it would take a long time and quite a few storms to accumulate enough debris to start blocking the creek, and at that time there would be a need for maintenance to remove the debris. There were no further audience comments in favor. Paul Schumann, 1525 Bellevue Avenue, Hillsborough spoke in opposition: he shares the rear property line with the applicants, wants to be fair but was concerned about the large size of the proposed deck area; he referred to the January, 1982 rain storms, at that time water got up to the sidewalk and flowed over Occidental for some period of time, there was no debris blocking the culvert under Occidental, it was raging water; applicant's engineer states there is 2.5' between the water and bottom of the deck, Mr. Schumann discussed possible obstruction of the creek from pilings, he believed putting the piers in would increase the obstruction to some degree. Referring to the previous applications, he noted Council suggested the deck be lower, that it be smaller and all be cantilevered; the present proposal is on pilings, it is not cantilevered, they have taken the original deck, expanded it horizontally with a 3' walkway and expanded the existing deck off the bedroom; each proposal gets larger than the previous one. The story Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 23, 1991 poles which were put up on the property were not complete nor accurate, the one from the fireplace area should be next to the fireplace, there were no poles to show the walkway nor the deck expansion. He felt this new application was twice the size of the prior one. Responding to -questions, Mr. Schumann stated he would not be able to see the deck from his patio because it would be -screened by his fence, however he does go into the creek area to take care of the vegetation and would be able to see it from there, his property extends at some points to both creek banks; although he has eliminated the visual objection he had previously, noise will still reverberate in the gully. He questioned staff's statement that the property owner would be responsible for any damage incurred if the piers for the deck caused a blockage in the creek, he thought there would be no liability of the property owner unless he acknowledges it in the public record. Applicants knew what they were getting when they bought the property, that they would need a variance and that neighbors might object, they knew they would have no back yard. In granting a variance the aesthetics should be considered, a variance should be granted only if there is an exceptional hardship. Commission/Schumann/Kavanagh discussion: Mr. Schumann appears to have no objection to the proposed deck, his concern appears to be possible noise; Schumann stated he was concerned about ecology because the deck will go over the creek and noise will emanate from the deck; if the creek were to reach the same stage it did in 1982, Mr. Kavanagh said there would be the same street flooding, deck would still be above the water level, 1-1/2' to 21; depending upon duration of peak of the storm, 45 minutes to one hour might cause some erosion, if peak lasted two hours piers might,be eroded, then deck might collapse and go with the flow; Mr. Kavanagh did not think the deck could block the creek, water would raise a little more and flow over the street to the creek channel on the other side; regarding the effect of trees versus effect of pilings, Mr. Kavanagh said trees have a larger diameter and would have more effect blocking creek flow; piers are not opposite one another but spread out in a line parallel to bank so impact on the water flow would be diminished, 6" diameter pier might raise water surface 1/10 of a foot; it was a fair statement that the addition of pilings might not create any more significant obstruction than a tree. Responding to a question, Mr. Kavanagh did not investigate impact if culvert were boxed all the way through, it would be a major expense and he did not see that as an alternative; CE advised in the 1950's studies indicated existing culvert under Occidental had less than desirable capacity for 30 year flood, city has no schedule for enlargement; CP noted the city's creek studies looked at what could be done at various points. Mr. Kavanagh wished to make clear that the existing small deck is not being enlarged at all, just connected to the new deck. Mr. Asplund responded to comments: before they bought the property they knew it didn't have outside space and that they would need a variance, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 23, 1991 they contacted property owner to the rear at that time and he did not voice any objections, they took that as an implied consent. The present proposal is not larger than previous proposals, certainly not 500 SF; his engineer has assured him with footings in the side of the bank he can do the job properly and safely. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan commented: in looking at this project it seems reasonable, concern about ecology is a legitimate concern, however in the canyon areas of the city he has seen decks over creeks and there seem to be no problems, these projects blend with the existing area; a deck can be built here and blend in with the surrounding area; noise can be generated without a deck, applicant has a legitimate concern about safety for maintenance, the open creek is an inviting hazard to children, applicants should be able to make their property usable, this request meets all the classic requirements for support of a variance. C. Galligan then moved for approval of the rear setback variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 7, 1991 with no portion of the 280 SF deck closer than 5' to rear property line, no portion of the walkway closer than 12' to the rear property line and no portion of the addition to the existing deck closer than 12' to the rear property line; (2) that all decking and railings shall be of redwood and maintained in a safe condition in such a way that they shall not affect the free flow conditions in the creek; (3) that the placement of the supports and framing for the deck shall be inspected by the Building Department to ensure the approved setbacks are met prior to placing the deck surface and railings; (4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 20, 1991 memo requiring submittal and approval of additional detail and refinements for deck supports and improvements and securing Fish and Game and U. S. Corps of Engineers permits shall be met before a building permit is issued; and (5) that all requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame shall be met. Motion was seconded by C. Mink with the statement applicant has made every effort to maintain the environment while getting a small usable outdoor area for himself. Comment on the motion: did not support the previous applications because of the rear yard setback, these concerns have been alleviated by the 10' fence on property line, it will block view and noise; have never had a concern about storms, if there is a bad storm it will flood; noise comes from both directions. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 23, 1991 8. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1124 BALBOA AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/23/91, 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. CP explained applicant's submittal to the Building Department deleting the existing trellis and porch and his subsequent application to the Planning Commission. Commissioner comment: if the lot coverage variance is granted would like to add a condition that the existing trellis and porch not be converted to living space. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. T. P. Lam, architect and property owner, was not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the information at hand and the property owner being an architect who should know the rules and regulations, C. Deal was not in favor of granting this variance and could find no exceptional circumstances to support the variance request. C. Deal moved for denial of the lot coverage variance, seconded by C. Ellis. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no (comment: should continue the matter until applicant has an opportunity to be present), C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:08 P.M. 9. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SPA AT 3000 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/23/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. James Alley, 3004 Hillside Drive (September 17, 1991) received after preparation of the staff report was noted. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Gerda Osward, applicant, was present. She commented on the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Alley: regarding a noisy party they supposedly had on September 8, they did not have one; the bamboo screen was put in place temporarily for privacy, it has been removed; regarding the lattice connection from the fence into Mills Canyon, this was to discourage young people who use the area in the canyon, it has been removed; regarding dispute about the rear fence, they had a survey done in 1988/89, the markers are still there, she saw no need for another survey. Ward Osward, applicant, advised the bamboo frame was put up after a pine tree which gave them shade had been removed by Mr. Alley; he stated they do not have wild parties late at night; the bamboo screen has been removed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 23, 1991 which leaves their yard totally open to the Alley's property, they will address a more permanent solution later. There were no audience comments in support. Jim Alley, 3004 Hillside Drive, spoke in opposition: he had no objection to the hot tub and deck as long as it met minimum setback standards for side setback; the deck and hot tub are within inches of the rear property line; he was glad to hear the frame structure had been removed, it was there this morning; regarding the matter of the fence, three properties on Hillside share a common straight boundary line at the rear (3000, 3004, 3008), the property to the north is a parcel owned by the City of Burlingame and to the north of that the city has another parcel; there was a survey made of the applicant's property, he also used the same surveyors to establish his boundaries; it was his contention if he stands on his property and looks toward Adeline the fence should be straight, applicant's rear fence takes off at a tangent; if the tub is next to property line that's the city's problem, he will be satisfied as long as it meets side setback requirements. Barbara Alley, 3004 Hillside Drive, also spoke in opposition: she said they had permission from the previous property owner to cut/trim any trees on the applicants' property and had concern about noise with the hot tub so close. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham confirmed from the CE that the city has a copy of applicants' original property line survey. With the statement she has heard no objection from the City of Burlingame, the canyon area is all open space, a number of variances have been granted on property with an easement, this is a similar situation, C. Graham moved for approval of the rear setback variance with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis who found there were exceptional circumstances in that the area to the rear is open space, there would be no impact at all; he saw no problem if city staff is satisfied with the property line survey. Maker of the motion and seconder agreed to remove the suggested conditions relating to a property line survey. Conditions of the motion follow: (1) that the illegal height screening fence with bamboo attached shall be removed, the fence permit shall have a final inspection, and retroactive building permits shall be obtained and the spa installed in conformance with the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, and also conform with the plans for the spa submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 22, 1991; (2) that there shall be only one set of access doors to the area inside the spa and these doors shall face away from property line; and (3) that the illegal height fence shall be removed, the retroactive building permits shall be issued within 30 days and all required work for the building permits shall be completed in 60 days thereafter (December 23, 1991). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 23, 1991 Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A SECOND STORY ADDITION -AND EXTEND A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2105 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/23/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letters in opposition from George Bullwinkel, 2101 Adeline Drive and Mr. and Mrs. George A. Clark, 2109 Adeline Drive as well as a petition in opposition signed by 15 neighbors were noted. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Darren Powell, designer representing the applicant, Donald E. Riddiough was present. He stated there was a lot of discrepancy between the footprint of the property shown in 1981 versus existing, he has been working with Planning staff for several months, the garage will be made a legal 20' x 20' for two cars, number of rooms will stay the same, his client would like to add a bedroom/bath upstairs and turn one of the rooms downstairs into a study/office area. Speaking in favor, Michael Quivey, 2210 Poppy Drive: he has known the applicant for many years, applicant has been constrained in his movements around the house; the laundry room outside was a good idea, applicant is doing nothing but improving everyone's property values. There were no further audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. George Bullwinkel, 2101 Adeline Drive: with the variance granted in 1981 this property had 44% lot coverage, his research at city hall shows lot coverage at 51.1% now; the illegal washroom and breezeway were to be removed but never were, if removed lot coverage would still be at 48.1%; mass and bulk of the new second story addition would be overwhelming and diminish light and air in his home and back yard as well as affect his privacy; in 1981 applicants stated they did not want to infringe on their neighbors' privacy, architect at that time was concerned about the impact of a second story, what happened to applicant's concern about his neighbors. The present walkway will be moved directly under his master bedroom window, the new garage will restrict light and air to his home; he believed the narrow 36' width of the lot would not support a structure of the height and bulk proposed; the present garage is large enough to accommodate two cars; there were open areas under eaves not considered as lot coverage previously, these will be filled in resulting in more bulk; neighbors who signed the petition in opposition agree the additions will be too massive and architecturally inconsistent with homes in the area; he requested Planning Commission not consider any special permits or variances, this lot is grossly overbuilt now. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 23, 1991 George Clark, 2109 Adeline Drive: he is an adjacent neighbor on the west side and strongly urged a no vote on these variances and special permits; corrections required in 1981 have not yet been made, if violations were not corrected at that time how can the city expect them to be made now; he could not imagine having no morning sun which a second story would eliminate, as immediate neighbors they were never consulted about the plans; the proposed second story balcony would overlook his home and reduce privacy; 15 neighbors agree that the additions would be completely inconsistent with the area, bulky, box like, massive and unattractive. Bill Hammett, 1470 Vancouver Avenue: this is a bulky and awkward structure not in keeping with the neighborhood, anything which requires this many special permits and variances runs counter to what Burlingame's codes have accomplished. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan commented: this is the second project Mr. Powell has brought to Commission, see nothing wrong with his work but if you start with an improper premise you can reach an illogical conclusion; he was uncomfortable with the number of variances and special permits requested, property owner was advised many years ago before the lot coverage variance that a second story might be a better way to approach development of this lot, would like to have had property owner's response to questions about his disability. C. Galligan moved for denial of this application. Motion was seconded by C. Graham who stated she was disturbed that the property owner did not provide Commission information on his disability, any information on how the property has changed since the last project was reviewed; this lot is not unusual in its neighborhood, its shape is similar. Comment on the motion: property does have some exceptional circumstances but in 1981 a variance was granted for exceptional circumstances, that doesn't mean Commission must continue to grant concessions, they have received their concession already and have come to parity with some of the other properties in the area; think they should adhere to declining height envelope regulations, it is there to reduce bulk, not for the convenience of the property owner; for all intents and purposes it is a new garage, a nonconforming garage that is being rebuilt, why not move it back to the house and not require variances. CP suggested Condition #1 be included as a part of the motion, maker of the motion and seconder agreed. Further comment: when studying this application started with the open space element of the general plan, this is a textbook case as to why the code is written as it is, to avoid this type of situation; this proposal does not meet the major portion of the intent in the general plan. Motion for denial had the following condition: (1) that a demolition permit for removal of the washroom and breezeway be obtained, work accomplished and final inspection completed within 30 days of Planning Commission action. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 23, 1991 11. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1044 LAGUNA AVENUE (LOT 27, BLOCK 9, EASTON ADDITION) Reference Engineering Department memo, 9/23/91. CE Erbacher recommended this map be forwarded to City Council for approval. C. Mink moved to recommend this final condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Galligan, approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Jacobs absent. 12. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1109 BAYSWATER AVENUE (LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 9, POLO FIELD SUBDIVISION) Reference Engineering Department memo, 9/23/91. CE Erbacher recommended this map be forwarded to City Council for approval. C. Galligan moved to recommend this final condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Mink, approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Jacobs absent. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL DRY CLEANING PICK UP AND DROP OFF SERVICE AT 1152 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 1991) Reference staff report, 9/23/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham moved for denial of this special permit, seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: have worked next to a dry cleaners on Primrose and cannot be convinced drop off and pick up for such a business will not impact traffic, it would be a disaster on Burlingame Avenue. Motion to deny passed on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Jacobs absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 14. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1346 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 9/23/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Galligan moved for approval of a one year extension of the condominium permit (to October 16, 1992) and to recommend to City Council a one year extension of the tentative condominium map (to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 23, 1991 October 16, 1993) for a six unit residential condominium at 1346 El Camino Real 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. Graham and approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Jacobs absent. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its September 16, 1991 regular meeting and September 18, 1991 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. in memory of Marcel P. Biscay, retired municipal court judge and Commissioner Galligan's law partner for the past 15 years. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary