Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.09.09BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, September 9, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. 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 August 26, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. GA ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK AND WALKWAY TO BE CANTILEVERED OVER A CREEK INTO THE REAR SETBACK AT 433 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: summary of the difference between this application and the previous one in 1988; reason for the walkway, the other deck is smaller than a balcony; has applicant considered putting deck lower relative to the house with stairs from living area to deck; if creek is blocked who is liable for any damage; anticipated elevation of proposed deck relative to elevation of the first floor of the house and to the ground surface as it abuts the structure; request applicant put up story poles indicating perimeter of deck, surface of deck and top of railing. Item set for public hearing September 23, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2652 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, review criteria, study meeting questions. Five conditions for the hillside area construction permit and two conditions for the creek enclosure permit were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 9, 1991 Commission/staff discussed number of bedrooms in the proposed project; staff confirmed parking requirement for five or six bedrooms is met. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. John Lee, architect, discussed their efforts to mitigate neighbors' concerns with this design and presented a letter in support signed by eight neighbors. Charles Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive, spoke in support:* 'he advised applicants have worked with the immediately adjacent neighbors to address their concerns about views, aesthetics and noise; tree plantings will be added and the house has been relocated 15' toward the northeast preserving additional trees and addressing possible noise impacts. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis found no problem with the creek enclosure permit request, it is a very short distance; regarding the hillside area construction permit, he supported the previous application, this is a better design, a site inspection indicated this project would affect some close views but would not obstruct distant views. C. Ellis moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built to conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 16, 1991 with a maximum roof ridge height of elevation 342.8' and a maximum chimney height of elevation 344.51; (2) that the roofing material shall be nonreflective and shall be approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that before final framing and roofing the elevation of the roof ridge shall be surveyed to.determine that all of the elevations shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission are met; (4) that all the conditions of the City Engineer's July 15, 1991 memo and the Fire Marshal's July 3, 1991 memo shall be met; and (5) that as built the structure shall comply with all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Ellis moved for approval of the creek enclosure permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the plans for the 18' extension and for the relocated existing culvert shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and shall meet all the city's design and construction requirements; and (2) that all the newly constructed culvert shall be located within the designated drainage easement. Both these motions were seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roil call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A BATH HOUSE AT 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 9, 1991 consideration at the public hearing. If Commission determined not to grant this request one condition was suggested. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Charles Mahnken, applicant, discussed the permit received in 1982 to construct a bath house in the rear third of the lot, his neighbor had no objection at that time; bath house construction began in 1983, its location was selected because it was in line with the pool equipment house built in 1966, plan given to the contractor shows a red line across the top of structure indicating a single roof; it was built while he was on vacation and some modifications were made including enclosure of the breezeways, modification of the food preparation area and adding three skylights; this construction was inspected and finalized by the city in 1984. In 1986 a survey indicated the bath house was 3" to 4" on his neighbor's property. After lengthy legal action he purchased a portion of his neighbor's lot which gave the bath house the 3' minimum setback required by the Building Department; he is now requesting the 1982 permit be amended to include the areas which had been modified. Other adjacent neighbors have had no objections. Responding to questions, applicant said his contractor for the structure had been his brother, Richard T. Mahnken, R. T. Construction Co.; property line survey was done when his gardener was adding landscaping in the front, his neighbor disagreed about the property line and the survey proved the neighbor right; modifications made by his contractor were his responsibility, contractor was working for him. Commission questioned why a licensed contractor felt he could change approved plans to suit his convenience; applicant did not know what occurred between the building inspector and contractor at that time. There were no audience comments in favor. John Moran, 2616 Summit Drive spoke in opposition. He distributed a packet and discussed these exhibits. He opposed the requested amendment because the structure as it now stands could be converted to living quarters, windows are in place, electricity and plumbing facilities are there, he was not concerned about such a use today but was concerned about what might occur in the future; the most effective way to prevent a future living unit would be to reopen the breezeways; the approved plans did not call for a solid continuous roof; minutes of the November, 1982 Planning Commission meeting indicate Commission approved open area between the two structures; Commission's action tonight should limit food preparation area to the 2' x 5' original request rather than the existing 5' and 11' area; when the pool lights are on they light up his entire back yard; he requested removal of the illegal windows facing his property as well as the skylights; if he were to put in a pool in his back yard there would be five windows looking down on his pool area and no privacy. In 1982 there was a 5' side setback requirement, in 1991 no side yard is required, he would request an explanation of this; the bath house location is not in the rear 30% of the lot; he urged Planning Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 9, 1991 Commission reject the proposed amendment and support the 1982 decision, the existing configuration is larger than the approved plans and has definite conversion potential with skylights and windows. Responding to a question, Mr. Moran discussed how he discovered the Mahnken structure was on his property, in court Mr. Mahnken was the plaintiff; in 1982 Mr. Moran had no objection to the two small buildings proposed, however the structure is now 69% larger with' additions and decks. Responding to Commission questions, he stated he did approve of the cabana on the other side of the pool; he voiced no complaints about the pool house between 1983 and 1986 and assumed applicant had all the necessary permits; he only complained when he discovered applicant's structure was over his property line; in 1986 he witnessed the pool equipment structure being razed and rebuilt without permit; the solar was installed with a building permit but not until after the pool house was built. Regarding interference with his privacy, assuming a pool in his back yard, lights at night would impact him, at present there are trees but trees are not forever. Mr. Mahnken spoke in rebuttal: the so-called 69% increase in size of the structure is just the pump room when a roof was put on, nothing has changed otherwise; he tried to work matters out with Mr. Moran, tried to solve the problems, two years of legal action took time and he could not respond to the City Attorney's letters; the solar was installed first and finalized, then the pool house was built, there were modifications made improperly; he requests approval of what is there now. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal stated he had examined the drawings and believed there were breezeways between the buildings in 1982; there was only one window shown on the original plans, now there are several; he did not think the building could be used as an auxiliary living structure; he was not happy about a contractor choosing to do whatever he wanted after the plans had been approved; a fence could be put on property line and possibly help privacy for the neighbor but the windows are a bit too high, a fence to code would not cover the windows; because it is a steep lot and there is very little buildable area at the rear, he had no problem with the pool equipment structure extending beyond the rear third of the lot; he found no problem with the skylights but was concerned with the windows along property line which would affect privacy of the adjoining neighbor. C. Deal moved for approval of the special permit amendment and variance with the conditions in the staff report and an additional condition requiring removal of windows along property line. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: there are trees there now, trees are not forever, would suggest keeping the windows until the trees go, would like some sort of landscaping required to protect privacy; agree the structure is not built to plans, its location would preclude a living Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 9, 1991 unit, think windows should be removed and one skylight; the skylights are dark bronze, not too much light; skylights are shaded by trees in the afternoon; support the motion, think windows could be a problem, if Commission votes to remove the windows would suggest it be done within a specified time, such as 90 days; Mr. Moran's presentation was excellent, have an initial concern about the delay between construction and complaint, three years is a long time, it raises a question about the negative impact; with the proximity of the properties, the slope involved and the ability to see who comes and goes, the likelihood of conversion to a living unit is minuscule; this project was not done without some city inspection, this could be a mitigation; it seems to be a reasonable use except for the windows. Conditions of the motion by C. Deal, seconded by C. Galligan follow: (1) that the bath house/pool structure shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 30, 1991, except that the windows facing the side property line shall be removed; (2) that retroactive building permits shall be secured for all work completed but not included in the October 13, 1982 plans and corrections to current Uniform Building Code requirements and standards shall be completed, inspected and granted an occupancy permit within 90 days (December 9, 1991) of granting the use permit amendment, this shall also include corrections required in the 1991 review; (3) that the portion of the structure enclosing the pool equipment shall be fully soundproofed as required by the Uniform Building Code and city pool ordinance; and (4) that this bath house shall never be used as a living quarters or for sleeping purposes. Motion was approved 4-3 on roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs and Mink dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:10 P.M. 4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR DRIVEWAY SLOPE EXCEEDING 20% FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1109 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE advised staff will be requiring contractors to provide survey elevations at the start of construction on future jobs. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Larry Doyle, civil engineer representing the applicants, Carlo and Gina Campobello, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found no objection to the request and, based on the facts and recommendation of the City Engineer, moved for approval of the condominium permit amendment by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the June 5, 1990 condominium Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 9, 1991 permit approval (letter from M. Monroe to E. Hartog, June 5, 1990) shall be met; (2) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 13, 1991, Driveway Profile and Driveway Plan; 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. Jacobs and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ANTIQUE STORE AT 1500-A ADELINE DRIVE IN THE ADELINE CENTER, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Carol Spicer, applicant, was present. She said they have met some of the other tenants and neighbors and have been well received, she thought the area was charming and an area which lends itself to antique shops. There will be one employee who will park in the Adeline Center parking lot. Matt Kircher, leasing agent representing the property owner, Marmora Terrell, noted Ms. Terrell's July 23, 1991 letter. He stated the property owners have tried to work in accordance with the ordinance regulating this property and they felt these tenants would be a good addition. There were no further audience comments in favor. Zita Escobosa, 1516 Adeline Drive, spoke in opposition: she was sure this antique store would be appropriate for the area but was concerned about parking; she sees a condition of no trucks parking in the Adeline Market parking lot, trucks park on Adeline and Balboa, they park in front of her house and block access in and out of her driveway. She also expressed a concern that a different operator of the antique store might let it deteriorate into an everyday garage sale. CP explained if this antique store left and another took over its space in the Adeline Center it would be subject to the same operating restrictions as this antique store. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the information and findings in the staff report, C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the six conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: concern about putting displays outside, this is a dangerous corner, would not object to a permanent plant but would object to displays of antiques or furniture for sale; maker of the motion and seconder agreed to add a condition stating no displays of merchandise for sale shall be allowed outside the building. There was some further discussion about truck parking at the Adeline Center and the section of Condition 15 prohibiting truck parking at the Adeline Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 9, 1991 Market site was deleted by the maker of the motion, this deletion was accepted by the seconder. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 24, 1991, Floor Plan and Site Plan; (2) that the antique store shall operate Tuesday to Friday 11:00 A.M.' 'to 6:00 P.M., Saturday 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and Sunday 12:00 Noon to 5:00 P.M. with no more than two employees on site at any time, and that no displays of merchandise for sale shall be allowed outside the building; (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (4) that any changes to the hours of operation, number of employees or any other aspects of the business at this location shall require amendment to this use permit; (5) that no deliveries shall be allowed before 6:30 A.M. or after 7:00 P.M.; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance in one year (September, 1992) or upon complaint. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FURNITURE, COLLECTIBLES AND ANTIQUE SHOP AT 1500 ADELINE DRIVE IN THE ADELINE CENTER ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Thomas Notaro, applicant, stated he will operate a business which will be an asset to the community and noted the 20' setback from E1 Camino has a brick area where he would like to put a small flower cart. A Commissioner told him her objection was pieces of furniture for sale sitting outside which would distract drivers and create a traffic hazard. Applicant said the flower cart would not be for sale. The following members of the audience spoke. Peggy Lake, 1148 Oxford Road: she was concerned about people parking on Highway Road, requested parking regulations be enforced and that people park in the Adeline Center lot as much as possible. Zita Escobosa, 1516 Adeline Drive: she was concerned about parking on Adeline and Balboa, it is a real problem for her, she has two cars, can park one in her driveway but often the driveway is blocked by vehicles, sometimes she must walk a block away to park her own car. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the information and findings in the staff report, C. Mink 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 July Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 9, 1991 24, 1991 Sheet One, Elevations; Sheet Two, Floor Plan; and Sheet Three, Site Plan; (2) that the furniture, collectibles and antique shop shall operate Monday through Saturday 10:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. and Sunday 12:00 Noon to 5:00 P.M. with no more than two employees on site at any time, and that no displays of merchandise for sale shall be allowed outside the building; (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (4) that any changes to the hours of operation, number of employees or any other aspects of the business at this location shall require amendment to this use permit; (5) that no deliveries shall be allowed before 6:30 A.M. or after 7:00 P.M.; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance in one year (September, 1992) or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETAIL DRY CLEANING PICKUP AND DROP OFF SERVICE - 1152 BURLINGAME AVENUE ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Item continued to the September 23, 1991 meeting. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND EXISTING FIRST FLOOR REAL ESTATE USE TO A PORTION OF THE SECOND FLOOR AT 400 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 26, 1991) Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff/Commission discussion: there is no elevator in this building, handicap access for the second floor restrooms is required for the remodel, would like the location of the 2,006 SF area on the second floor to be clearly marked on the official approved plans retained in the Planning Department. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Douglas McGeorge, representing Grubb & Ellis, applicant, was present. His comments: they are asking for permission to expand to a portion of the second floor, there is an interior stairway in the building, no elevator; their architect did not think providing handicap accessible restrooms on the second floor would be a problem; 57 employees would be based here, 52 agents and 5 staff which includes the manager; available parking in the area has greatly increased with the new parking structure and demand for parking has decreased with the relocation of other businesses; two real estate companies have moved out of this area. From their survey they found Monday morning to have the most available parking and that is when they have their weekly sales staff meeting and need more parking. An average of 35% of their people would be on site at any one time and that average includes the Monday morning meeting, 28% would be a closer average; agents are in and out often, parking turns over rapidly. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 9, 1991 Responding to questions, Mr. McGeorge advised Monday meetings start at 8:30 A.M. and are generally over by 10:30 A.M. when they leave the site to look at properties, occasionally they return to the site to continue the meeting but are always done by noon; presently they have 36 agents and average 25 people at the Monday meetings; staff and the manager are the only people using parking all day; visitors are infrequent; their parking survey was done by a staff member, spaces on Chapin were counted west to the Garden Center. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the staff report, information received from the applicant and responses to Commission's questions, C. Galligan found the proposed use would not be detrimental to the area, the use will be conducted in accordance with the general plan and staff has proposed conditions that are reasonable to promote the general welfare and compatibility in the area. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the proposed second floor real estate use shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 8, 1991 (Sheet 1) and August 28, 1991 (Sheet 2), with the 2,006 SF second floor area as shaded on the August 28, 1991 plans; (2) that plans shall be submitted to the Building Department for all alterations, and shall include handicap access to the second story restrooms as may be required by code; and that requirements of the Fire Marshal's memo of July 15, 1991 shall be met; (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (4) that a group agents meeting shall be held only once a week and shall be over by 12:00 Noon with a maximum attendance of 52 agents; (5) that the real estate use shall occupy the entire first floor, a nonconforming use, and only 2,006 SF of the second floor area of the building and shall not extend into any other portion of the building without an amendment to this use permit; (6) that no change shall be made to the number of full time or part time agents in the real estate use on the first or second floors, nor the duration, frequency or size of the weekly group meetings without amendment to this use permit; and (7) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in one year (September, 1992) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: have a problem with expansion of this use in this area, there will be a parking problem when the empty or underused buildings are again in use, this is not the best area for real estate uses nor for real estate expansion, it will be precedent setting. Motion was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 9, 1991 9. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING FENCE AT 1710 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/9/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting request, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Sunder Joshi, representing the applicant, American Heart Association, was present. His comments: their employees are frequently required to travel by air, since their office is near the airport it is convenient for them to leave their cars in the parking lot, the existing fence will give them much needed protection. He advised people who are traveling will be given priority in use of the fenced area; the remaining parking area should be sufficient .for all other employees. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found that from the record it appears this parking situation has been in effect for five years and no complaints have been received. Based on findings as presented in the staff report, C. Mink moved for approval of the fence exception by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the area enclosed by the 8' chain link fence with redwood slats and sliding gate shall not be used as a company corporation yard for the storage of any company equipment or materials other than employee vehicles intended to operate on city streets, if other material or equipment or corporation yard use occurs within the fenced area the fence shall be removed and vehicle parking reinstated; (2) that when the American Heart Association, California Affiliate, leaves the building as a tenant or owner, or reduces their leased area to less than 9% of the gross floor area of the building, the fence shall be removed; (3) that this site shall be inspected annually (first inspection September, 1992), or upon complaint, to see that the conditions of this permit are complied with and that this area is not being used as a corporation or storage yard for construction or construction related equipment; (4) that the project is built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 24, 1991, Site Plan; and (5) 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. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page it September 9, 1991 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Minor Modification - 1605 Marco Polo Way, zoned R-1 - this item was not called up for review by the Planning Commission. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its September 4, 1991 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary