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