HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.06.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 1991
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, June 10, 1991 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs,
Kelly, Mink
Absent: Graham
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 28, 1991 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AT
1408 CABRILLO AVENUE ZONED R-1
Requests: is the entire structure in the rear one-third of the lot;
dimension from the outside face of the garage wall to property line;
where will eave ventilation be placed. Item set for public hearing
June 24, 1991.
2. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING GARAGE AND THREE
VARIANCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO THE RESIDENCE AT
2105 ADELINE DRIVE ZONED R-1
Requests: short history of the previous action on this site; were the
1981 nonconformities corrected; in 1981 applicant stated the property
was unusual and small, what has changed about the property, are there
new findings to support the request; correct property line dimensions
on the site plan; in 1981 the physical disability of the property owner
was mentioned as one of the reasons for not adding a second floor, what
has changed since the first application; variance application for lot
coverage states there is no new lot coverage, it appears the second
floor deck off the master bedroom should be counted as lot coverage;
show declining height envelope on the elevations; setback is shown as
4', why not 3' since the lot is less than 40' wide. Item set for
public hearing as soon as all information is available.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
June 10, 1991
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR SEATING AND EXPAND
INDOOR SEATING FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1190 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE ZONED UNCLASSIFIED LAND
Requests: explain the statement "temporarily closed by Caltrain"; where
will the six additional parking spaces be designated; how will the
outside eating area be separated/protected from the railroad
tracks/street; chart shows no employees before 5:00 P.M. and only one
after 5:00 P.M. but indicates an opening hour of 7:00 A.M., are owners
not counted in the number of employees; two year projection shows five
employees 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and two employees after 5:00 P.M.,
will only two people serving dinner be enough. Item set for public
hearing June 24, 1991.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOTIVE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL SALES, SERVICE,
REPAIR AND DETAIL SERVICE AT 1280 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Requests: across the street there is an existing business with the same
name as the proposed business, is there a connection; what kind of
office is proposed, does it relate to this business; what other retail
sales are on this part of Rollins Road; brief history of past uses on
this property; will the lot be paved. Item set for public hearing June
24, 1991.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESTORATION AND SERVICE AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF SPACES AND DIMENSION AT 1295 ROLLINS ROAD,
ZONED M-1
Requests: evidence from applicant that there is room for four more cars
in this area, preferably a parking survey on two days 9:00 to 10:00
A.M.; history of parking complaints in the area; number of businesses
of this type in the North Carolan/Rollins Road area; will this be a
full service, full repair automobile facility; relationship between the
three businesses at 1280, 1295 and 1305 Rollins Road. Item set for
public hearing June 24, 1991.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT
1860 CAPISTRANO WAY ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/10/91, 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 two letters in
opposition received after preparation of the staff report from the
following: Constance and Adrian McNamara, 2941 Dolores Way and Ruth
Gardner, 1837 Sebastian Drive. Responding to a question, staff advised
2941 Dolores Way was not on the list of those noticed for this public
hearing because it is one property outside the 300' radius.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
June 10, 1991
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect for
the project, addressed Commission. The addition was held back from the
present front corners of the house and also from the rear to minimize
its impact on the neighbors; applicant has attempted to talk to all his
neighbors within the 300' noticing radius, the uphill neighbors had no
objection to the addition before or after the frame was put up on the
roof, this frame was expensive but does give a clear picture of the
impact of the project, none of the uphill neighbors expressed
objections. Because of the site's unique position on a corner it will
not obstruct any distant views from habitable areas of nearby
properties, most of those houses have living areas looking across the
street at each other. The wind measuring mast which Commission asked
about at study is a ground set mast and will continue to stay at grade.
Applicant contacted his downhill neighbors at 1833 Sebastian, they
would be the most affected and they did not object to the addition.
Responding to Commission questions, architect advised applicants have
a combined family with four children, each will have their own bedrooms
on the first floor; the master bedroom is needed for the parents; they
would like to add a family room which, with the existing swimming pool,
will encourage the children to stay home after school. The remodeled
house will have five bedrooms plus the family room which has been
counted as a bedroom; the kitchen is being expanded to include a small
family eating area.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition: Adrian McNamara, 2941 Dolores Way; Ruth Gardner, 1837
Sebastian Drive; Connie McNamara, 2941 Dolores Way. Their concerns and
comments: view blocked from kitchen, dining room and backyard deck at
2941 Dolores Way (photographs of views were presented by the
residents), photographs show the addition is wider than large tree out
the dining room window; new addition would block kitchen view of
airplanes landing; neighbors at 2956 Dolores Way would also have view
blocked (photographs from the neighbors' front porch were submitted);
much of the value of properties in the area is because of the views,
since there is a view ordinance the city should protect views; addition
will be too massive and bulky for the existing neighborhood; original
homes were situated to fit into the lots, this proposal will stand out;
there will be loss of privacy, is there not a way to expand without
violating the area.
Architect responded: from the photographs it appears that the framework
on the top of the roof is below the horizon line as shown from the
deck; there does not appear to be much impact nor are distant views
affected; from the house at 2956 Dolores Way it would be very hard to
see anything of the addition; in all cases one could see airplanes
landing, the sky is clear in all the photographs; other houses are at
a much higher elevation, many of them look inward also; the addition is
set back from the rear and is about 45' from the neighbor below.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
June 10, 1991
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission comment/ discussion: the framework is noticeable, Commission
will have to decide whether this addition obstructs long distance
views; commend property owner and architect for putting up the frame,
it was most helpful, it is very noticeable because it is bare wood, if
the addition fits into the house architecturally it may not be as
visible; most houses on the north side of Dolores are two story and
look out onto Dolores, there are few windows on the bay side of the
second floors, it appears there may be little impact there.
C. Mink found the issue to be the difference between visible structure
and a structure which obstructs, in this case it would be visible but
not obstructive. C. Mink moved for approval of the hillside area
construction permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1)
that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped April 25, 1991 Sheets A-1 through
A-5 and Streetscape Plan and Topographic Survey; (2) that the finish
material used on both the flat and sloping portions of the roof shall
be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City
Planner; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled
house shall not exceed elevation 475'-0" and that the roof framing
shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by
the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for and
the roofing material is attached; and (4) that the remodel and addition
shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and
Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was
seconded by C. Galligan.
Comment on the motion: there will be loss of some privacy at 1837
Sebastian Drive but there is nothing in the existing regulations which
addresses privacy; 2933 Dolores will have some blockage of view but the
property owners did not object to the proposal; the view loss would not
be great for the two houses up the block from 2933 Dolores; it was
interesting to note that when visualizing the proposed structure before
the frame was up the addition seemed to be a large, massive structure,
but after the frame was up this addition did not seem to be a problem;
the project does not have an impact on views; the framing may have been
expensive but it helped to visualize the project's impact; had the
frame been the color of the house it would be less visible.
Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C.
Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
June 10, 1991
7. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT
2845 MARIPOSA DRIVE ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 6/10/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicants' letters, letters
received in opposition, required findings, study meeting questions.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing. CP noted two letters in opposition received after preparation
of the staff report from: Joe and Donna Brattesani, 2849 Mariposa
Drive; Charles and Mary Dougherty, 2828 Mariposa Drive.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Kuang-Hui Lee', property owner,
spoke of his love for the city and the neighborhood, he will be a good
neighbor, neighbors should share the view, not just first come first
served, if one neighbor can add a second story others should be able to
do the same, if his neighbor below wanted to add a second story Mr. Lee
would be happy to share the view.
Kai -Yee Woo, Kai -Yee Woo & Associates, designer, reviewed the proposal
using the overhead projector and photographs. They had three design
challenges: to meet Mr. Lee's space requirements, to address the
neighbors' concerns about view obstruction and to meet the city's
requirements. Ms. Woo discussed roof lines of the house at 2849
Mariposa and applicant's proposed addition; windows for both houses
have panoramic views; study of view angle from the dining room at 2849;
second floor addition was cut back to open up the view; the new plate
line is 1' below the second finished floor of the house at 2849;
comparison of mass of the proposed project and the house at 2849. She
strongly believed this proposal is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and would preserve overall quality of existing views.
Rev. Noah Chen, Taiwanese Congregation of First Presbyterian Church of
Burlingame, spoke in favor: applicants came to the area two years ago,
they have no intention of altering the character of the neighborhood,
the additional space is needed for the family, view should be shared by
everyone. There were no further audience comments in favor.
The following spoke in opposition. Martin Orlick, attorney
representing the Brattesanis of 2849 Mariposa: ordinance does not say
specifically what obstruction means, it is up to the Planning
Commission to determine, the Lees bought into this neighborhood with
the specific intent of building up, they want a six bedroom house with
a place for Mrs. Lee to work, they have had no real concern for the
neighbors, the burden of proof is on the applicant, he must establish
beyond all doubt the addition will not affect view; view from the
Brattesanis' dining room window will be obliterated, their panoramic
view lost; the Brattesanis' second story was a legal addition in every
respect, it has an existing view, ordinance doesn't state ground level
view, just existing view; applicants considered alternatives at ground
level and concluded it would be best to build up, there is room on the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
June 10, 1991
lot to build at ground level; the second story will have an impact on
the Brattesanis' light and air. He concluded by noting there were 50-
60 people in the audience this evening opposed to the addition.
Joe Brattesani, 2849 Mariposa Drive distributed a folder of photographs
depicting their existing view and an overlay to indicate effect of the
proposed second story addition; included in this folder was a petition
in opposition signed by 82 residents and a map of the neighborhood
showing those who signed the petition. He discussed in detail these
photos and the view which would be lost. Gary Fitschen, architect, San
Francisco: he did the overlay on the photos, did not think the photos
were taken with a telephoto lens, probably shot with a 50 millimeter
lens; he was of the opinion staff could work with the designer of this
project to design an acceptable addition on one level. Charles
Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering, Burlingame: he had verified some of the
engineering for this project for Mr. Brattesani and discussed his
measurements and view angles; he advised staff the elevations are
assumed elevations, not mean sea level.
The following members of the audience spoke in opposition: Frank
Cistulli, 1644 Lassen Way; Elaine Sorenson, 2857 Mariposa Drive; Harold
Cooper, 2809 Las Piedras Drive; Rufina Shevchuk, 2822 Trousdale Drive
(submitted photographs to show her privacy would be lost); Paul Pitlyk,
2820 Mariposa Drive; Phyllis Carlson, 2844 Mariposa Drive; Donna
Brattesani, 2849 Mariposa Drive; Jeffrey Bernstein, 2836 Mariposa
Drive; John Shevchuk, 2822 Trousdale Drive.
Their concerns: near and long distance obstruction and/or loss of
views; proliferation of second stories which could lead to three
stories or more;,. would create animosity among neighbors; loss of
privacy as well as view of sky; too massive for the neighborhood;
change in the character of the area.
Speaking in rebuttal, William Joseph, Co -Principal, Kai -Yee Woo &
Associates: he was concerned with the amount of emotional appeal and
that everyone has lost sight of the original proposal; they considered
alternatives but with the amount of available open space, size of
rooms, etc. a first floor addition was not acceptable for the property
owners nor would it be acceptable for the neighborhood since it would
be too close to the property line; regarding comments about view angles
by Mr. Kavanagh, the full angle of panoramic view was not taken into
account; all windows on the Bratessanis' house will be getting light
all day long, any obstruction of the sun will be from their own deck
which is at the second level; he believed the proposed design was in
compliance with the intent of the view ordinance.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Deal found there will be views blocked from the Bratessanis' second
and first floors, there will be a distinct obstruction of existing
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
June 10, 1991
distant views. C. Deal moved for denial of the hillside area
construction permit, seconded by C. Jacobs.
Comment on the motion: neighbors have talked about mass and bulk,
height, loss of view, Commission is bound to make a determination on
view only and there will be a blockage of view; will support the motion
because the addition will block long distance views not because of its
mass or bulk; have walked Mariposa, there will be a blockage of views,
intent of the ordinance was to preserve the views of those who have
them, those permits which were granted did not obstruct views; it is
too bad the owners bought the house without checking regulations and
must come to the city after the fact but the city is trying to protect
the neighborhoods; both presentations were very good, was convinced by
the designer's presentation there would be obstruction of view.
Speaking to the audience this evening a Commissioner commented the city
does not have architectural review, therefore discussion of bulk or
protection of privacy is not an issue, he was aware people feel imposed
upon when their privacy will be lost but obstruction of existing
distant views is all Commission can consider when reviewing hillside
area construction permits.
Motion to deny was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 10:00 P.M.; reconvene 10:10 P.M.
8. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR CROWN STERLING SUITES AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD,
ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 6/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, proposed new signage and existing signage,
staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study
meeting questions, required findings. Two conditions were suggested
for consideration at the public hearing.
Responding to questions, CP advised the figures for the Marriott in the
summary of approved hotel signage do include the latest application
approved; the parapet sign on the Anza frontage at Sterling Suites will
be removed and replaced by a wall sign.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Wade McClure, applicant, was
present. He commented that in designing signs they look at who they
are trying to reach and determine the size of lettering needed to reach
them, then they figure the square footage; the existing signs at
Sterling Suites have 4' high letters and are readable at a distance,
the 5' lettering at Doubletree reads quite well, 3' letters at
Doubletree cannot be read; Sterling Suites is considerably farther back
than Doubletree so they determined 4' letters would be all right. Mr.
McClure commented that square footage is figured in an odd manner in
Burlingame and discussed sign area as calculated in Burlingame and as
calculated in most cities, as well as Burlingame's regulations for free
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
June 10, 1991
standing signs. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
During discussion Commissioners expressed concern about the amount of
square footage requested, regardless of applicant's comments on
Burlingame's method of measurement every other hotel in the city is
calculated in this manner, they were particularly concerned about the
size of sign B, new wall sign.
C. Jacobs moved to deny the sign exception without prejudice, seconded
by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
PERMIT EXTENSIONS
9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION FOR A
SIXTEEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 14950, 1497, 1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE,
ZONED R-3
CP Monroe reviewed this request for a one year extension. C. Ellis
moved for approval of a one year extension of the condominium permit to
June 5, 1992 and to recommend to City Council extension of the
tentative condominium map to June 5, 1993. Seconded by C. Mink and
approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Graham absent.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE USE AT 1412-1416
CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUB
AREA B-1
CP Monroe reviewed the request. C. Mink moved for approval of a one
year extension of the special permit to May 21, 1992, seconded by C.
Ellis and approved 5-1 on voice vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Graham
absent.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its June 3, 1991 regular
meeting and June 5, 1991 study session.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
June 10, 1991
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry L. Deal
Secretary