Loading...
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