Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.05.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, May 13, 1991 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Deal (arrived 8:00 P.M.), Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: Commissioner: Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 22, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. A ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS C. Jacobs nominated C. Kelly for Chairman, seconded by C. Galligan, the nominations were closed and Patrick J. Kelly elected Chairman. C. Jacobs nominated C. Mink for Vice Chairman, seconded by C. Graham, the nominations were closed and Charles W. Mink elected Vice Chairman. C. Graham nominated C. Deal for Secretary, seconded by C. Galligan, the nominations were closed and Jerry L. Deal elected Secretary. Chairman Graham passed the gavel to newly elected Chairman Kelly. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - 2721 TROUSDALE DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Requests: has applicant considered expanding to the rear at grade rather than up; what is unusual about this property to support the variance request; ask applicant to put up a frame to indicate height of the addition; numbers on the plans and those in the staff review form differ for the area of the proposed new construction, first floor and second floor, explain; is existing garage included in the 3,626 SF total; if there are no distant views affected by this project now, after the second story is built it will have its own distant views, others may not be able to add because they would block the distant views from this second story, has this problem been addressed in the past. Item set for public hearing May 28, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 13, 1991 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PARKING VARIANCE AND HEIGHT LIMIT SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO STORY RETAIL AND OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 1218-1230 BURLINGAME AVENUE/1209-1215 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Requests: letter addressing what is unusual about the property; why is a 40' height being requested; why not build it back exactly as it was, what is the need other than economics; regarding exceptional circumstances, applicant is proposing to provide underground parking, why not provide underground parking for the total requirement and avoid the necessity of a variance; height of other buildings on Burlingame Avenue which exceed 351; how will the project be phased; clarification of the proposal for second floor space at 1213-1215 Donnelly; what would the project be like if the remaining building were not included; what eating establishments are proposed, will they be within the allowed number on Burlingame Avenue or will they have to sit vacant and wait in line; how well does retail on the second floor do in the malls of the city, what would be the impact if second floor retail area were changed to office in the future. Item set for public hearing May 28, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. SPECIAL PERMITS TO ADD A BATHROOM INCLUDING SHOWER, SINK AND TOILET AND USE AS LIVING QUARTERS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1341 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/13/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. She noted a petition in support with 42 signatures and nine letters in opposition received from neighbors on Easton Drive and Columbus Avenue. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE commented that since this will be a major remodel of the existing lanai structure perhaps an addition to the house might be just as cost effective. Staff confirmed the detached garage is considered an accessory structure; there are two accessory structures on this lot, the garage and lanai by the pool. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Carol Windsor and James Wells, applicants and property owners, were present. Carol Windsor addressed Commission: she said they bought this house because it would give them the ability to care for their handicapped daughter, there are no homes for such children in the area and she is now being cared for in Watsonville, a long drive away; they would like to be more involved in their daughter's life, they see her only once a month now and it has become very difficult. The child is not able to do anything for herself and requires full time care; they feel that a care person would be more apt to stay longer with a separate living area, a place for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 13, 1991 some time alone. She advised they had talked to many of their neighbors over the weekend telling them they would not rent the pool house, many were supportive when they understood why the applicants wanted to use the pool house for living quarters; they are asking for a special permit because of special circumstances. James Wells also addressed Commission: he said the most important thing for them is to provide for the welfare of their children and for family, they studied numerous plans for providing separate living quarters and believe the best way to provide privacy for a care person is in the pool house; they have no intention of putting kitchen area in the remodeled structure and will remove the second sink, they will not rent this structure now or in the future, if required the bathroom could be removed but they feel it is not fair to tear down the entire structure when the permit expires. They bought the property with the pool and lanai, the remodeled pool house will meet all fire and building code requirements, they want to make it more appealing than it is now. Mr. Wells stated he has talked to about 36 neighbors, 34 of them signed a petition in support; he presented another letter in support from Liam and Theresa Cafferkey, 1322 Columbus Avenue and noted one of the neighbors who signed the petition in support has retracted a letter sent in opposition. Applicant discussed the concerns expressed in letters of opposition: people objected on the basis that this request will set a precedent, it was his understanding the Commission reviews such a request and then decides whether there are special conditions to support it, it would not be setting a precedent and people who thought so were more concerned about a rental situation; it is not their intention to make money by renting the structure. Responding to a concern about the amount of noise a CP youngster would make in the rear yard, applicant noted his daughter will live in the main house. He distributed photographs and discussed concerns about parking, stating photos #1 and #2 show there is no on -street parking problem. Regarding concerns of the Sears family at 2312 Easton Drive, photo #3 shows the pool house in relation to the Sears residence, trees obscure almost all of the pool house from their view. In photo #4 taken from the roof of the pool house toward the Sears' house foliage obscures the Sears' view from all but their kitchen window. Photo #5 looking toward the Garibaldi residence directly behind at 2308 Easton Drive shows a mass of foliage obscures the pool house. Photo #6 looking toward the Van Oppen residence at 1323 Columbus shows they have a view of the pool house but they are in support of the application. Photo #6 also shows that the Germano residence at 2304 Easton cannot see the pool house. Mr. Wells commented that people who complained about an eyesore cannot see it. Regarding noise, they will insulate the building, there will be no windows on the Sears side of the structure; they have been able to hear the Sears outside but have never heard them from inside the pool house. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 13, 1991 Applicant felt they have been considerate and cooperative neighbors, have paid or helped pay for removal of trees, rebuilding and repair of a fence. It is not their intention to create an eyesore in the neighborhood, they want to improve the appearance of the pool house with new windows and landscaping. Responding to Commission questions applicant advised they have a two car garage 22' x 221, they would consider a hip roof for the pool house. The following members of the audience spoke in support. Ralph Osterling, 1361 Columbus Avenue: Burlingame encourages family, it is family; a toilet in a pool house is usual, the pool house will be brought up to present code, as a neighbor and as a resident of the city encourage support of this project. Rich Bulotti, 1346 Columbus Avenue: applicants have a special child with a special need, many people do not understand special needs in light of their own interests. Ann Van Oppen, 1323 Columbus Avenue: other than the Sears family the project would have the most impact on her privacy, it is critical to understand the motivation of the Windsor/Wells, Commission has the power with conditions on the permit to block any future owner of this property from use of the pool house for living quarters; have lived near the Windsor/Wells for several years and have had no problem with noise; this is a special case. There were no further audience comments in support. The following spoke in opposition: Nick Germano, 2304 Easton Drive; Herbert Tanner, 1345 Columbus Avenue; Louellen Hesse, 2307 Easton Drive; Diana Garibaldi, 2308 Easton Drive; Jane Sears, 2312 Easton Drive. Many sympathized with the efforts of the applicants to get the best possible care for their handicapped daughter and spoke of similar situations they themselves had experienced. Their concerns/suggestions/comments: the existing house is large enough for the family and a care person, with some remodeling space could be made, room above the garage could be converted; on-site parking is a problem now, Columbus is unusually narrow; the previous owner had a large family, four children, lived there for years and never needed additional living space; adding to the main house is the thing to do; an elderly and ill resident at 2312 Easton Drive is very concerned, the project will be upsetting to her because of its proximity to her property; residents at 2308 Easton Drive are in the process of removing some of their trees in the rear yard so will not have as much foliage to protect them; if the care person is to occupy the pool house how can this person help at night, why not just have care taker come in during the day; it would be a travesty to put a second unit on any R-1 Burlingame lot, do not set a precedent and allow this separate living quarters in the R-1 district; if one compassionate request is granted should not all compassionate requests be approved, many people could use an in-law unit in the rear to care for elderly infirm parents. There were no further comments in opposition. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 13, 1991 Mr. Wells commented they had considered many alternatives inside the existing house and consulted several architects, this proposal seemed the only viable solution. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: this is a difficult decision; parking is not the issue, applicants can get someone to live inside the existing house who will need to park; the house is large, distance between pool house and the child's room is a long way; available people for full time live-in care are hard to find; Commission is supposed to go by the book and look at the property, not family, why is the property special, would prefer using the garage, it's already rather high, or the den converted into a bedroom, perhaps some interior modifications could be made; am not in support of using the pool house, there are other options. C. Deal commented this is a special permit, not a variance, a finding of exceptional circumstances is not required, the proposal will not be detrimental; he had made several site visits and did not think the area over the garage would be suitable for living space, it is built on property line, he would support the use of the pool house for this reason, it is not setting a precedent, this is not a second unit; Commission needs to assume that people are honest and will not add a kitchen or rent out this unit; he would prefer to have the pool house remain on the site following expiration of the permit. C. Deal moved for approval of the special permits by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the pool house shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 17, 1991 and as attached to the staff report and shall not include a kitchen area or cooking unit; (2) that neither the pool house accessory structure nor any other accessory structure on the property shall be used or rented as a second dwelling unit; (3) that the use permit to use the pool house structure for living purposes and to have a toilet and shower in the pool house shall expire in five years (May, 1996) and improvements to the pool house structure shall be removed if change of ownership occurs within five years; (4) that the replacement/new pool house shall be built to meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (5) that no windows shall be placed on the sides of the structure facing 2308 Easton Drive and 2312 Easton Drive; (6) that the structure shall be built with a hip roof; and (7) that to reduce noise the windows shall be STC rated comparable to those in condominium developments and glazing on the French doors and windows shall be dual glaze. Motion was seconded by C. Graham. Comments on the motion: the property is zoned R-1, if this is approved others in the city who have accessory structures and a parent who needs care could request the same consideration and the city could end up with a lot of second units in the R-1 area, lot coverage is only 29%, regret voting against the motion but am concerned about what may be requested in the future; the city has no control over number of people Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 13, 1991 in a home now, believe applicant is sincere but the code is there to benefit all residents; appreciate this is a request for a special permit, not a variance, but there are other alternatives available, it is a large house with a small family, cannot support the motion. Comments continued: the real issues in this application are not the bathroom, application is whether this structure can be used for living purposes; on parking, whether the care person lives in the house or the pool house there will be some parking impact. Positives of the project are it is a large property, the concept of low to moderate housing needs will be addressed, lot size can support the use, impact on the neighbors is relatively slight, the lanai structure will be replaced with quality construction built to present code. Negatives include the pool house became what it is without benefit of a permit, the City Council has considered the concept of granny units and found it was not acceptable in Burlingame, Commission cannot approve a granny unit and be consistent with this position; the garage would be a better alternative because it is existing, it has plumbing and is now being used as living area; once the pool house is remodeled it will be a permanent part of the property, to call it anything else is foolish, any future owner would take advantage of it for family purposes. Agree family is an important consideration, that is what makes this decision difficult, but cannot support the motion. Further comment: feel strongly both ways but there are many other options to the pool house available to the applicant; there is a building permit for the lanai but not for the plumbing; seconded the motion hoping for Commission discussion, agree with the majority, once the remodeled pool house is there it is there forever, inevitably sometime in the future a family will want to use this for living purposes, City Council policy says no to in-law units and this is one, inside the house or in the garage is a better option. Motion to approve the special permits failed on a 1-5 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs and Kelly voting no, C. Mink absent. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the special permits for the reasons stated, seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Deal voting no, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:12 P.M.; reconvene 9:22 P.M. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL AN AERIAL ANTENNA ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/13/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 13, 1991 Commission/staff discussion: suggested condition #4 does not apply, there is no latticework screening; original photographs -of the proposed antenna were distributed since those photocopied for the packet were not clear; CP confirmed the antenna is not parabolic, it is standing on a tripod with pole across. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Larry Lyons, Burlingame Office Center, representing both the ownership and the applicant, was present. He advised the photographs show a 6' tall man with arms out standing on the roof, he can hardly be seen from the parking lot at Gulliver's or from a boat out on the bay, there is no dish and there will be no latticework. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this antenna is less obvious than what is found on the roofs of residential properties in the city and moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the 8' high and 5' wide antenna receiver shall only be placed on the roof at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 21, 1991 Sheets A5 Roof Plan, A6 and A7 Exterior Elevations; (2) that a building permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of the antenna; (3) that no other antennas or dish antennas temporary or permanent shall be placed on the roofs of the buildings or elsewhere on this site without receiving a special permit and building permit from the city prior to their installation; and (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. VARIANCES TO FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR A CARPORT AT 40 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/13/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Jay Kushner, engineer and general contractor for the project, was present. His comments: this is a wood structure with metal roof, the wood frame is structurally overdesigned, it is quite a bit heavier than it needs to be, they are using a new laminated wood technology which has high strength characteristics; the carport covers two parking stalls, it will have a sturdy foundation of concrete held together by steel connectors, his firm specializes in structural reconstruction; the site plan was obtained from the architect who designed the original building seven years ago, his drawing was used to show location of the carport and truck container in the back; they were not aware that the container Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 13, 1991 truck needed a permit, it is used only two times a year to store cherries before they are shipped by air. A Commissioner had concern about security, this structure will be far from the main building, line of sight could be broken by parked cars; applicant said they propose no lighting changes, landscaping changes or changes in amount of parking, they are just adding a carport; he felt parking in the rear would be less safe because trucks are moving in that area; the handicapped stall will be relocated to the front of the building near the entrance, it will not be covered. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found Commission has granted variances in the M-1 district in the past for less reason than this, the site is not on a corner, applicant is trying to improve the site, the request will not be detrimental to other properties, the codes of the city will be met. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance with the three conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Graham. C. Galligan suggested a fourth condition for security purposes which was accepted by the maker of the motion and the seconder. Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 19, 1991 Sheet A-2 Site/Grading Plan, and Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4 date stamped April 2, 1991; (2) that the conditions of the Building Inspector's memo of April 22, 1991 (trailer will require building permit) shall be met; (3) that the project (both carport and trailer) shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that the plans be reviewed by the Police Department for any necessary improvements to security of the site and if recommended these improvements be incorporated into the project when it is built. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD THREE EMPLOYEES AT 890 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/13/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff/Commission discussed square footage figures for the warehouse and testing area on the May 8, 1990 and April 24, 1991 plans, CP advised the figures were the same. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Judd, attorney representing the property owner, New York Life Insurance Company, was present. His comments: they are stipulating the same warehouse square footage, do not intend to reduce warehouse area; the reasons for denial in August, 1990 of their request to remove the limitation on maximum number of employees included access and parking concerns; the tenant Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 13, 1991 has advised him that the four employees who occupy the space are on the road half of their time, generally there are two people on site at any one time. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this building has enough parking and there is space for three more people to park, this will help the company in its M-1 function. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that Conditions 1 and 2 of the June 19, 1990 use permit shall be met except that the number of employees in Unit J shall be increased to seven (7); (2) that regardless of remodeling within the improved office area the proportion of 1,862 SF of office and 2,489 SF of warehouse in Unit J shall remain fixed and the office area shall not be distributed throughout the warehouse square footage; and (3) that the site shall be reviewed for consistency with these conditions in May of 1992 and/or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PERMIT EXTENSIONS 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 5/13/91 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed this request for a one year extension. C. Jacobs moved for approval of a one year extension to May 8, 1992 of the condominium permit at 1445 E1 Camino Real and to recommend to City Council extension to May 8, 1993 of the tentative condominium map. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Mink absent. 8. EXTENSION OF VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR A THREE UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 910 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 5/13/91, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed this request for a one year extension. C. Graham moved for approval of a one year extension to June 5, 1992 of the variance to allow construction of a three unit apartment building at 910 Howard Avenue. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 4-1 on voice vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Deal abstaining, C. Mink absent. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 13, 1991 PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 6, 1991 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary