Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.04.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 22, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, April 22, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Mink Absent: Kelly Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, -City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 8, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AERIAL ANTENNA ON THE ROOF AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: why will antenna not be visible; it appears it will be visible depending upon distance from the structure, if it will be visible what kind of screening is proposed.; picture or diagram of what the antenna will look like. Item set for public hearing May 13, 1991. 2. FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A CARPORT AT 40 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: reason for the carport covering only two spaces; location of the new handicapped stall; why not cover the new handicapped stall; is a metal building legal now; what is unusual about this site to justify the variance request; nature of this company's business, how long does a typical customer stay on site. Item set for public hearing May 13, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 22, 1991 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE AT 1617 SANCHEZ AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/22/91, 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. Graham opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, was present. He presented seven letters in support of the 15' front setback from the following neighbors: Ellen L. and Richard L. Florio, 950 Newhall Road; Joseph and Alannah Hurley, 1622 Forest View Avenue; Jerold Ruggiero, 1624 Forest View Avenue; Archie and Audrey Fabbri, owners of 1608 Sanchez Avenue; Dona Carmack, 1605 Sanchez Avenue; David Fambrini, 1521 Sanchez Avenue; Robert V. and Ellie Rowland, owners of 1609 Sanchez Avenue. His comments: using the minimum 15' front setback would allow for more livable outdoor space in the rear yard, it would also have less impact on adjacent yards; the house has been designed to match homes already in the area, the two adjacent homes are L shaped and applicants have adjusted their design to fit in with these homes; he noted the importance of outdoor living space and to have this at the rear of the house, if the required front setback were used there would be much less outdoor living space at the rear. Commission/architect discussion/comment: lot coverage is 38.8%, floor area of the building is 4,039 SF including the garage; a three car garage leaves space for storage as well as space to store a boat or another vehicle off the street. A Commissioner noted that if the front setbacks for the two structures at each end of the block and the applicant's 15' were eliminated the average front setback would be 35.81; this house is too big for the lot and may change the look of openness on this street. Architect discussed placement and size of existing houses on the block; he did not believe the proposed house would appear as large as the house on Newhall, it has been stepped back and the roof line broken up which will minimize the visual impact of its size on the neighbors, leaving sun and open space available to the adjacent homes; they are asking for the variance to allow a larger rear yard, therefore the house would infringe much less on the adjacent homes; they have tried to build the type of house the area demands. Commissioner comment: this is a delightful side of this street, Commission must look at it for the good of the city; what is unusual about this lot other than it is the last undeveloped lot? Architect stated it is unusual because it is the last lot being developed on that section of Sanchez, there are only two new structures on this block, most of the others were built before the city had established setback requirements and these homes have created the image on the street today; if homes are expanded to the rear they will impact neighbors' Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 22, 1991 rear yards; if a home is sensitively designed it can fit into the neighborhood with a 15' front setback and not be detrimental to the area. Richard Varni, property owner, 1617 Sanchez Avenue noted he has a 56' rear yard, his home is next to this vacant lot; there is a new house to the right of him which has a 17' rear yard which is a driveway, from his house he sees a solid two story wall, they are trying not to have that happen with the new house; on the other side of the street on this portion of Sanchez there are front setbacks down to 10' and those are deeper lots than this 141' lot; they would like to keep the three car garage and keep all cars on site. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs commented she has always been in favor of people having backyards, but there is a need to protect the character of the neighborhood, she could not find exceptional circumstances to support the variance request, the house is very large, applicant could have a nice sized house with all the backyard amenities and meet all the requirements of the code, most backyards are against each other, applicant could add plantings for privacy. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variance for the reasons stated, seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: basically the problem is not that the house is too large but with a three car garage the property can't take it, looking at it from the front one will see a lot of concrete, garage and concrete, it will affect.the streetscape; typical lots in the area are 50' x 100-1201, this lot is 50' x 1401, applicant could have a 35'-45' front setback and have a typical rear yard, lots across the street look like 100' deep rather than 1201, house could be designed to meet code; letter from the resident directly behind the site said he did not want this house just 15' from his property line for privacy purposes, think 15' is too close, would feel comfortable with 20' setback in the rear, 20' might provide more of a compatible distance from the street; applicant could modify the plans and still maintain the character of the design, think this would be better than just building something according to code, the lot is big enough to support a three car garage, anything to help get cars off the street would be a benefit. Further comment: applicant can move the structure back, people do not necessarily want the biggest possible house, they want space also, why not scale down the rooms and keep the extra space on the lot; city must be concerned about the way the house looks, the front will be a garage and concrete; with reference to the general plan, this design violates about half the statements in the open space element, it has massive bulk, a concrete driveway 600+ SF, applicant is asking for living space at the rear of the house the cost of which will be an unpleasant view in the front for the neighbors. Motion to deny the variance was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 22, 1991 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, LANDS OF O'CONNOR, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 2811 HILLSIDE DRIVE Reference staff report, 4/22/91, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this proposal, history of annexation, tentative map review criteria, physical design of subdivision improvements, other review criteria, study meeting questions and staff concerns, Planning concerns, findings and action on the mitigated negative declaration, action on the tentative map. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration and attachment to the tentative map. CE noted Conditions 9-12 are at issue with the applicant. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert and Jo Ann O'Connor, applicants and property owners, were present. Mr. O'Connor stated they live at 2811 Hillside Drive. His comments: a couple years ago they built the new residence at 2801 Summit Drive in the unincorporated county, it was not until they annexed into the City of Burlingame that they were aware of the problem with height of the house and slope on the driveway on Summit, they met all UBC requirements and told their builder to meet all regulations of the city and county, during the annexation process they were made aware they did not conform to city codes. Commenting on the house on the Hillside property, off-street parking has been in existence for a long time, narrowing of the street has presented problems for neighbors across the street, the pad in front was put in by the previous owners of 2811 Hillside because of a series of accidents, there was a need to keep cars off the street at the point where it narrows. Regarding the city's requirement for a covered garage, the house was built in 1913, has been in existence all those years without a garage, they have enjoyed using the yard, there is sufficient off-street parking for themselves and guests and occasionally they provide parking space for neighbors. A Commissioner noted the May, 1990 City Council minutes in which applicant stated he was willing to make the corrections required by the city, now it appears he does not want to do so. Mr. O'Connor replied that reducing the height of the residence at 2801 Summit would substantially diminish the architectural integrity of the property, they want to protect the English Tudor style and are now asking for reconsideration. Responding to another question, applicant confirmed that when he planned and had the house at 2801 Summit designed it was his intention to annex to the City of Burlingame and then split the lot. He was asked if his architect was aware of this; architect responded he considered subdivision but not annexation to Burlingame, and considered San Mateo County regulations only. Commission asked applicant's civil engineer, Redmond Walsh, what the problem was with correcting the Summit driveway to the City Engineer's recommendations. Mr. Walsh stated 20% is what is allowable if approved by the City Engineer, when doing the subdivision development he did a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 22, 1991 survey of buildings already there, he was not involved in the construction of the house on Summit, Mr. O'Connor was never aware that the city's regulations had not been met; it was Mr. Walsh who discovered the deficiencies in height of the residence and slope of the driveway at 2801 Summit. When Mr. O'Connor agreed to cut 3' off the top of the house he really wasn't aware of what it would mean. Mr. Walsh could not see the need for demolishing the driveway and garage at 2801 Summit and then rebuilding, trying to change what exists is not a simple matter. Mr. Walsh stated the cost to reduce the driveway slope and demolish/rebuild the garage could total $75,000-$100,000. Architect advised the structure was designed on piers 15' deep under the garage, to remove and relevel would be extremely expensive. Responding to a question about his stamp on plans submitted, Mr. Walsh said his license did not expire in 1989, he used the wrong stamp; he was not the civil engineer on the structural work for the 2801 Summit building, just for the tentative map which was done later. Commissioner comment: think the driveway could be reduced, upper portion of the piers cannot be used for the calculation, basically those piers could be reduced in height without losing any structural integrity of the building. Mr. O'Connor agreed with another comment that theoretically two covered parking spaces could be put in the side setback at 2811 Hillside, but another variance for side setback would be required. Mrs. O'Connor advised the trees which would need to be removed were 15 years old. A Commissioner asked applicant if it was his intention from the beginning to have the lot annexed into Burlingame and then split, and was this done with no knowledge of the parking requirements of the City of Burlingame, did applicant realize parking was nonconforming when he started? Mr. O'Connor stated he did not have that information at that time. The Commissioner found it unbelievable someone would go forward with this project and not investigate the requirements of the City of Burlingame. Applicant did not believe this was a factor now, what should be addressed is whether it is in the best interests of the city, the occupants, the neighborhood and the need to maintain the existing uncovered off-street parking. George Worrall, 2806 Hillside Drive (directly across the street from 2811 Hillside) spoke in favor: the circular drive has been a big help to him when he backs out of his driveway into the street, there have been fewer accidents, it is a benefit to have the O'Connor cars off the street. Commission and applicant again discussed the fact that there is no off- street covered parking on the 2811 Hillside site; applicant stated he wished to retain his property rights, he has owned this property for six years and built the home in the back on Summit. It was again pointed out that applicant had agreed with City Council to do the things required in Conditions 9-12 regarding correcting to city zoning standards and now he has changed his mind. Mr. O'Connor said they have done many of the things required by the City Engineer, they are only Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 22, 1991 requesting variances to minor items, height of the Summit residence, parking and driveway. He was told Commission does not consider these items minor, a precedent will be set by annexing a lot that doesn't meet city regulations. Applicant commented they have a large home and large family and need the circular drive for six cars driven by five family members. A Commissioner commented applicants are asking for all their rights but not looking out for the city. During further discussion it was determined the lot could not have been subdivided in the county, it is large enough for a second unit but not large enough for subdivision in the county. Mrs. Brown, tenant at 2801 Summit Drive, spoke to Commission: they have two cars and park in the garage or in the driveway, they drive in and out every day, it is functional and keeps cars off the street, their cars have not been damaged. Engineer Walsh wished to reiterate that the O'Connors are not devious people. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented on CE's recommendation on the driveway slope, transition top and bottom; Tables A and B, Conformity/Nonconformity with Zoning Requirements were very helpful. Staff advised conditions on the tentative map must be met in order to approve the final map. C. Jacobs moved for acceptance of Mitigated Negative Declaration ND - 443P by resolution with the finding that based on the initial study and comments received there is no substantial evidence this project will have a significant effect on the environment and the mitigations will reduce the impact of the project to levels considered acceptable to the community. Seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. C. Jacobs found the tentative map, with the mitigations encompassed in staff's 12 conditions, to be in compliance with all tentative map review criteria of the subdivision code, including compliance with creek lot requirements and safety considerations. C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative parcel map to City Council for approval with the 12 conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Galligan. Discussion on the motion: do not have a problem with the extra 3' height on the Summit Drive house, it will not create a noticeable change, parking and safety of the driveway are the important issues; would not want to set a precedent which indicates if something is there it will be approved; have no problem with Condition #9 regarding the driveway at 2108 Summit but agree with applicant concerning Conditions 11 and 12 for 2811 Hillside, would also like to add a condition requiring that the lights on the tennis court not be installed without approval of staff. C. Jacobs amended her motion to delete Condition #10 requiring reduction of the height of the 2108 Summit Drive residence, accepted by the seconder, C. Galligan. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 22, 1991 Comments on the motion: agree height of the residence at 2108 Summit makes no difference, am not sure the driveway is unsafe, had no problem driving it myself, feel strongly about the parking conditions at 2811 Hillside, there must be adequate covered parking for that house; the driveway slope at 2108 Summit should be reduced, have been through this process myself, the cost is worth it and makes a great difference; regarding parking for the Hillside site, existing parking is better than no parking at all, who put the swimming pool where a garage could be located, must get the cars off the street, will reluctantly support Conditions 11 and 12. Comment continued: share this reluctance, putting a garage on the property does not solve the problem, it creates a problem, there is more than adequate space for parking and it is being used at this time, taking out the circular driveway will be detrimental to all other properties. A Commissioner commented it would be possible to add a garage in front of the pool and still retain the circular driveway, staff noted it would be possible but not in accordance with the present code. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no, C. Kelly absent. Approved conditions follow: (1) that all recommendations contained in the soils report dated December 17, 1990 and prepared by T. L. Adams and Associates for the protection of the creek shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer; (2) that all detailed construction plans for accommodating the drainage from Parcel B through Parcel A as shown on the tentative map shall be submitted and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer; (3) that a covenant on the final map shall create the necessary drainage easements through Parcel A as shown on the tentative map; this covenant shall be nonrescindable without the written consent of the City of Burlingame; (4) that the pool equipment located at proposed rear property line of Parcel B shall be enclosed in a soundproof structure approved by the Chief Building Official and shall meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 23.01.040; (5) that in accordance with Ordinance 1329, the sewer lateral at 2811 Hillside Drive from house to main shall be tested and necessary repairs shall be made; (6) that the existing asphalt sidewalk on Hillside Drive shall be removed and replaced with 5' concrete sidewalk designed to city standards; (7) that the applicant shall pay for the repair of any damaged pavement and the slurry sealing of the total width of Summit Drive fronting this site; ( 8 ) that the final map shall not be recorded until the applicant has received all the required approvals necessary and constructs all on-site improvements conditioned to city standards; (9) that the driveway at 2108 Summit Drive shall be rebuilt to reduce driveway slope to less than 20% with grade transition at the street and garage by lowering garage slab and driveways (Section 25.70.020(c)(3), maximum 15% grade or 20% if approved by Public Works); approval of proposed new driveway from the City Engineer shall be required; (10) that two covered parking spaces shall be provided at 2811 Hillside Drive to current zoning code requirements; and (11) that the asphalt -paved circular driveway in front setback at 2811 Hillside Drive shall be removed and the curb cuts shall be restored to standard 6" curb. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 22, 1991 Staff will forward the tentative map to City Council. Recess 9:30 P.M.; reconvene 9:40 P.M. 5. SPECIAL PERMITS - 1341 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 This item was continued to the meeting of May 13, 1991. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FRAGRANCE AND PERFUME SHOP AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 4/22/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP confirmed this is a code enforcement item. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Carlos Parra, applicant, was present and advised Commission he wanted to add fine gift items to his inventory of perfumes, there would still be only one employee on site and about 15 customers a day. Commission/staff discussed noticing and dealing with the request at this time or requiring an amendment to any permit granted this evening; staff noted the need to notice property owners in the vicinity of the site of the change to the use permit request. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit for a fragrance and perfume shop by resolution with the following conditions:a (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 8, 1991 Sheet One only; (2) that the fragrance shop shall operate seven days a week between the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sunday, with a maximum of one employee on the site; (3) that this tenant space shall comply with the master signage program approved for this property and any subsequent amendments of this program including the prohibition of window signs, and shall not have any signs or other objects in the walkway in front of this shop or anywhere in the public right-of-way; (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (5) that all merchandise other than perfumes shall be removed from the sales area; and (6) that the applicant may, within 30 days, reapply (for the cost of the necessary noticing) to expand his merchandise, the purpose of this expanded application will be to clearly define what other merchandise he wishes to sell at this location. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 22, 1991 7. AMENDMENT TO A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A BAYFRONT PARAPET SIGN AT THE MARRIOTT HOTEL, 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 4/22/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request and history of approved signage on this site, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John Parke, Director of Marketing, Marriot -SFO, was present. His comments: the sign will be aesthetically pleasing, it will help boost customer recognition from the airport and help Marriott competitively, Marriott has no signs facing the airport or Highway 101, the last time this was considered not many people were convinced there were walk-up customers, Marriott does have walk-up customers, people arriving at the airport look for hotels in the area, with this sign loyal Marriott customers would give Marriott -SFO their business, this would give more tax revenue to the city, sign needs to be approximately the proposed size for visibility from the airport. Responding to questions, Mr. Parke said Sterling Suites and Holiday Inn do not have signs facing the airport but they do have signs which face Highway 101, Marriott has no signs facing either of these, Doubletree can be easily recognized from 101 also; Marriott's hotel listing at the airport is only the hotel name and phone number, many hotels are listed there; when flying in Marriott does not even look like a hotel. Stan Moore, Marriott -SFO general manager, was also present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement the city does a lot to make its car rental agencies visible, a sign on the bay will be seen from the bay and not by residents of the city, hotels do need identification, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: concern that Burlingame will look like Las Vegas, Commission has talked about freeway oriented signs, do we want bay oriented signs; have flown in and out of the airport and have not looked in that direction, do not think the location of the sign fits the legal definition of secondary frontage. CP commented on the city's policy and discussions over the years regarding bayfront signage and definition of secondary frontage. Further Commission comment: Doubletree's sign with 5' letters can be clearly seen; it does not matter what a departing passenger sees, the real issue is incoming flights, one has to sit on the left side of the plane, arrive during the night and be looking for a sign; the best place for advertising is in the baggage area at the airport; agree with the logic but not with the numbers, if 31, 41, 5' signs are allowed others will want them and they will get bigger and bigger until the city has a Las Vegas strip; if this is approved other hotels will want an eastern exposure sign; it Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 22, 1991 makes more sense to change the code so nobody feels they are at a disadvantage, perhaps allowing a logo; signs are increasing and getting larger because of the present economic situation; would like Planning Commission and City Council to discuss the issue and develop a policy on signage for all the hotels. Continuing comment: made the motion to approve the sign exception because this signage faces the east; think the city has a reasonable sign code, it was thought out carefully, agree the bikeway is not a secondary frontage. Motion to approve the sign exception failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Galligan, Graham and Mink voting no, C. Kelly absent. C. Mink moved to deny the sign exception, seconded by C. Ellis. Motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Galligan and Jacobs voting no, C. Kelly absent. After discussion about the possibility of denying this application without prejudice, C. Mink made a motion to deny the sign exception, seconded by C. Ellis; the motion was approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Deal and Jacobs voting no, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE OF THE 24 HOUR DAY CARE FACILITY PROPOSED BY SAN MATEO COUNTY AT 945 CALIFORNIA DRIVE ZONED C-2 Reference staff memo with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed legal context of this proposal, project description, general plan designation, zoning designation, staff conclusions. Commission comment: concern about use of the second floor of this structure for a training center; impact on on -street parking on nearby streets; have heard many complaints from neighborhood residents who live near schools about pick-up and drop-off of children; this type of facility is needed. C. Ellis found that this proposal for a 24 hour day care facility at 945 California Drive is in general conformance with the general plan, seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Kelly absent. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Staff memo, review of special permit for a trucking operation associated with warehouse use at 1873 Rollins Road Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 22, 1991 CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 15, 1991 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary