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