Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.04.08CALL TO ORDER A regular was called 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 8, 1991 meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, April 8, 1991 at Commissioners Deal, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink None Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 25, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1617 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: what is exceptional about this lot to support the variance request; breakdown by address in determination of average front setback; how many buildings on this street are apartment buildings; were front setback measurements taken at the sidewalk or property line; clarify which area was used for determining the average front setback. Item set for public hearing April 22, 1991. 2. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1341 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 CP noted plans submitted today which included a small kitchenette and advised a second dwelling unit is not allowed in the R-1 district, accessory structures for living purposes can be considered but cannot include a kitchen. Requests: regarding providing privacy in the accessory structure for a nanny, nannies often live with the family, is the nanny taking care of the child or living independently in the pool house; what other alternatives has applicant considered, i.e., providing space within the house or an addition to the house; clarify item #2 in the special permit supplemental sheet, applicant talks about providing separate living quarters for good live-in care as well as people using this pool house for changing their clothes, this seems Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 8, 1991 a contradiction; comment from staff on limiting the permit to uses described by the applicant and to a given time period with automatic rollover if continuance is required. Item set for public hearing April 22, 1991. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A BAYFRONT PARAPET SIGN AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Requests: include in the staff report definition of secondary frontage; what percentage of hotel guests come to the Marriott with prior reservations; why does this signage have to be so large, bigger than the other parapet signs; ask applicant to consider what signs they are willing to give up if they want this sign; is sign visible from the ground at the airport; what other hotels have bay oriented signage. Item set for public hearing April 22, 1991. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. SPECIAL PERMITS AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING BATH, INCLUDING SHOWER, SINK AND TOILET, IN A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1233 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/8/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of plan permits and enforcement action for this detached garage, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. In discussion a Commissioner commented on his review of the Building Department file for this property; staff confirmed there was a tenant living in the main house at the present time. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Marco Venturino, applicant and property owner, was present. He stated there were two separate permits, to tear down the old garage and build a new one; at the time of final inspection rough plumbing was in, there was no toilet, the loft was there; at that time the building inspector approved the project and signed it off; in May, 1990 he applied for another permit to upgrade the electrical, during that inspection the inspector noted the plumbing and asked if he had a permit for it, applicant showed him the building permit, the inspector checked and red tagged the project. Mr. Venturino discussed this with the Director of Public Works who advised staff would approve the electrical permit if he would make application to the Planning Commission for a special permit for the plumbing and bathroom in the detached garage. Applicant advised he has been out of the country; he needs a special permit for the clerestory windows and the toilet. The ceiling in the garage is too low, vehicle parking area needs a 7' minimum, he has 6'-8" which is normal door height, the only way he could achieve this is to lower the floor which Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 8, 1991 would require regrading his driveway; he will be out of the country and not prepared to do this until June of next year. Commission/applicant discussion: Mr. Venturino advised he is a structural engineer; Commission noted the present tenants have two large cars and cannot park both of them in the garage with the access to the loft; applicant replied the city will permit only 500 SF for an accessory structure, his two smaller cars will fit in the garage. Responding to a comment that it was unusual to see a lavatory upstairs in such an accessory structure, applicant advised the loft area is his workshop, he will not put in a slop sink or shower, will have a toilet and sink only. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: a Commissioner noted he had been through the Building Department files and found the only reference to plumbing was an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet which was not stapled with the original plans, no inspector signed off on any part of the plumbing; regarding use of the accessory structure, the workshop area can never meet the requirements of the UBC, the ceiling is too low; have a problem with parking, the garage will not meet requirements for larger cars; am not against a low ceilinged loft area which is used for storage but the bathroom does not meet height requirement of the building code; height of the garage is only 6'-811, it should have been 7' and was not caught in plan check, and see why, reference to 6'-8" was made on a detail of construction showing a section of the second floor only, a small note on the elevation showed 7' high on the door so checker made a logical assumption ceiling was 71; floor of the loft could be raised up to achieve 7' clear over parking area and that area used for storage. Incorporating a Commissioner's suggestion for a condition, C. Deal moved for denial of the application for the reasons stated and with the following condition: (1) that all violations which remain in the garage shall be corrected to comply with all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City within 60 days of this action becoming final or of any City Council review or all improvements completed without a building permit shall be removed. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were noted. Since applicant had left by the time this vote was taken, CP advised she would notify the applicant in the morning of his appeal rights. 5. VARIANCES TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A TWO STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1347 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/8/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, similar application which was denied without prejudice on January 28, 1991, staff review, applicants' letter, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 8, 1991 required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: staff confirmed lot coverage is less than 40%; are there other alternatives to the driveway such as a shared easement; with a two story house next door, why is the declining height variance required, CP replied declining height envelope is relative to the plate line, not the roof peak, of the adjacent house. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert Lundstrom, applicant, was present. He stated they do not plan to separate the lots and like the space around the house, the 100' x 120' parcel has been evaluated by staff as one lot because access to the required off-street parking is on the second lot, since staff has judged this parcel to be one lot a 7' side setback is required rather than 4' which they meet, the county tax rolls show the parcel as two separate lots; they have eliminated the need for a lot line adjustment which eliminates a potential headache in the future, have had to redesign the interior reducing living space a bit, lot coverage is 36%; their neighbors on all sides of the property had no objections to the variance requests. Commissioner comment: if considered one lot why the need for two variances, applicants could use more of the area. Mr. Lundstrom thought the present location of the house is best aesthetically, easement to the side gives a feeling of more space, house is set back farther from the street than most houses in the neighborhood but this limits development at the rear, in order to preserve the lines and architectural style of the house this plan seems the best. Alan Olin, JD Associates, designer, spoke in favor: their clients want to preserve the right to sell off one of the lots in the future, this is the main reason they are attempting to keep the addition within Lot B; they would prefer to have the parcel evaluated as two separate lots, then only a 4' side setback would be required; applicants are not opposed to the five conditions upon sale of a lot to a separate owner, these conditions are on the project plans, they recognize the need for each property to stand on its own; when the addition was redesigned they eliminated approximately 75 SF of building area, there is no lot line adjustment as requested previously; front setback is rather large, this has further defined where the addition would have to be located; the arbor, solarium and part of one second floor room would have to be removed when the lots are separated. Commission and designer continued to discuss consideration of the parcel as one lot or two lots, a Commissioner questioned should applicants have all the benefits of a 100' lot as well as those of a 50' lot. Mr. Olin stated they did their best to redesign to comply with the requests at the last review, when the other lot is sold applicants will have to comply with the conditions of separation; there are several options if the lots are separated; a Commissioner thought a 4,000 SF house on a 50' x 120' lot would be too large. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 8, 1991 There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain from all discussion and from the vote. C. Jacobs found applicant has addressed most of Commission's concerns expressed at the time of the previous application, there are conditions if one of the lots is sold, it is possible to grant declining height and side setback variances, there is an easement so the addition will not block anyone's light, lot coverage is within code requirements, there is a large front setback, all the bigness is in the rear and there are a lot of big trees at the rear. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variances by resolution to be recorded with both properties with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: there was a concern that when the other lot was sold the applicants would find it a hardship to remove part of their house; there is a need to record the resolution at the county with both parcel numbers. Motion was approved on a 5-1-1- roll call vote, C. Graham voting no, C. Deal abstaining, with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 27, 1991 Sheets One (1) through Six (6) ; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (3) that when Lots A and B are separated the following conditions shall be met: (a) remove the existing portion of the house which is built in the area where the new driveway for Lot B will be placed; (b) provide a 12 foot wide paved driveway on Lot B; (c) provide curb cuts and driveway approach as per city code for Lot A; (d) provide backup for autos as per plan for Lot B; (e) all work shall conform to codes effective at the time of development of Lot A; and any ingress/egress easement shall require approval of the Planning Commission. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A CHANGE OF COPY TO AN EXISTING SIGN AT 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 4/8/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Vern Erickson, Economy Sign, Inc. was present. He advised the pole sign height was a rough estimate on his part. A Commissioner commented on how unusual it is to receive an application for a smaller sign. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 8, 1991 With the statement this is only changing one sign face for another, the new sign face area will be smaller, it can only have a positive impact, C. Galligan moved for approval of the sign exception by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 5, 1991 Sheets One (1), Two (2) and Three (3), and that the maximum size of the 'Porsche' portion of the pole sign shall be 43 SF; (2) that the applicant shall apply for a sign exception for any additional signs to be put on this site or any changes in copy on these signs prior to installation of the sign or change in copy; and (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LIMOUSINE SERVICE AT 875 MAHLER ROAD AND 1560B GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 4/8/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted a letter from the property managers of the building at 1560 Gilbreth (April 4, 1991) regarding repair of the blacktop. CE advised the suggested blacktop repair was appropriate. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Sam Amato, Gateway Limousines, applicant, responded to a question, he advised the drivers prefer to keep their personal cars inside and interchange with the limousines when they come to work. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found this use is nothing new in this area of the city where businesses are located on two properties, all other requirements are met. He moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 22, 1991 Site Plan Gilbreth Road and Floor Plan of 875 Mahler Road; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of February 26, 1991 (no service of vehicles to be done at the 1560B Gilbreth or 875 Mahler site, except filling of oil pan when needed); the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of February 25, 1991 (no exterior vehicle washing or maintenance to be done at either site); and the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of February 25, 1991 (the applicant shall apply for a change in occupancy permit from B-2 to M-1) shall be met; (3) that no more than six limousines shall be stored in the garage at the 1560B Gilbreth Road location, no limousines shall be stored outside at 1560B Gilbreth Road, and no limousines shall be stored at the 875 Mahler Road location; (4) that the pavement at 1560B Gilbreth Road shall be repaired in compliance with the April 4, 1991 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 8, 1991 letter submitted by the property managers and as reviewed by the City Engineer; and (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 1, 1991 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary