Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.08.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1992 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, August 10, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: Commissioners Ellis, Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Philip Monaghan, Associate! Civil Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the July 27, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: page 3, last paragraph, condition 11 should read: ". . . and revised site plan date stamped July 1, 1992". GA ENDA - Item 113 should read: "Special Permit Amendment for long term airport parking and tree special permits for landscaping at 765 Airport Boulevard . . . . " ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD A SOLARIUM OVER A PROPOSED EXERCISE POOL, LOT COVERAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A PATIO COVER AT 3121 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: need exceptional circumstances relating to the property to support the variance requests; are exceptional circumstances relating to a person a proper consideration for variance findings; why an electric pool cover would not solve the problem with pool cover removal; it appears the purpose is to have a covered pool area, if that is the case it appears the pool size is substantially smaller than the enclosure, is that the true purpose of this application, does the enclosure have to be so large; a simple interior plan of the house, what rooms would be next to the pool; can a variance be allowed for a certain period of time; if pool cover could be reduced to 41% lot coverage this request would be a minor modification, since the pool cover is an extension of an existing setback that: setback variance could also be a minor modification, can the CP grant two minor modifications; are there provisions for a special permit for temporary structures since this pool cover can be dismantled and is not a permanent fixture. Item set for public hearing August 24, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 10, 1992 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS AT 1544 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: poles and strings to indicate the footprint of the area to be added in the rear; this site is on a sloping lot, see no documentation on declining height envelope, how would this be affected. Item set for public hearing August 24, 1992. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS AT 1049 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2 Requests: will signage on the rear of the building be removed; address signage inside the window. Item set for public ]hearing August 24, 1992. •' • 4. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND MINOR MODIFICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A FIRST FLOOR BREAKFAST ROOM ADDITION AT 2907 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, letters calling this project up for review and concerns expressed, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Vytautas Sliupas, property owner, was present. He referred to his letter of July 27, 1992, there are no technical objections to his proposal, the only objections seem to be from his neighbors; he plans to move back to Burlingame and wants the addition since the house at present has no view, two story house to the east blocks his view of the bay, neighbor across the street has a two story house which blocks views; neighbor to the south was permitted to add a second story which blocks views; he admitted his house is the worst looking on the street, they would like to remodel and have a view in this area where everyone else has a view; the roof has been neglected during the last year, shingles have fallen off, they hope to remodel with an American Colonial design, biggest problem is the Eichler design which has a flat roof, they have had to repair the roof five times since they bought the home and would like to replace it now with a pitched roof. They are not planning to sell the house and want to move back in, it will no longer be rental property, they will be taking good care of it. Mr. Sliupas continued: the biggest problem for views are the trees, he had a lot of bottle brush in the yard which were blocking views of their uphill neighbor, he cut them down when asked, others uphill benefitted from this; there is another huge tree on his lot which blocks view of one of the uphill neighbors, they are willing to cut down their trees but would also like a view themselves. Responding to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes .Page 3 August 10, 1992 Commission questions, applicant advised he had been in the house next door a few years ago and had talked to the previous owner; he has taken photos from the yards of other uphill neighbors and commented he could lower the cathedral ceilings to help their view; he had not talked to the neighbors about his present plans. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Ruth Gardner, 1837 Sebastian Drive: she lives below the proposed addition; she objected on three issues, the side setback variance and close proximity of the proposed breakfast room, it will be difficult to maintain her landscaping on this steep hill, will the city be liable for any problems; she must use a narrow walkway on top of the hill which will look directly into the proposed breakfast room; she was concerned about emergencies, is the 4'-6" width sufficient room for equipment to maneuver; loss of privacy in her yard was another concern, breakfast room will look into her garden, the addition will overlook a secondary outside seating .area which she enjoys, it would be unfair if she must sacrifice her privacy and use of her yard; she was concerned about preservation of the Mills Estate, retaining its openness, ambience, sense of neighborhood; the proposed addition does not fit into this area of low profile homes, open terraces, hillside lots. Loren Acorn, 2919 Frontera Way: he lives two doors up from the site, has lived there for seven years; he looked at many Eichler homes and purchased his house because of the view which extended from north of the airport to south of the San Mateo bridge; a proposal was made to add a second story to a home just down from him, a structure was put on the roof to indicate impact which appeared to be: minimal, but the completed addition totally destroyed his view of the San Mateo bridge; two or three years ago he remodeled his kitchen expanding his view with added windows as well as enlarging existing windows, this current proposal would significantly damage that view; he could understand applicant's desire for a view but it should not be attained at the expense of the neighbors; applicant talks about fixing the roof and the roof leaking, a major construction which blocks; neighbors' views should not be permitted just to repair a roof. Calvin Thomas, 2925 Frontera Way: his home is third house•up from the site, he is one of the original owners in that area and his view will be affected; applicant's site was never a view lot. Jim Grady, 2913 Frontera Way: this addition will alter the neighborhood in a negative manner, it will be a massive addition which will not fit in, blocking views from several different directions; he presented photographs of what is there now and what might be taken away; he did not want overbuilt houses to be the trademark of this area. Renee Lamb, 2913 Frontera ,Way: she felt there had been a positive result of this proposal, the neighbors have become better acquainted; she bought her house because of views and the neighborhood, there is a feeling of openness, view of the sky, the bay and distant hills, lights at night; they do not want that view removed; applicant could expand to the rear of his lot, suggest he come up with an alternative which partially Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 10, 1992 meets his desires but doesn't affect the neighbors; she appreciated applicant's offer to trim landscaping, a significant part of their view has been blocked by what was allowed to grow up, think the city should have an ordinance to prevent landscaping from blocking views. John Jones, 1306 Frontera Way, Millbrae: he bought his home 26 years ago, when he moved in there were no Eichler homes in Burlingame; applicant hasn't lived on this site for 14 years and wonders why it looks in disrepair. Lena Duca, 1312 Frontera Way: bought their home in 1965, have since lost view in back, with this addition will her view in front also be blocked, when applicant bought his house he knew he didn't have a view; the Ducas bought for a view, there is no two story house across the street on Frontera. Peter Salvaressa, 1830 Sebastian Drive: he is the oldest resident in the area, all streets stopped at Sebastian at the time he moved in; applicant's house was always in a bowl; original developer's intent stated in part that no lot or building site shall be used for purposes other than residential; there have been rumors that this house will be used for more than that; intent was that no house be used for more than one family, 15' front setback, 7.5' side setback, now the required side setback is 6' and applicant wants to cut this; new homes were sold at premium in this area, one story single family homes; laws change but houses which overshadow and block views of adjacent homes do not add to the neighborhood. Applicant spoke in rebuttal: he felt his request had fallen on deaf ears, his house is not for sale, he bought it in 1970, lived there until 1977 when his company sent him out of the country, in 1984 he came back to this house, lived there for 2-1/2 years, then moved to South Lake Tahoe; they now plan to return to Burlingame and live in this home but do not want to upset the neighbors; Jim Grady and Renee Lamb (2913 Frontera Way) apparently did not appreciate the fact that he cut the bottle brush, he will be happy to cut whatever they want. Applicant asked Planning Commission to deny his request without prejudice so that he could redesign to one story and not block views. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham noted the neighbors' comments about size, bulk, mass and aesthetics do not fall on deaf ears, Planning Commission and City Council have been continuing to grapple with those issues in the hillside areas; the disrepair of this house is not a factor in a decision on a hillside area construction permit, the proposal will block existing distant views of nearby properties, that is what the ordinance is about; Ms. Lamb's suggestion about expanding to the rear is a good one but lot coverage is already at 36% and may be a problem. C. Graham moved for denial of this application, site did not see how applicant could modify this proposal to make it acceptable, the house has not changed since he bought it. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 10, 1992 Comment on the motion: the CC&R's in 159/160 have expired, even if there were a side setback requirement of 7' the existing house has only 5' and they are requesting 4.51; applicant has recognized the problem in trying to negotiate a difficult situation, he needs to work with the neighbors, would suggest a denial without prejudice_ If denied and revised plans were submitted within a year's time CP must find the project is substantially different, she would look at height and side setback. It was suggested applicant pay close attention to increase in lot coverage since existing lot coverage is 36%. Speaking to the residents in the audience this evening a Commissioner noted Commission has been dealing with hillside area construction permits for several years, he suggested any additions be discussed with one's neighbors first. Motion to deny the application was approved 4-1-2 on roll call vote, C. Galligan dissenting, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR PATIO ENCLOSURE AND DECK AT 2825 LAS PIEDRAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, trees removed behind 2825 Las Piedras and Parks Director's report of his site inspection, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner asked if the roof line of the patio cover was the same as the house. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Chester Wong, property owner, was present. He advised height of the patio roof will be a little above the eaves at this point. He had checked view from his uphill neighbor's house, proposal would not block long distance views, only view of house downhill and about half of Peninsula Hospital, he cut trees to improve view to the south, he has gone to extra expense to try and give this neighbor more view in exchange for the little he would block. Rita Crowe, 2821 Las Piedras Drive, spoke in favor: she did not think there would be any blockage of view, neighbor above had no view until the trees were removed, she shared the cost of tree removal with Dr. Wong. Steve Lin, 2829 Las Piedras Drive, spoke in opposition: he lives on the uphill side of this site, has some view now, this proposal will block views from their family room and back yard; Dr. Wong did cut the trees but trees will grow back and block view again, until he can be sure these trees are permanently removed he cannot support the application. Mr. Lin presented photographs to illustrate his remarks. Commission/Lin discussion: applicant removed trees to give Mr. Lin more view so he could add a patio cover; if patio is extension of natural roof line there will be no impact on view; roof on patio will never be above the eave. Mr. Lin confirmed he was 1' back from the window when Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 10, 1992 he took his pictures. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham referred to Mr. Lin's photo, if patio cover is no higher than the eave all that is lost is view of roofs below and lower half of Peninsula Hospital, considering the overall view do not find this to be much of a loss. C. Graham moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit based on a finding that long distance views will not be obstructed by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 11, 1992 Sheets 1 and 2; (2) that the finish metal material used on the patio cover shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed 20'-0" from the existing grade and that the framing shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing material is attached; (4) that the applicant shall not participate in or undertake any further individual or cooperative tree cutting or trimming on this lot or those immediately adjacent without the review and approval of the Director of Parks; and (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 301 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Ken Ibarra, architect representing the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kaluza, was present. He referred to his letter addressing the required findings for a variance; he felt this project would fall. under the minor modifications section of the code; due to location of the existing house on this corner lot expansion is limited, property owners want to add a family room and bathroom and enlarge an existing bedroom; he compared what could be done with an interior lot of this size; the addition will not be detrimental to the neighbors, the house will remain one story and blends with the character of existing homes in the area; he thought a 1' variance was not too much to ask. Richard Kaluza, property owner, advised he had talked to his neighbors about his plans, particularly the neighbor who would be most affected by the 1' variance; he presented 20 letters from neighbors in the area stating they had no objection. The Kaluzas wanted to keep within the aesthetics of the area, wanted a single story, there will be no windows Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 10, 1992 on that side of the house. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this is a modest addition, property owners have considered their neighbors, there are exceptional c:irc_umstances in the placement of the house on the corner lot. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the side setback variance, incorporating information in the staff report, by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 6, 1992 Sheets A.3., A.3 and A.6; (2) that the finish material used on both the flat and sloping portion of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:15 P.M.; reconvene 9:25 P.M. 7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR ONE UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AT 128 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jim Lundy, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised they can park two cars inside the garage, the driveway takes most vehicles. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. -Jacobs found this is a modest addition, the CE had no concerns, they are not asking for a large remodel, it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and will make the house usable for the family; she could see no problem with a 19' driveway. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 9, 1992 Sheets Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 with a 10' wide and 17' deep uncovered parking space; ( 2 ) that the south side setback on the new addition shall be 5'-1" as shown on Sheet A2; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: addressing exceptional circumstances, garage is attached to the house unlike a number of houses in the neighborhood and does not afford property owners the ability to expand that some other homes have. Motion was Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 10, 1992 approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. ACE Monaghan summarized the request, described the request, the access to each lot, staff concerns including future development resulting in requests for variances not shown to be needed now, reviewed Planning Commission questions at study addressing trees, soils stability, past subdivision of parcel, location of new access, street frontage dimensions; reviewed criteria for review of a proposed map. In response: to Commissioners' questions ACE Monaghan clarified the date on the map being considered is August 5, 1992; any future structures designed for these lots would require review and a hillside area construction permit; no structural envelopes or designs are proposed at this time; a single driveway to access all three lots, existing and two new, was not submitted; the properties are located in Burlingame as are a number on that side of Adeline, the county boundary is along the street frontage on this side of Adeline, e.g., the entire right-of-way is in the county. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. James Fife, 2918 Adeline Drive, applicant and property owner, noted that they tried to design the project so that no variances would be required to develop the lots, there were cheaper alternatives such as having one house built at street level, but sight lines on Adeline were affected, .and setback and other variances would be required. The proposed driveway shown will be considerably more expensive to build than placing this house at street level. The neighbor downhill wants his own driveway, the driveway has been shared since the 1970's, that is why one driveway was not shown for three lots. Also the grade for one driveway would not work. He has reevaluated the location of the telephone pole, and feels it can be relocated so that it will be out of the view of neighbors across the street. Charles Kavanagh, engineer, then noted that they had been careful to provide information and evaluate different situations. He noted they tried to maintain space between houses, placing the house off Adeline at street level would affect sight lines, would also need a variance to height in order to develop, so they placed it downhill with its own access drive. Robert Weisgerber, 2917 Adeline Drive, spoke representing himself and Beryl Linton, 2915 Adeline Drive, who could not attend. He noted their lots were on the other side of the street in the county; the new driveway would be opposite the drive shared by him and Ms. Linton. The proposed phone pole relocation would be a problem because it would affect their view, favored moving the pole 15 feet uphill; issue was where the houses would be placed, what would they look like; conditions Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 9 ,August 10, 1992 should be added requiring the relocation of the phone pole and getting PG&E agreement for new location; city should have an ordinance regulating the growth of trees which block views. John Hall, 2910 Adeline, spoke next, he lives next floor and has the existing driveway. The lots in the county are smaller than the lots in Burlingame and should not be included in the numbers for compatible lot size, thus the lot proposed is too small and does not fit the existing pattern of lots; applicant will divide and sell, others will develop, concern with future development of lots; discrepancy between the proposed map and the map done at the time his lot was created, driveway slopes on new map appear to be flatter, shows them within city requirements but if eliminate flat area at top from average slopes, closer to the 17% plus slope shown on his original map; construction equipment should not use his driveway, driveway was damaged in 1989 earthquake, equipment would cause more, use for construction goes beyond what he thought he was agreeing to when accepted the easement; wife has allergies and would be seriously affected by construction activities; applicant spoke to him early on about division which could include both their properties, but no conversation since he said he was not interested; the Fife house was built first, his house was built in 1975, easement for use of residents of two houses; he would like to have a private driveway; he maintains the present drive. Art Kluge, 2900 Adeline Drive, noted he was opposed because of the danger caused to traffic on Adeline by parking construction equipment and the new driveway. If his property is damaged he wants to be reimbursed. Eleanor Zenovich, 2930 Adeline Drive, also spoke in opposition. No one spoke to her about dividing this site; she will lose view and privacy; the proposed off-street parking area for Parcel A will need high retaining walls below her lot, she should be reimbursed for any damage to her lot, her patio is already breaking up; the new lot is .35 acres, her lot is one acre, the new lot does not meet the pattern in the area. Resident and property owner, 2848 Adeline Drive, noted the street is 15 feet wide by his house, effectively one way; the Black Hawk development caused considerable trouble and the houses have not sold; water is limited, fire department had to use his pool water; city should end speculation. Jane Hall, 2910 Adeline Drive, noted that her driveway was so narrow it would allow only one way traffic, how were they to manage during construction. In response Charles Kavanagh, engineer, noted that the driveway slopes have not been detailed out, they are about 15 percent; a second driveway parallel to Mr. Hall's would take out a lot of trees and the geometry required by the City Engineer cannot be met, would result in driveways overlapping and the need to rebuild Mr. Hall's driveway, garage and retaining wall; they intend to use Parcel A for access for construction, cement trucks would be parked on Adeline and the cement pumped down onto the site; if Mr. Hall's driveway were damaged they Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 10, 1992 would not patch but would replace. There was no further testimony and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: C. Jacobs moved to recommend denial of the project to the City Council. She did not feel that Parcel A was compatible in size with the surrounding parcels, the development would affect Adeline sight lines which are already a problem and would make exiting the site a problem and the soils on the canyon rim are unstable. The motion was seconded by C. Graham who noted given the curves on Adeline the access to these lots is very poor, not safe. Commissioner comment on the motion: the negative declaration should be acted on first; on the negative declaration it was noted that the conditions cited exist, the negative declaration should be approved since no rare and endangered animals or plants will be affected and city services are available. C. Jacobs moved that the negative declaration be approved. C. Galligan seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Mink and Ellis absent. Comment on the original motion to recommend denial of the tentative map to City Council: there were arguments on both :sides; Halls would benefit if responsibility for repair and maintenance of the driveway were shifted to Mr. Fife; the biggest problem is the parcel size, the new 15,000 SF lot is not compatible with other lots in Burlingame, smallest existing is 21,000 SF and the balance of lots are 75,000 SF or more. Could add street frontage to Parcel A to make bigger but then have lot with no street frontage, not meet code requirements; since there is a fire access road to the rear which may some day be developed the remaining 75,000 SF lot could possibly be divided again into two. The Commission called for the question. The motion to recommend denial was approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. 9. VARIANCE FOR ENCLOSURE OF REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT 1216 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 10. FINAL MAP AMENDMENT - 1216 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 These two items were withdrawn by the property owner. 11. PARKING VARIANCES FOR TWO STALLS AND BACKING ONTO A PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY FOR A NEW BUILDING AT 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of the site, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested. for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question staff advised if the mezzanine were eliminated it would make virtually no difference in the parking requirement; handicapped bathroom requirements were also discussed. -- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 August 10, 1992 Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. John Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue, applicant, advised they were requesting the variances in order to service customers, four parking stalls are all that can be put on this property, they seldom have more than two people using parking spaces at one time; now they are following through on the application for William Britton, property owner, there is no way they can afford this building with present economic conditions. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Harold Coffee, owner of the apartment building at 1210 Oak Grove Avenue across the street: they bought the property on Oak Grove in 1989, did not receive notice of the hearing for this building in 1989, the notice for tonight's meeting was received; he was concerned about parking confusion on San Mateo Drive, there is double parking along that street now, his tenants have trouble getting out of their parking spaces, people have even parked in his tenants' parking stalls while going to the laundry, he had a real concern about safety and Fire Department access. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found it difficult to approve this application, applicants say they are not going to use the building, do not want to approve until Commission knows who the tenant will be. C. Graham moved to deny the parking variances without prejudice, seconded by C. Jacobs, approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR 43 PARKING STALLS FOR THE SEISMIC UPGRADE AND REMODEL OF 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of the site, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question CP explained use of the mezzanine when this building was the Montgomery Ward building and changes in use of.the upper floors from the late 60's on. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Peter Schlosser, architect, discussed retail use of the entire building by Montgomery Ward; he thought fire exiting at all levels is now O.K.;; they are before Commission at this time for seismic upgrade, because of the cost property owner needs to maximize leasable space; project will meet all current regulations and safety standards; they will improve the Chapin Avenue frontage, interior of the building will be completely remodeled, all systems, existing •structure brought up to seismic standards; office space will be accessed from Chapin, they have eliminated access from Burlingame Avenue with the exception of first floor retail; they have no choice but to ask for a parking variance, basement parking would be economically prohibitive; regarding the requested parking study, it Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 August 10, 1992 would be expensive and gain of study limited, the parking requirement is such that inevitably they will put loading on parking off-site; one reason to allow the variance is to maintain the 1930's facade on Burlingame Avenue, if the variance is not granted they will have to demolish the building. Responding to Commission questions/ comments, architect commented on parking under the building, there is only 16' of clearance between center row of columns, the only viable solution would be submerged parking under the parking lot at the rear which would require ramps in and out, cost of excavation would be prohibitive. Architect addressed his July 6, 1992 letter concerning basement level parking in more detail. Staff discussed this property's participation in the parking district. Donald Davie, representing Maurice Hack of Boardwalk Properties, property owner, spoke in support: he said owner is willing to give up the two existing restaurants in exchange for the parking variance; he clarified continued use of the remodeled building by Retail Investors, Inc. and.parking spaces available if the two restaurants are given up; Mr. Hack has been in business in downtown Burlingame since 1947, if he does not get the variance he will have to look at: tearing down the building; decking the parking area at the rear is not economically viable; access to the office uses in the building will be from the ground floor off Chapin; a previous study was made of decking the parking area and found not viable. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: there is an increase in building size, this is a large variance, many downtown buildings need to be retrofitted, approval. of this variance will be precedent setting, cannot vote for the application; spent a lot of time reviewing this project attempting to decrease the number of cars in the parking variance, could get it down to a 33 car variance by using net usable square footage rather than gross square footage; have a bigger problem with additional square footage, perhaps elimination of the mezzanine is a possibility; this building is required to be retrofitted, am not worried about the two restaurants, they will go somewhere else on Burlingame Avenue; if applicant is willing to give up the restaurants and they go somewhere else that is not applicant's problem; applicant says in five years there will be 65 employees, if they had no customers at all they would still not come close to meeting the parking requirement, this has been a problem for a long time, what is being proposed is an intelligent solution to the retrofit problem but not an intelligent solution to the parking problem, have difficulty supporting the parking variance; could support if not expand the mezzanine, have a problem with expanded floor area. �1 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 August 10, 1992 Because of the size of the parking variance, because there are alternatives to provide more parking in the rear, because of the addition to the mezzanine and because no parking study documenting the scale of the impact has been provided, C. Jacobs moved for denial of this variance application, seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: this building at one time was used as retail, there are not too many four story buildings with two vacant floors of unreinforced masonry construction in downtown Burlingame, it would be taking away applicant's property rights to deny his request; if the square footage were not expanded think it would be O.K., there will be a deficiency in parking but buildings in that area are deficient in parking, do not like the parking variance but tend to support it; applicant has presented the project he wants, Commission should judge on that basis -and not suggest alternatives. Motion to deny the application was approved on a 4-1-2 roll call vote, C. Deal dissenting, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT' PARKING AND THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR LANDSCAPING AT 765 AIRPORT BLVD., ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. IKurt Scholtz, Polytech Associates, Inc., representing the property owner and applicant, Metro Park Corporation, was present. He advised property owners would not object to low growth trees inside the parking area. Mark Slichter, Callander Associates, landscape architects, noted landscaping within the shoreline band is 1% short of required landscaping; they propose to retain existing landscaping, if it were removed it would not provide as much screening for five years, they have achieved the objective of breaking up the expanse of pavement, do not want so much screening it will be unsafe and block security lighting. They had no problem with the suggested conditions of approval. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found this proposal will not be detrimental to the public, it will meet the intent of zoning regulations, and moved for approval of the application by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans date stamped June 25, 1992 with landscaping as shown on the plan date stamped July 30, 1992; (2) that all the conditions of the permit issued to 765 Airport Boulevard on February 4, 1992 shall also apply to these properties except that that permit and this amendment shall expire on August 10, 1997; (3) that this area shall be a part of the long term airport parking lot at 765 Airport Boulevard, that no single lot or combination of these lots shall operate as an independent airport: parking lot under Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 August 10, 1992 the terms of this permit and that these lots shall not have a separate gate on Airport Boulevard without amendment to this use permit; (4) that the property owners of all parcels including those in the original permit shall be responsible for. the installation and maintenance of all landscaping shown on the approved plans; failure to reasonably maintain landscaping and public access as determined by the Parks Director and City Attorney shall result in review of this permit and possible revocation; (5) that as built the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions including public access and landscaping maintenance in August, 1993 and each two years thereafter or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 14. CONTINUED ACTION ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A LIVE COMEDY THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, applicant's letters addressing provision of a parking area and shuttle service to the theater, letter from San Mateo Union High School District (August 6, 1992) giving permission for the use of 50 parking spaces at Burlingame High School, required findings for the variance. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner requested applicant provide the city with copy of his lease agreement with the school district prior to receiving a building permit. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Harry DeOrnellas, applicant, was present. He advised his agreement for shuttle service was for full service both ways, he could give the city a revised copy of letter. Commission felt 50 parking spaces was adequate and questioned how he would get people to go to the high school lot. Mr. DeOrnellas said he would use incentives such as tWo for one beverages, directional signage will be provided. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found applicant has provided off-site parking and shuttle service as requested at the meeting when the special permit was approved, she did not believe all patrons would use the shuttle, if parking is a problem people won't go to the theater, it will work itself out; applicant has mitigated his problems, it is an unusual site facing California Drive with no parking behind. C. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the applicant shall submit to the city before receiving a building permit a written lease agreement coterminous with the time period of his lease on the theater site with the San Mateo Union High School District for the use of up to 50 spaces in the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 August 10, 1992 Burlingame High School parking lot Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings from 6:00 P.M. to 12:30 A.M. 52 weeks a year; (2) that if, for any reason, the school district voids this lease agreement, the use permit for the theater shall be reviewed by the City of Burlingame within 30 days and the theater use may be revoked- if alternative parking is not provided; (3) that the applicant shall provide security in the high school parking lot Thursday through Sunday evenings from 6:00 P.M. to 12:30 A.M.; (4) that the theater operator shall provide shuttle bus service from the Burlingame High School parking lot to the theater and back in a continuous circuit for one-half hour before and one-half hour after each show; (5) that all the conditions for the July 13, 1992 Planning Commission action for the use permit shall be included as a part of this action and the conditions of the August 10, 1992 action shall be considered a part of the action on the negative declaration and use permit; and (6) that the parking arrangement and use including shuttle service shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions and public safety six months after the theater opens and each year thereafter or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: would like to see a condition providing some incentive to park at the high school; applicant knows what Commission would like, don't believe incentive would be enforceable; suggest some type of brochure to focus people on the high school parking. Motion was approved 4-1-2 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORTS - CP noted copies of minutes of the City Council regular meeting of August 3, 1992 were at Commissioner's seats this evening. - Review of Draft Ordinance on Nonconforming Second Units in R-1 District CP Monroe reviewed her memo of 8-10-92 which summarized the proposed draft ordinance and identified the key points: criteria and procedure for designating the primary dwelling unit on such lots, allowing improvements to designated primary units with a special permit, and allowing no expansion, only maintenance/ repair, to identified secondary units. Commission approved the draft ordinance and directed that the draft ordinance be forwarded to City Council -for action. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 August 10, 1992 i The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary