Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.06.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, June 8, 1992 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 26, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. GA ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SIDE SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 724 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 Requests: there is construction going on now, is this a code enforcement item; applicant states the second floor addition will not be adjacent to any part of the neighbor's house, from a site visit it appears it will be somewhat adjacent, request drawing showing location of the second floor and general location of the adjacent house; if design were modified to meet declining height envelope regulations how would it affect the rooms to be added; how will the: attic space shown on Sheet 5 be used. Item set for public hearing June 22, 1992. 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY, THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 612 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Requests: is the 15 gallon tree in the right hand corner part of the landscaping requirements, if the guest parking space at the rear is allowed that area might be used for backup, could common open space requirements be met if that were done; cover sheet shows 20' wide garage, Sheet 2 shows total exterior dimension of 611, clarify with walls how these measurements can be met; will the balconies on the west elevation which are shown at a little less than 3' wade be usable; need 24" clear in front of water closet, where are water heaters to be located; address items 2, 3 and 4 of the City Engineer's memo prior to the public hearing; do the stairs at the third level meet fire exit Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 ;June 8, 1992 separation requirements; could the guest space at the rear be increased to 10' x 201; how will a guest know there is a space available for parking at the rear; justification for removing large tree at the rear and replacing it with a 15 gallon tree. Item set for public hearing on June 22, 1992 assuming answers to all questions are received in time. 3. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR LOT 22, BLOCK 30, LYON & HOAG SUBDIVISION - 612 PENINSULA AVENUE Set for public hearing when the condominium permit is heard. 4. VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND 43 PARKING SPACES FOR SEISMIC UPGRADE AND REMODEL OF THE BUILDING AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Requests: CE feels a parking/traffic study should be prepared, applicant feels it is the city's responsibility, concur that a parking/traffic study is needed and should be done by applicant, request the item not be brought back for action without such a study; if the food establishments on the ground floor- are replaced or continued shouldn't use permits for them come to the Commission at the same time as the project for the building; was the loss of two parking spaces in the rear lot due to meeting handicap requirements or some other reason; regarding the stipulated judgement in 1989, the city must have had something in mind for use of the structure, what is city's expectation for use of this building if the parking variance is not granted; clarify number of parking spaces required and why; applicant's best guess on division of number of employees by retail and office uses; if it has been past practice of the landowner to lease spaces in the parking lot to off-site people, will this be continued; what structures will there be on the roof, location and height of each, will they be visible from Burlingame or Chapin Avenues; request staff send notices of the public hearing to all tenants in the existing building. Item set for public hearing June 22, 1992 or when a satisfactory traffic/parking study is received. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETAIL SALES - 1608 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Item continued. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COMMUNICATION ANTENNA AT 1799 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: roof plan showing location of the dish, photographs of the building from all angles with location of the antenna marked in some manner; will screening be necessary, will antenna be visible from the street; color of antenna, will it be nonreflective. Item set for public hearing June 22, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 .Tune 8, 1992 ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO BUILD A 672 SF DETACHED GARAGE AT 1148 DRAKE $VENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/8/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to questions, staff explained how parking maneuvers are determined, if this garage were reduced in length there would be more flexibility, a garage with a 21' interior length would probably give enough room for maneuver. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Walter Posey, applicant and property owner, was present. He presented photographs showing the existing garage, 17'-4" x 17'-4", and stated he can easily pull a car in either side for a two car garage but the bumper would be against the back wall; he is proposing to move the door back 7"; when they add to the house it will only have four bedrooms so one covered and one uncovered parking space is O.K.; there would be no problem removing the rear door landing and stairs as suggested in the conditions since they have two other means of exiting the house. Regarding length of the garage, they have three vehicles, his main concern :is to get the truck off the street where it is a safety hazard; allowing 1' for walls the new garage will have only about 3-1/2' at - the front and rear of the truck with the tailgate down; they have no more storage space in the house, garage would provide more space. Applicant stated the truck is 21' long plus 2' for the tailgate; he would like to be able to unload the truck inside the garage. Commission was concerned he was using up lot coverage he might need when he added to his house; applicant said he has preliminary plans for the addition to the house, it will be over the existing house and will not exceed allowed lot coverage; the design meets declining height envelope regulations, he will not need any more variances; he could not afford to have all the plans drawn at one time and would like the new garage for storage space while making the addition to the house. There will be only 3' x 3' for storage below the roof in the upper part of the garage and accessibility will not be good, the 8' garage door needed for the truck with racks is cutting into possible attic space. Applicant concluded his comments by stating that with this garage he could get all his cars off the street. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: would like to be more helpful, applicant is improving his property but he is doing this in'increments, concerned about the 32' garage and the possibility it might be used for only the truck and storage; garage encroaches into the driveway and adds to lot Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 8, 1992 coverage on the site; have no problem with the length of the garage, appreciate the need for storage, if approved would like to add a fifth condition requiring that no plumbing be installed in the garage and that it not be used for living or recreational purposes; concerned about a 32' long garage on property line, it will impact too much on the neighbor; more concerned about length of the garage than the square footage, would prefer wider rather than longer, 24'-25' long seems O.K., access to the second covered parking stall could be better addressed with a wider -garage; not in favor of making the garage wider but an in favor of making it shorter than requested, a 28' garage would be adequate for the truck, one of the smaller cars would have enough room in front for storage on that side, it would be a detriment to the property to move into the back yard any farther. Based on comments in discussion, C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report amended to limit length of the garage to 281, the rear wall to remain as shown on the plans and that the 4' be removed from the street side, and a condition 15 added as suggested during discussion. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: applicant has asked for 321, not 281, cannot support the motion; taking the 4' off the front won't help in adding storage space in the attic; when applicant adds a second story he will get more storage space in the house; still have concerns about a 32' garage on the property line, 28' will be somewhat better; property to the north has a garage which goes halfway down the :Lot; can understand applicant's concern about not being able to do all the improvements at one time and 28' is better; applicant is talking about a 23' long truck as opposed to two standard sized vehicles; it seems to be a lot of structure with no mitigation for the neighbor, not comfortable with more than 251. Further comment: perhaps Commission should consider denial without prejudice; maker of the motion noted Commission is looking at what is best for the property, not what is best for the property owner. Discussion continued about length of the garage: Commission should not be designing applicant's garage, it should either accept the submittal or reject it; have strong feelings about making the garage wider, it would be a hazard too close to the house; in reducing the length of the garage Commission is merely giving applicant direction; part of support for this application is providing storage in. the garage during remodel of the house, garage will be a permanent structure on the lot for a temporary need. It was determined from the applicant he could accept a 27' long. garage. Supported by findings in discussion this evening, C. Graham amended her motion to grant the special permit for a detached garage with a length of 27', the rear wall to remain as on the plans, 5' -to be taken off the street side, by resolution, with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted the Planning Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 ,June 8, 1992 Department and date stamped April 22, 1992 amended to a length of 27' from the rear wall which is to remain as shown on the plans, thus the 5' is to be taken off the street side, with wooden and concrete steps modified as in Condition 12 as shown on 8-1/2" x 11" sheet date stamped May 28, 1992; (2) that plans submitted to the Building Department for this project show the removal of the planter area; relocation of the gas meter and gas service line; and reorientation of the rear door landing and stairs to maximize access to the second parking stall; (3) that the project shall.meet all Uniform Building and. Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City'of Burlingame; (4) that if any addition is ever proposed which requires two covered parking spaces, then the garage shall be altered and/or the existing stairs to the laundry room shall be removed or rebuilt and fence relocated so that a vehicle can enter and exit the second parking space in three maneuvers or less without the need for a parking variance; and (5) that this structure shall never be used for living or recreational purposes and no plumbing shall be installed in the garage. Seconder (C. Jacobs) accepted the amended motion and it was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Ellis dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. LOT COVERAGE AND TWO PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1645 MCDONALD WAY. ZONED R-1. Reference staff report, 6/8/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, neighbor's letter in opposition, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP pointed out an error in calculations which would make total square footage with the addition about 3,900 SF. Responding to questions, CP clarified definition of a second unit as a room with a cooking unit; she did not believe the previous permit for a family room over the garage had been finaled. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Karl Vorsatz, applicant and property owner, was present with his architect, Anthony Pappas. Mr. Vorsatz commented: the existing house has two bedrooms, two baths and a family room, the kitchen and eating area are smaller than most homes in the area but the house is larger than many homes in the area, the majority of homes in his block have larger kitchen and eating areas but they are smaller homes for smaller families. Their current small eating area, with five of them sitting at dinner, requires that two to three people move to let someone out, this is a problem and will be a problem with the property in the future; square footage of the house is the same as the original and covers 38.8% of the lot, any addition to the ground floor would exceed 40% maximum lot coverage; their original proposal was a much larger expansion than what they are currently proposing, with reconsideration they reduced their lot coverage. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 ,:tune 8, 1992 They met with the neighbor to the rear who appeared to like the present plans, her concern was a general problem with lot coverage over the maximum allowed. Mr. Vorsatz stated his house is downhill from this neighbor and there is a considerable distance between the homes; they have made a commitment to the neighbor to add vegetative screening; this will be a high quality addition within the charadter of Ray Park, they plan to relandscape the back yard and "to a certain degree the front yard; house will be an asset to the. neighborhood and to the City of Burlingame; they are within all setback requirements; the addition will not affect health or safety of the neighbors. Commission/architect/applicant discussed the possibility of cutting 3' off the rear of the addition; architect advised plans could be revised because they are well within declining height envelope requirements; they need a larger dining room to accommodate the applicant's large furniture; applicant said they want to do a simple addition downstairs, moving a wall to increase kitchen/eating area and increase dining room and living room; he confirmed they would be getting 4' depth in the kitchen and another 3' in the dining room and living room; architect said they will redo the entire kitchen. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: present kitchen area is a fairly good size, eating area may be somewhat small, but cannot support 42% lot coverage to increase size of the breakfast area and dining room; if kitchen is going to be remodeled anyway eating area can be modified, cannot make findings to support exceptional circumstances for the lot coverage variance; agree, think a remodel can be done within 40% lot coverage; concur with these statements, have no problem with the parking variance, can understand they want to add on to their home but the lot coverage variance is not justified by a small eating area in the kitchen. Based on comments during discussion, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion: although this house may be larger than the typical Ray Park house there is some area in the front in city right- of-way which adds to the appearance of the size of the lot, believe applicant has made an attempt to review the properties in the area and compare his home with other homes, if the kitchen is extended there will be no dining room; with a minimal variance request, a small amount of square footage and common sense for the balance of the house this is a good faith effort to make the best of an unworkable situation; applicantshave talked to the neighbors and modified previous plans several times, can support this proposal; from comments at the study session applicant saw that Commission might not be willing to consider his first application and has gone to a great deal of trouble to modify his plans, can support this application; agree with these statements but cannot find exceptional circumstances to support the variances, size of what is there is not an exceptional circumstance related to the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 Tune 8, 1992 property; the plan is good, wish there was some way to make a finding of exceptional circumstances, will have to support the motion for denial; exceptional circumstances are whatever one wants them to be, current layout of this house as compared to the rest of the neighborhood is an exceptional circumstance. Motion to deny the application was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Kelly dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:10 P.M., reconvene 9:20 P.M. 9. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 716 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/8/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the.public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Craig Slaysky, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: the side setback variance request is for the garage only at the first floor, plans meet the required setback at the second floor; they would like to move the garage closer to property line because of an existing porch with side entrance, this will eliminate maneuvering around it in the driveway; moving the garage over a foot will be much safer. Responding to Commission questions, applicant advised he could not move the garage back because of the way the interior of the house is laid out, garage wall lines up with the family room wall, he would have to relocate the door in the family room; family room, stair and kitchen are new, basic footprint of the house will remain, a new garage will be added and new living space above that; all interior walls will come down, outside siding will come off, there will be new foundation. It was a Commissioner's viewpoint that this will be a major remodel. Applicant said he did not consider a detached two car garage at the rear of the property, it is not required and he did not wish to do that, they have two cars; existing breakfast nook bay windows are about 2' from property line, that side of the porch is not being replaced and sidings will remain. He had spoken to the neighbors closest to the garage and they had no problem, he told them the second story would have a 4' side setback. He is an architect and drew the plans himself. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal was not happy with a 3' side setback, he found there are things which could be done to get a 4' setback, it is basically a new house, porch could be remodeled, stairs could be relocated; the 4' setback requirement is there for a reason, to get some of the bulk of a building away from a property line;.this is a very bulky building. C. Deal moved for denial of the side setback variance for the reasons stated. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 :Tune 8, 1992 Comment on the motion: with this much mass and bulk the homeowners will have two cars if not more and moving the garage up will take away driveway space which might be needed in the future. Motion for denial was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 12 +.`4#a ZR -3 fen 10. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A TWO STORY RETAIL - OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 1218-1230 BURLINGAME AVENUE/1209-1215 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SIB AREA A BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 6/8/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request and noted some slight modifications to the plans approved in 1991. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing; approval of the extension would include all conditions of the original permit effective July 16, 1991. CP advised the Commission could determine if a full review of the change in the roof height was required. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Jack Kemp, architect representing the Chen family, property owners, was present. His comments: applicants believe within the next year and a half there will be a satisfactory economic environment for retail development; there are no significant changes to the plans, marginal changes to side access, l easements, etc.; they have met with the Building Department and Fire Marshal regarding current code requirements; one reason for the change to the roof was the issue of smoke purge for the open air mall, height is very marginally over the height limit; garage was expanded by a small percentage mainly for structural reasons; they lost area on the ground floor in order to gain opening to the front, the side access to the mall from the two adjacent parking areas has been retained. The project will conform to the July 1, 1991 Uniform Building Code, they plan to submit for a building permit in six weeks, construction will not be phased as previously discussed. Frontages of the building will look about the same from Burlingame Avenue and Donnelly Avenue; the initial design had a narrower arcade to a central court, under the 1991 code this design falls under the mall classification which requires a minimum 20' open area of mall; the previous design had a narrower entry and wider courtyard, in this design they have lost the inner courtyard where the 40' roof was; there will be side access from the parking area; the new roof will run the length of the building and will be glass, there will still be an open space between the glass roof and wall below; there are vaulted arches with screens at each end. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion it was determined the plan had not been reviewed for security by the Police Department. C. Galligan found this request to be appropriate, modifications to the plans are necessary to conform to current code, this remains an excellent project. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 June 8, 1992 C. Galligan moved for approval of a one year extension of the special permits to July 16, 1993 with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall meet all current Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes in effect on July 1, 1991 as amended by the City of :Burlingame; and (2) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans -submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 1, 1992 Sheets A-3 through A- 5, A-9 and A-10 with a maximum height of 39'=0" for the length of the roof ridge and in conformance with the reduced sizes of the floor areas as indicated in the letter from Jack Kemp to M. Monroe date stamped May 28, 1992. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Hillside Area Construction Permit - 3096 Rivera Drive PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its June 1, 1992 regular meeting and June 3, 1992 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10.05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galli.gan Secretary