Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.06.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, June 14, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 24, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. It was noted Item #5, Variances at 1349 Sanchez Avenue, has been continued until a survey is completed. Staff will renotice the item. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO EXTEND THE FIRST FLOOR AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR AT 1549 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: applicant provide poles outlining the addition to the rear and showing proposed height; 8-1/2" x 1111 sheet showing outline of the existing house on the proposed house elevations and site plan (would like this information on all subsequent applications); regarding categorically exempt CEQA status, this project appears to exceed at least one of the guidelines, please discuss; one of the neighbors talks about runoff, would like to know the obligation of any property owner regarding runoff. Item set for public hearing June 28, 1993. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 866 BURLWAY ROAD Requests: how late do other tenants on this property work; are there existing businesses on the site which work on Saturdays; would property owner be willing to prohibit Saturday hours for any businesses leasing the two vacant units, what could be done about Saturday hours of existing businesses. Item set for public hearing June 28, 1993. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 14, 1993 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 10 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 101 ANITA ROAD/904 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 6/14/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required fiftdings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter listing concerns was noted from Steven and Patricia Zlatunich, property owners of 908 Bayswater Avenue (received after preparation of staff report). It was determined the CE's June 9, 1993 memo (received after preparation of staff report) should replace CE's May 18, 1993 memo which is referenced in the suggested conditions of approval. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. George Sinclair, architect for the project, was present. He noted Anna Zimmerman, property owner was also present. His comments: they have tried to design a project which fits into the residential character of the neighborhood and to mitigate neighbors' concerns, they will provide some parking for guests. Addressing neighbor's concerns, fencing is not a problem, they will protect other properties during construction and replace fencing; regarding sun blockage, the proposed building sits back almost as far as the existing building and is about the same height as existing, therefore there should be no change from the existing condition; there will be a masonry fence around the garbage and recycling bin area with floor drains, the condominium will be maintained by the homeowners association, ensuring a clean, sanitary environment; they will conform to construction hours required by the city and will work with the neighboring property owner to mitigate any concerns. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During Commission/staff discussion it was determined. construction hours in the code are normally 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. weekdays, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Saturday, 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Sunday. Neighbor was concerned about construction debris and duration of construction, staff noted if a building permit expires applicant must pay a fee to extend the building permit and this generally encourages tamely construction, the city can require compliance with changes to the UBC or UFC if the construction period extends too long, this also encourages timely completion; site cannot be left in a condition that is unsafe or dirty at any time. C. Jacobs found that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment and moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -462P. She found this is an attractive project, the facade of the building has diversity, applicant has met all code requirements and has been concerned about landscaping. C. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 14, 1993 Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium 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 May 14, 1993 Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, Tentative Map and as amended for landscaping by the June 2, 1992 letter from Richard Terrones, Sinclair Associates, Inc.; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official (April 26, 1993 memo), Fire Marshal (April 26/May 17, 1993 memo) and City Engineer (June.9, 1993 memo) shall be met and all Park Department requirements shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit; (3) that the storage cupboards above the parking stalls shall be assigned together to guarantee access to each :storage unit owner; (4) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (5) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; and (6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motions were seconded by C. Mink and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 10 UNITS, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 AND 2A, BLOCK 20, MAP OF LYON AND HOAG - 101 ANITA ROAD/904 BAYSWATER AVENUE Reference staff memo, June 9, 1993. CE Erbacher recommended this mapping action be forwarded to City Council for approval subject to one condition listed in the staff memo. C. Ellis moved to recommend the tentative and final parcel map and tentative condominium map to City Council for approval with the following condition: (1) that a lot combination map be filed prior to issuance of the building permit; at least one (1) house must be demolished prior to map filing. Seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Graham absent. Staff will forward to Council. 5. VARIANCES - 1349 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Item continued until survey complete. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT AT 104 PENINSULA AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/14/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the request, Planning staff comment, CA determination, required Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 4 June 14, 1993 findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Applicant, Mike-Yun Qi, and his interpreter were present. Interpreter said applicant would like to build a detached garage now with no changes to the existing dwelling at this time. He will get a permit to make needed changes to the house later. Applicant advised the existing attached garage is too low for his truck to fit inside, he had been told it was not used as a garage previously; after the new detached garage is built the old garage will be used as a storage and laundry room. A Commissioner noted that with a minor change to dimensions the new garage could be a two car garage, applicant had no objection to this suggestion. CA emphasized that the Building Department will be reviewing the main dwelling unit for safety problems but these are separate from this action tonight. Interpreter said the owner is planning to do everything necessary to meet code after the garage is built. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this property needs a garage, she would prefer a two car garage, this is an improvement to the property and is a necessity since the property is now being used without proper parking. C. Jacobs 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 May 27, 1993 Sheets AO and A3 showing site plans and garage construction detail, except that the garage shall have a wall to wall exterior dimension width of 211, total square footage not to exceed 499 SF; and (2) 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. Comment: cannot support the motion, a detached garage in that location that far from the residence in the middle of the lot is detrimental to the neighborhood; it seems this is putting the cart before the horse again, building the garage and then fixing the property; there is no clear plan at this time, the proposed location of the garage takes a great deal of the front yard and will permanently affect the amount of useable space in the future, this will not make the property more aesthetically pleasing than it was before. Further discussion: can understand these comments but would like to get something on this property to improve it, many attached garages are at the front of the house; this applicant is trying to rectify the problems, Commission should not be anticipating the total problem at this time, existing lot coverage is only 20% , applicant will be able to do whatever he needs to do with the property, tonight Commission is being asked for only one portion of the tota§L project; garage as proposed has a 21'-6" front setback, the same as other properties in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 14, 1993 the area, expect the house will be moved up and attached to this garage at some future time. Applicant did not say he would remove the nonconforming setbacks, think the house will remain at its present location. There is really no choice, Commission is trying to improve the property, it wouldn't make sense for the garage: to be in the back, with this proposal there is a chance to make the main dwelling conforming, at the moment all that can be done is to rectify some of the existing code violations, because of its location on the lot applicant can't expand the existing residential building without returning to the Planning Commission. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Mink dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION AT 511 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/14/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, Planning staff comment, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letters in opposition were received after preparation of the staff report from the following: Charlotte Kalbhenn, 415 Burlingame Avenue and Janiece Hittenberger, 509 Burlingame Avenue. CP confirmed the deck at the pool is counted in lot coverage but not the pool itself. C. Ellis advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Ed Gladysz, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised they want to remove the existing metal family room attached to the house and replace it to conform with the rest of the structure; they will be reducing lot coverage, could meet required lot coverage by removing the pool and small deck around it; a 3' side setback was permitted when the house was built 55 years ago, exceptional circumstances could be found in that the adjacent property is 10' from property line which gives a 13' separation; regarding parking, he agreed it is a chronic problem in the city, because of the configuration of the structure it is difficult to comply with current code parking requirements, the parking situation cannot be changed because of the limitations of the present structure; they can squeeze in their vehicles, if there were any other solution they would prefer it. He took exception to counting the family room as a bedroom which makes the proposal a five bedroom house and thus requires a parking variance for one covered parking space, the proposed design will make the family room very nonprivate with several openings and no closet space as well as windows and exterior doors; he submitted this is a four bedroom home with a family room. Applicant confirmed the family room is on the first floor, master bedroom will be on the second floor; the pool has been there about four years; they have not used the garage for parking for the last six to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 14, 1993 eight months; they own five cars presently. A Commissioner was concerned about making the parking situation worse, noting the bigger the house the more cars there will be. Applicant said he rents a garage for one of his five cars; when the garage is clear - he can fit all four cars on the property with minimal 6" to 8" encroachment onto city property. There were no audience comments in favor. Janiece Hittenberger, 509 Burlingame Avenue, spoke in opposition: there will be a 14' elevation and dormer extending the roof height; with 45% of the lot utilized a second story addition should be considered in relation to its bulk; she did not think her side setback was 101, there is only a sidewalk and 3' on the other side, with a structure of 14' plus dormer the neighbor will be looking into this massive building; applicant's van hangs over the sidewalk, people cannot get by if he has all three cars parked, there is no way four cars can be parked on site; this is a two parent one child family, at one time they had three boats in addition to the cars. There were no further audience comments in opposition. Applicant responded: the 10' setback he referred to was on the other side, not on Mrs. Hittenberger's side; the number of children he has is not relevant, he has five children who often visit and park on the street, they do not stay. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan addressed the _proposal and concerns of the neighbor: some of these concerns are valid, one cannot choose one's neighbors, neighbors move, number of cars varies, project should be considered in terms of the code and what happens in the normal course of events on this site. Regarding the lot coverage variance, it is an existing condition and the proposal will reduce lot coverage from 45% to 44%, this is a request that makes sense. Regarding the parking variance, parking is a real problem along Burlingame Avenue in this area but it is not appropriate to ask someone to sell his boats or cars, whether this project is approved or not applicant will have the same number of vehicles. The city has looked at the issue of bedrooms, it is.a valid point that a family room is a family room, it is not a bedroom; it would be appropriate to add a condition that the family room not be used as a bedroom. Regarding side setback, the issue is whether to require the second story be put back 1' or not, neighbor's house is 3' away from property line, the same as applicant's; only a minimum of 8' of the second story will have a 3' side setback. There are larger houses on this street in the 600 block, this project will enhance the lot and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. For these reasons C. Galligan moved for approval of the variances for lot coverage, parking and side setback, referencing the staff report and findings stated this evening. Motion was made by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and a third condition stating that Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 14, 1993 the family room not be used as a bedroom. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: this application is one of the reasons the code is the way it is, parking is used as a way -to --control size of structures in all residential zones, have heard nothing that makes this house exceptional other than applicant would like to have it bigger; the city has used parking as a criterion for years, do not want to turn it over now; project meets guidelines for height: but does not meet guidelines for setback; cannot find exceptional circumstances to support the variance. Other comments: if the deck in the back, about 266 SF, were eliminated lot coverage would come down to about 40%, this structure was built when the allowable height before a deck was called a structure was less than 51; proposed project still reduces lot coverage; applicant says he is adding a family room, I believe him; is the definition of bedroom still accurate, rules have been there for a long time but interior design of houses has changed, if not considered a bedroom the parking requirement would be reduced; can support the application. Agree the family room is a family room; staff must look at the project by code regulations but Commission is here for discretionary review, the family room does not appear to be a bedroom; would like the second floor dormer set back to 4'. Maker of the motion and seconder accepted an addition to the conditions to require the dormer meet 4' side setback. Motion failed on a 3-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Mink dissenting, C. Ellis abstaining, C. Graham absent. The Chair announced this application is effectively denied and appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA IN THE REAR YARD AT 625 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/14/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comment, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Ramona Hernandez, applicant and property owner, was present. She discussed the purchase of the antenna at Radio Shack in Burlingame. and hiring of a professional for installation, neither told her about the need for permits, they paid $900 for the installation. They have a basketball hoop in the back yard, if they are required to put this antenna in the back there will be little yard left; they do not have the money now to remove and relocate this antenna, the city will have to remove it, they have no way to store it. Her neighbors were concerned about noise when they put up the basketball hoop, the neighbors will not like the antenna in the yard. She has looked around the city and there are other antennas installed on the roof in residential areas such as on Easton. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 14, 1993 Commission told applicant the antenna she saw on a. roof on Easton was put up before the ordinance regulating antennas went into effect. It was noted applicant's roof antenna is well located as far as visibility is concerned, if foliage stays the same it would not be visible to many people, however Commission cannot allow an antenna on the roof, it is prohibited. CA advised the complaint he received about this antenna was not from an immediate neighbor. He also advised the city cannot require a roof antenna which was put up before the ordinance was adopted be removed; to his knowledge there is presently only one other illegal antenna in town on -Floribunda. Applicant said if her antenna must come down the city will have to pay for it. CA advised her to consider legal recourse against the seller and installer. The following spoke in support. Ed Gladysz, 511 Burlingame Avenue: this antenna has been there a long time, it is not intrusive, could it possibly have been installed prior to the ordinance:. It was noted the antenna was put in place since the first of the year, the ordinance was adopted in 1986. Martin Yniguez, architect: applicants bought the antenna not knowing what the regulations of the city were, the installer did not take the time to find out, why take Commission time on such a small matter when there are so many other things needing attention; the existing antenna will come down, it is not visually intrusive, the victims are the property owners. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to grant the special permit for a satellite dish antenna in the rear yard by resolution with the suggested conditions. She commented Commission cannot grant a roof antenna and sympathized with the applicants, sometimes there are things the city cannot fix. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the dish antenna shall be installed in the ground as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 15, 1993 Site Plan and Elevation Drawing; (2) that as installed the dish antenna shall not rise more than 6'-0" above the adjacent grade and shall be painted black in color with nonreflective paint; (3) that the condition of the Chief Building Official's May 17, 1993 memo (installation of the antenna shall comply with manufacturer's requirements) shall be met; (4) that the applicant shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the dish and its support structure or remove the installation; (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. CA responded to questions, stating antennas are prohibited above 6' off the ground in residential zones, only City Council can change those rules by amending the ordinance. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 June 14, 1993 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSROOM USE AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL. ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 6/14/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. In discussion on Condition 12, CP stated the reference to students who primarily take public transportation is included because these particular students are unable to drive, since a use permit runs with the land there is a concern about a subsequent use if students did drive. Regarding Condition 14, a semi -truck trailer taking no longer than two hours to unload, the truck has to be drawn up into and left in the parking lot aisle while being unloaded, staff wanted to be assured a trailer would not be left there all day. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. The president of the board of Poplar Center told Commission they have been in existence for 72 years, outgrew their building in San Mateo and are now using a leased school property in San Bruno. They hope to move everything to Burlingame, public transportation to this site is perfect for them. In San Bruno their clients use public transportation, also Redi•-Wheels; one of the things they do is train individuals to use public transportation, it is a big part of the program and this Burlingame site is right in front of a bus stop. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this is an ideal location for Poplar Center, in addition to the bus stop it is close to the train station, medical facilities are nearby, with the suggested conditions there will not be an impact. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit for classroom use by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built and storage areas remain as shown on the plans submitted the Planning Department and date stamped June 8, 1993 (Sheet T.1) and May 5, 1993 (Sheets A.1 and A.2); (2) that the center shall be open 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with 31 employees and 140 students who primarily take public transportation and classroom uses as described in this application for adults with special developmental needs; (3) that requirements for accessible stalls for parking for the disabled shall be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit; (4) that the number of deliveries by a semi -truck trailer shall be limited to three times per month and take no more than two hours to unload; (5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo (5/10/93), Chief Building Official's memo (5/17/93) and Fire Marshal's memo (5/10/93) shall be met; (6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (7) that this use shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in one year (June, 1994) or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 June 14, 1993 10. TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT AT THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 6/14/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, a previous tent permit •approved by the Commission for the same area, staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved for approval of this temporary tent permit with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be: installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 3, 1993 Letter and Site Plan (8-1/2" x 11"); (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 4, 1993 memo (plans to be submitted to Fire Department showing exact location, exiting, fire extinguisher locations and type of fire retardant material to be used, before tent installation); the Chief Building Official's June 4, 1993 memo (tent shall obtain Fire Department permit); and the City Engineer's June 7, 1993 memo (the hotel should confirm that no other major event will conflict with the schedule for this event, and the loss of parking) shall be met; (3) that the temporary tent shall be removed on July 11, 1993 and the parking spaces shall be restored to their original use; (4) that all employees whose parking spaces have been temporarily displaced by this tent shall park on site in the primary parking structure of the hotel; (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that the site shall be inspected for removal of the tent.on July 13, 1993. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its June 7, 1993 regular meeting and discussion at its June 9,, 1993 study session. Commission Recruest C. Jacobs asked for study/review of condominium criteria at some future date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary