Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.02.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, February 8, 1993 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan (arrived 8:12 P.M.), Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 25, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item 5, negative declaration and condominium permit, 812-820 El Camino Real, page 7, third paragraph, second line, should read, "Cers Deal, Ellis and Galligan voting no." AGENDA - The agenda was approved to hear action items in the following order: Items 2, 6, 5, 3, 4. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW POOL HOUSE AT 1341 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: expanded site plan showing how adjacent properties relate; floor plan of first floor of the house; is there a :bath in the garage; areas within the house which were looked at for the proposed unit, why were they not adequate; why not make an addition to the house; overlay sketch showing location of the previous application; how long have applicants owned this home; what utilities are planned for this structure, concerned about electrical power combinations, use of gas, possible conversion to a kitchen; if this bedroom :is allowed what are the parking requirements. Item set for public hearing February 22,-- 1993. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 8, 1993 ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1265 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and discussed staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted it came to staff's attention today that the applicant has a home occupation permit for a general contractor's business at this location issued in 1979, staff has received no complaints regarding this business. Discussion: this six bedroom house requires two covered and one uncovered parking spaces, the code does not allow tandem covered parking because of the problems in moving cars around, misuse of the second space and difficulties with enforcement, tandem parking in a driveway behind a car parked in the garage is allowed; in this application the two required covered spaces are provided in tandem. CE thought a 22' backup was adequate if there was a wider garage door. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Robert Costa, applicant, was present. He advised he was a general contractor, now he is a full time teacher but kept his home occupation permit because he does some design work; he parks two cars now where the new garage would be located and can maneuver adequately; he has four cars, two antique cars are stored elsewhere. Speaking to exceptional circumstances, applicant said he bought this property because they liked the spacious back yard, if they expanded to the side much of this open space would be lost, his lot is twice as wide as others in the neighborhood; regarding the 42' length, applicant wanted to include room for storage in the structure, 2' at the end and 2' along the side. A Commissioner commented this looks like a warehouse; applicant said his original plan was for a carport in front of the existing garage, since he would have to go through the same procedure for a carport he thought this proposal would be the best; he agreed he is warehousing cars. Ron Daher, 1273 Balboa Avenue, spoke in favor: he lives next door and had no objections to the proposed garage. The following spoke in opposition. Eugene Lovelady, 1500 Sherman Avenue: this has all the attributes of a commercial building, it is 960 SF, has 12 overhead lights, 11 electrical outlets mostly on the south.and west walls, this would be a warehouse in a residential district; applicant could get six to eight antique cars in the garage, he thought number of cars should be restricted. Charles Newman, 1500 Sherman Avenue and a member of the board of directors of the condominium association at that location,__ spoke in opposition on behalf of all the condominium owners, this structure is too commercial and does not belong in the neighborhood. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 8, 1993 Commission discussion/ comment: it is a beautiful site but have a problem with a garage this size in this residential neighborhood, cannot make findings to support approval; am torn, am an antique car collector myself, can understand wanting them in a garage but this is a rather large structure, would like to work something out with applicant, perhaps grant him a smaller structure or deny without prejudice; if garage structure were in the rear 30% of the lot it would mean a structure 37.5' long which is basically 4.5' shorter than it is now within 6" of the 22' backup, agree this is big, applicant does not need 44' to store two cars and park two cars behind, if in rear 30% of the lot he wouldn't need side and rear setback variances or parking variance; concur with these statements, it is too long, understand applicant's desire to get two antique cars inside, can be done in a smaller space within rear 30% of the lot, cannot make findings to support a variance, applicant can eliminate the need for the variances. C. Kelly moved to deny this application without prejudice, seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham voting no, C. Galligan absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 962 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 2/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham moved to approve a one year extension of this condominium permit to April 7, 1994 and a one year extension of the tentative condominium map to April 7, 1995 with the following condition: (1) that the project shall meet all current Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the date of the Planning permit extension. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Galligan absent. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCES - LANDS OF MOLAKIDIS, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, CORBITT RANCH, APN 029-055-060, 729 :LINDEN AVENUE Reference staff report, 2/8/93, with attachments. cE Erbacher reviewed this request to divide one lot into two parcels. He discussed code requirements, review criteria, staff review, study meeting questions, Planning Commission action. Eight conditions were suggested for attachment to the tentative map. (C. Galligan arrived at 8:12 P.M.) During discussion CP made an addition to suggested condition #5 addressing the need for a use permit for oversized accessory structure should the new garage be provided by relocating the existing garage; CP Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 8, 1993 and CA discussed Engineer Charles Kavanagh's February 2, 1993 letter regarding interpretation of width of a lot, staff's interpretation; if Kavanagh's interpretation is used house does not need the side setback variance. CE clarified which lot on the map is being addressed in this application; paper work on the application for a variance was not included in the packet; CP referred Commission to Planning's comments in its January 15, 1993 memo. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Charles Kavanagh, Engineer for this project, was present. His comments: other lots in the area are of the same size and have been divided, many in the same configuration, all lots were just shy of 100' wide so they also do not meet the 50' width; this lot has been in the family for a long time, it would conform to the pattern of the neighborhood. Mr. Kavanagh discussed his interpretation of width, required width is 501, Parcel B is a little short of that; every lot in this part of the city would have the same problem in trying to determine its width, width implies a perpendicular measure; house is there, it is legal nonconforming. Speaking to the R-2 use, Mr. Kavanagh noted CE's comment this subdivision would tend to lead to development of two duplex projects, one on each of the lots; if this lot were to stay less compatible, as it is now, it would be necessary to build larger duplex units to make development pay. A Commissioner pointed out if the house is saved it is single family, not duplex; Kavanagh said property owners would like to keep the -existing house as an option, it will be up to whoever buys the property how it is developed, if the house stays it would probably stay in R-1 use, the other lot could be developed as a duplex or single family. Commissioner comment: R-2 has 40% lot coverage so house could be added onto, the new lot could have 40% lot coverage, there are many options. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: think lot should be 50' wide, would like to divide into one 50' wide lot and one 49.97' wide, that's basically the same width, have no problem with the frontage, it is following the nature of development in this particular block. C. Deal moved to recommend this tentative parcel map to City Council for approval with the conditions as shown in the City Engineer's staff report memo and modified by the City Planner, and with adjustment of the line dividing the lots so that the lots are equally wide, both approximating 50' so 4' side setbacks would be required. Conditions follow: (1) that the lot widths and frontages shall be adjusted for Parcels 5A and 5B so that their common line is four feet (4' ) from the existing house on Parcel 5A and parallel to the other...__ side lines, both lots shall be required to have 4' side setbacks; (2) that this map shall be considered as both a tentative and final parcel map to expedite processing; (3) that a subdivider's agreement with bonding shall be approved before map recordation if any of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 8, 1993 improvements indicated in these approvals are not met prior to map recordation; (4) that a no -vehicular access to Carolan Avenue restriction shall be placed on the final map to insure that Linden Avenue is always the vehicular access; (5) that the existing sewer lateral shall be tested and repaired or replaced if -needed; (6) that the existing garage crossing the new lot line shall be removed prior to map recordation; a replacement garage for the existing house on Lot 5A shall be constructed prior. to recordation of this map; if the new garage is provided by relocating the existing garage, then a use permit for oversized accessory structure must be received before recordation of the map; (7) that all conditions of the attached Fire Marshal's (CBI) memo dated January 4, 1993 shall be met; (8) that all existing utilities for the existing structure shall be relocated onto Parcel 5A and shall be installed underground; and (9) that all new curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be constructed fronting these two lots on both street frontages unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: am not convinced there are exceptional circumstances which warrant the splitting of the lot and the variances, not convinced there will not be additional variance requests for a new building, not convinced the variances are required, will oppose. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs voting no. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to City Council. 3. LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 1468 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/8/93, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Jerry Senkir, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised at the time he bought the property the deck was there and so was the garage. A Commissioner wondered why he was going through this process when only one covered and one uncovered parking stall is required. Mr. Senkir said he has two cars and would like to park them both inside, he: does not intend to add a second story to the house; the lot slopes, at the northern end the deck is about 2' off the ground and up to 36" at the southern end of the lot. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. Responding to a question staff advised if this garage structure were destroyed by__ fire applicant would be able to rebuild it without getting a variance. C. Graham found exceptional circumstances have been well stated by the applicant; without the deck lot coverage would be only 38%; if they Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 8, 1993 were expanding the garage, would be opposed but they are using the same footprint; it will only make the property better and will not obstruct views. C. Graham moved for approval of the variance with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: am in favor, applicant wants to improve his property, the deck problem which increased lot coverage was caused by a change in code; concern about granting 42% lot coverage which goes with the land forever, a subsequent owner could remove spa and deck and extend the house into the back yard. A condition #5 was suggested to address this concern, accepted by the maker of the motion and the seconder, and motion was made 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 January 22, 1993, Sheet 1; (2) that the proposed garage shall not have a footprint greater than 21'-0" x 21'-0" or 441 SF; (3) that no other structure shall be added to this lot which will increase the lot coverage over 42%; (4) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5) that if the spa and deck are ever removed the lot coverage exception for 421 shall expire. Motion was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:00 P.M. 4. TENTATIVE MAP, NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE ON A PRIVATE STREET AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CREEK ENCLOSURE - LANDS OF HUTNICK, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 23, KENMAR TERRACE, APN 027-271-340, 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE Reference staff report, 2/8/93, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this request to divide a 116,200 SF lot into four parcels. He discussed code requirements, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings, Planning Commission action. Sixteen conditions were suggested for attachment to the tentative map. Communication received after preparation of staff report was noted from Peter Davidson, 2694 Summit Drive, in support of all questions, concerns and reservations raised at the January 25 study meeting; he also strongly urged the city require 50% "over book" with respect to the design of all bulk headings. A Commissioner wondered about future garage placement, she felt people may want to have attached garages, not detached. CE advised sometimes on hillside lots it is easier with detached, the possibility of attached garages was included in conceptual plans for Lots 2 and 4, Planning staff said Lot 4 would require a considerable number of-- variances f__variances with an attached garage. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Pat Webb, Brian Kangas Foulk, consulting engineers, was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Hutnick, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 8, 1993 property owners. She noted others present: Jim Walsh, Brian Kangas Foulk, property owners' daughter/ architect, and a representative of Harlan Tait Associates, geotechnical representative. She reviewed history of this property, its subdivisions in 1953 and later in 1967 which resulted in this odd shaped parcel; access was generally created by all of. the other subdivisions which surrounded this property; property is zoned R-1, they could have more lots than they are proposing; owners wanted to retain the natural environment, road follows the existing road, applicants are keeping the existing house; they are proposing a 24' street width because it will mean less grading, they feel it will be adequate for this proposal; they have provided cul-de-sac turnaround; believe they have improved fire access and public safety in the canyon. Grades on all of the roadways meet code requirements; there are many trees and they are trying to save as many as possible, they plan to remove seven bay trees and keep all the oaks; if the road is widened they would have to remove more trees and do more grading. Regarding the variance for lot frontage on a private street, this property is unique in shape and in its unusual access, it would be virtually impossible to provide access to this property and meet maximum cul-de- sac length. Property owners have no problem with the suggested conditions but would like some clarification. Jim Walsh of Brian Kangas Foulk addressed Commission: regarding detached garages, there is an existing sanitary sewer easement which runs through Lot 3 and a sanitary and storm sewer easement which runs through Lot 1, these are the primary reasons for the separation between the proposed houses and garages; they also designed conceptual driveways to fit contour of the land, disturb the least amount of trees and require the least amount of cut and fill. Regarding condition 110 they would request the existing 30" RCP storm drain be left in place and an additional pipe be put over the top of it equivalent to 36" RCP; regarding condition #11 they would like to add the words "within the subdivision". CE stated the size of a storm drain can never be reduced because of debris coming down which will get caught, from a safety standpoint this would not be a recommendation even if it were totally maintained privately, it is a problem waiting to happen; regarding condition Ill CE was uncertain where the existing electrical service comes to the property, once it comes off Canyon into the subdivision at that point it must be underground. Pat Webb responded to Commission questions: at this time they are only talking about removing trees for the roadway; the Hutnicks bought this property in 1975 in this configuration; difference in elevation between the garage floor and first living floor of the house averages 101. Applicants stated there was an application on this property in the-- 19701s, he__1970's, that was when they built their house and. built a garage in front of the house. Architect/ daughter stated house on Lot 4 is situated near the back because at that location there is flatter topography, she designed to protect the creek embankment, reduce the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 8, 1993 amount of cut and fill and protect the natural environment as much as possible. Commission/Engineers discussed amount of cut and fill, Engineers said overall no dirt will be leaving the property, they may..have to bring in some fill; architect said landslides are caused by poor drainage from property above, structures with retaining walls will help stabilize the site; Engineer stated access driveway between the four lots is all on fill, it buttresses the slopes. Amount of dirt with concurrent development or not was discussed. CE noted site plan only shows how the site may be developed, with pads; common driveways and common street will be put in according to this design; development of the lots could change with a future buyer. Engineer advised they wou but cannot guarantee thi roads were done at the s< the roadway/driveway is s there would be about two had made calculations on him. Property owner sta and fill be done at the si retaining walls would ha, concern about people par] to provide a safe area. i and route they would take simultaneously these truc are ordinances which Commissioner comment: apl the preservation of a P: ld like to do the cut and fill simultaneously s will be done; if cuts for the houses and me time on-site fill would be about even, if eparated from site preparation for the houses weeks of trucks coming in and out; Engineer the number of tons but did not have them with :ed he could accept a condition that the cut Lme time so trucking would be minimal; CE said re to be put in at that time. Mr. Walsh had Ing on the sidewalk; CE suggested an 8" curb Commissioner had concern about cement trucks to get to the site, if building three houses ks could have quite an impact. CA noted there regulate such trucks and their routes. lication says the variances are necessary for -overty right of the owner; Ms. Webb stated owner did buy in this configuration but according to the city's ordinances his property is subdividable. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Charles Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive: he had concerns about trucks in the neighborhood during development, retaining walls and stability of the slopes, there have always been drainage/ slippage problems; view obstruction; this is only a subdivision application, he was concerned about impact of full development. Stephen Stirling, 12 Kenmar Way: he had erosion concerns, purchased his house just four months ago, the beautiful back yard was a big selling point; these people bought this property in its present configuration; he had a major concern about fire safety and view obstruction. (CE commented existing water line is 4" with small hydrant, this development would have 6" loop line with a series of hydrants through the area.) Judy Iverson, 2841 Canyon Road: she lives adjacent to the entrance to __ the panhandle, concerned about covering the creek, creek exits this property at Canyon Road, the creek regularly overflows during a rainy season, can be obstructed and flood; she was concerned about cutting into the hill at the foot of the panhandle, it will require unsightly Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 8, 1993 walls. John Khouri, 2849 Canyon Road: concerned about flooding, if there is 8" curb where will water go. (CE said it would come down toward the bottom of Canyon, it follows the road.) Mr. Khouri said the 24" pipe on his property has overflowed many times, would there be any drainage from the curb over the side. (CE advised in this case they would probably have to channel it down, there would not be a major increase in total amount of water, most of the property is very steep and water goes down the slope.) There were no further audience comments in opposition. Engineer Walsh advised there are very strict erosion control guidelines; regarding fire, the hazard is worse now than it will be in its developed state. A Commissioner expressed concern that many of the canyon areas have two exits and this does not. Mr. Walsh commented that on a 30' wide standard city street parking is allowed, it is not allowed on this private street, perhaps there could be a condition requiring an emergency exit. Ms. Webb stated there is a lot of underbrush there now, development will add fire hydrants, looped water system, increased water pressure and some of the brush will be cleared out. She believed the property owner does clean out as much of this brush as he can. She said they will be able to stabilize landslides, drainage would definitely be improved and there would be much less erosion with these improvements. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion/ comment: width of fire truck/equipment Fire Department would take to an area such as this is approximately 10' -12' ; could add a condition to require fire retardant plantings around the structures; have a problem with the 24' roadway access, but what about parties, 30' to 34' would be better, it will be signed as a fire lane, no parking, but enforcement will not work; have heard the drainage and flooding concerns expressed this evening; Lot 4 is a difficult site, if I were a neighbor I would be concerned. but they are living in a subdividable area; have concerns about the specifics but am not necessarily opposed to subdividing. Think there are items in the negative declaration that some residents would find to have a negative environmental impact, water cascading over neighbors, noise, transportation/ circulation concerns, 24' roadway is frightening in the case of an emergency. Further Commission comment: do not feel this application is complete, would like to see a wider road, would like to know where the homes will be located, where water is going, where emergency exits will be. CE stated after hearing concerns expressed this evening a revised-- mitigated evised_.mitigated negative declaration could be prepared. C. Jacobs moved to continue the item, seconded by C. Graham. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 8, 1993 Discussion continued: if this motion is approved am concerned the subdivision will be turned down anyway and applicant will have spent more time and money unnecessarily, there are some things he cannot do such as a second exit; would like to see more definite information on each parcel, if that information were available would vote for the subdivision, will vote to continue; from inspection of the area do not think development will increase fire risk, it will reduce it; understand the concerns of uphill and downhill neighbors with respect to view obstruction but this is a bit premature ;particularly in the negative declaration, there is an ordinance addressing views and any new construction will come to the Planning Commission, they have given a general idea of proposed development, applicant is uncertain about Lot 4 development at present; staff's suggested conditions will address erosion; Planning Commission needs to make a decision about what to recommend to City Council, is a 24' roadway appropriate, what are the consequences of widening the road to 30' to 341, more trees would have to be taken out, that is a legitimate issue for additional discussion; water runoff needs to be more thoroughly addressed; these are buildable lots, given the size of the lots do not think the addition of three lots in the area would be unacceptable, it seems to be an intelligent approach to a difficult subdivision; perhaps tree removal should be addressed more thoroughly. This is the difference between planning and zoning code enforcement; the city has developed a good planning document, applicant is asking for too much, this is not good planning; need more evidence to be convinced this is a good subdivision which will be good for the city. Regarding the owner's property right, he bought this property in its current condition and knew what would be required to subdivide, he has exercised his property right by asking for this subdivision; in light of what I have heard this evening, unless Commission wants more information, would recommend denial, do not see this as a good proposal. Do not look at a subdivision map as just a piece of paper with lines on it but at its totality with houses on it, this may not be relevant but it will be to the residents uphill, these three lots will be back for hillside area construction permits and all the residents in the area will be back for those hearings. Motion to continue the item failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Graham, Jacobs and Mink voting no. C. Graham moved to recommend to City Council denial of the project including the negative declaration and tentative subdivision map, variance for lot frontage on a private street and special permit for creek enclosure. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Galligan and Kelly voting no. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to City Council. _- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 8, 1993 CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its February 1, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary