HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.10.13MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 13, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Coffey called the October 13, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bojuds, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey
Absent: None
Ff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior
Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Planner, Janice Jagelski
miNUTES The minutes of the April 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, Item #6,
Application for Design Review at 1405 Drake Avenue, condition #1, should be
amended as follows: "l) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 19, 1999, sheets A.
- A. 5" . and
the minutes of the July 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, Item #11,
Application for a Sign Exception at 1155 California Drive, Condition #1; should
be amended as follows: "1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped june 21, 1999 July
2, 1999 (11" x 17"), Site Plan, Parking Lot Elevation, California Drive
Elevation, Analog Clock Elevation, Reverse Channel Letter A & Eagle Logo,
Reverse Channel Letter B E, and date stamped May 13, 1999, Flag Poles
Elevation (11" x 17")"; and date stamped June 8, 1999, ATM Elevation (8'f2"
x 11 "); and
the minutes of the September 27, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved
as mailed.
'PROVAL OF AGENDA
i ne order of the agenda was then approved.
C" , of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999
F°OM THE FLOOR
i . e were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR SECOND -
STORY REAR SETBACK FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1021 DRAKE
AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN SCHLESINGER, APPLICANT AND EUGENE SUPANICH, PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: the plans do not clearly show the
floor to ceiling height and the plate height for each floor, it should be added to the plans; applicant did not
provide justification for the plate height shown on the second floor, particularly in the light of the steep roof
shown; does the water heater location obstruct the required parking space; there are three squares shown in the
garage, what are they; where is the creek relative to the portion of the patio which is closest, show on plans;
what is a Stream Bed Alteration Permit, why is one required; concerned about the front facade, the front door is
not centered, looks odd, would the applicant address; this is a five bedroom house with only one bathroom with
a bathtub, the house has been designed to the maximum FAR so it will not be possible to expand the bathrooms
in the future, does the applicant want only one bathtub; the site section shown on the plans should show the
1- se on the site as it relates to the distance from the creek, there is an engineering description but need a visual
i ,eresentation; should show the outline of the existing house on the propose site plan; do not see the declining
. Y,ht envelope on the elevations, please add; plans should show where in the rear yard the variance happens,
c..arify drawing; big roof on the front a break in the plate on the front might help this elevation; also need to
give special attention to the eave detail and emphasize the entry; there are brick walls next to the creek on the
other site they should be shown on the plans; design reviewer notes some items in condition referring to notes on
plans, please provide more detail on these items. There were no further questions from the commission. The
item for public hearing on October 25, 1999 providing all the information is submitted to the Planning
Department in a timely fashion.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO
VARIANCE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR AN 80 SF SECOND STORY
ADDITION AND 231 SF FIRST STORY ADDITION TO REMODEL AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REPLACE A DETACHED GARAGE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT
1610 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT AND RHONDA HOCKER, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: what is the exact distance from the
garage to the property line; is the carport counted in the existing FAR; how would the proposed changes to the
declining height envelope affect this exception; why is the exercise room not counted as a bedroom, if it were
counted as a bedroom, would it change the on -site parking requirement; what is the hardship to justify the
addition on the second floor for the sun room; does the FAR calculation include the master bedroom/office/den
new square footage; concerned about the zero side setback in this residential area where the pattern is big
hVaces between houses, address; is it possible to put the new covered parking in the rear 40% of the lot; what
tification would there be for a variance to have two uncovered parking spaces; any action should include a
condition which says that the zero side setback exception is for the garage only, and any future expansion of the
2
C-, of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999
ho-se must meet setback requirements. There were no further questions from the commission. The item for
I, is hearing on October 25, 1999 providing all the information is submitted in time.
ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate
discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on
the motion to adopt.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER/SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN WITHIN AN EXISTING CHURCH CLASSROOM AREA AT THE
FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST AT 1449 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (SVETLANA
GRINBERG AND LUARA TSARIA WHALEY, APPLICANTS AND FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST•
SCIENTIST. PROPERTY OWNER)
Chair Coffey introduced the consent calendar and asked if anyone in the audience would like to call any item off
the calendar. There were no requests from the audience. He then asked if any commissioner would like to call
an item off. The response was negative. C. Deal asked that it be noted for the record; he will be abstaining
from discussion and vote on 1449 Oak Grove due to contribution of services (no fee) to the applicant.
Bcju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff report, by resolution with recommended conditions in the staff report,.
motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-
0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised.
Regilar Calendar
APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND TWO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF A DETACHED ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 2208
HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (CARLOS & ROSEMARY RIVAS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS) REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 25, 1999 - INFORMATION NOT RECEIVED
Complete information not available, item was continued to October 25, 1999.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REORIENTATION OF TWO LOTS CREATED BY
DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO NEW TWO-
STORY HOUSES ON THE RECONFIGURED LOTS, TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT FOR THE
NEW HOUSES ON LOTS A AND B AT 1351 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JERRY DEAL, JD &
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DENISE LAUCIENSEN. PROPERTY OWNER)
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT
B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR RECONFIGURATION OF TWO PARCELS
Keference staff report, 10.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed
eria and Planning Department comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Three letters of
correspondence were received before this hearing: 1) One letter was signed by property owners from four adjacent
3
C-V of'Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13. 1999
parcels; issues of their letter included concern of increased traffic on Montero from two new driveways replacing the
c ping driveway, and the new houses appear very large, 2) Written remarks submitted by Pat Grabinsky, 1325
Castillo Avenue stated that she objects to the two properties on the proposed Montero site. Considers it over-
building and excessive; and 3) A site plan and area map with no attached letter was submitted by Dean Nicholson,
neighbor at 2609 Hillside Drive. The City Planner corrected the table on Page 3 of the staff report comparing
Zoning Standards of Existing House to Proposed House on Lot B. The Floor Area Ratio of the new house should
be 52.8% (3168 SF). There were no questions from the commission. Commissioner Deal abstained from review
because of a business relationship with the project.
Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Applicant, Denise Lauciensen, 1403 Montero Avenue stated that she
would like the opportunity to answer or respond to questions raised during the public hearing. She stated that she
lives across the street from the project site, thinks reorientation of new lots with driveways onto Montero Avenue
makes sense as a safety issue because Hillside Drive is too busy, increased setbacks to reduce mass, complies with
city requirements except for height, the special permit for additional height for the new houses which is necessary to
achieve the traditional style of the proposed new homes.
Dean and Debbie Nicholson, neighbor, 2609 Hillside Drive, Natasha Nielson, 2525 Hillside Drive spoke in
opposition: referring to the site plan he previously submitted expressed concern that the placement of the new
detached garages one foot from his side property line will create a dark tunnel at entrance to his home and
requested a minimum Y-0" setback for the new garages from their property line; opposed to the fencing the entire
, perty; concerned that the excavation for construction of these garages will impact his 4" sewer line he installed
along his side property line; owners of four adjacent properties are concerned with the increased traffic caused by
new houses with driveway access onto Montero Avenue, would prefer to require one driveway to enter onto
Hillside Drive, and one access onto Montero Ave; the previous property owner, Mr. Regan, used to ask the
neighbors not to park adjacent to his driveway because adjacent parked cars would block his visibility; concerned
about the large size and number of bedrooms in each of the new houses feel that the houses will greatly increase the
density of the neighborhood. Commissioner asked if the two garages could be setback 3 feet from the property line,
applicant responded one on corner can be moved by garage on interior lot would required moving the house forward
2 feet and it would then not meet the area's front setback requirement. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: when existing house went on market toured the house and realized it was on verge of
falling down, not economical to save; there are two legal parcels under the house, it is a sign of the times that density
is being increased; favor orientation of lots Montero because of the safety issues of exiting auto on Hillside; special
permit for height was created because it encourages a traditional style house design; support the project. The house
is not in great shape; proposed houses do what we want to do with design review well designed and compatible with
neighborhood consistency requirement of design review ordinance; their footprints have wings, porches and strong
design components; would like to see the double -trucked redwood tree on Lot A saved. Also toured this house
when it was on the market; needs a lot of work; new designs are good; the cape cod colonial and Tudor house are
prime examples of accomplishing the task of design review; driveways for the new houses are better on Montero
Avenue; detached garages are a good element of this design, noted that the 4-bedroom house on Lot B (corner lot)
only requires one covered parking space but two are provided; request for special permits is justified by the
racter of the new houses and have used special permits for this purpose previously for projects approved at
2104 Easton and 2304 Balboa Avenue. Hate to see the old house go, but only the scrumptious curb -side appeal
rains; area is zoned to permit two lots in this location and. adequate infrastructure is in place to support them;
Montero Avenue is the only place for the garages to exit; would applicant be willing to consider any solutions to
4
"-v of'Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1999
tr- garage location problem, would support a minor setback variance to achieve a satisfactory compromise.
Commission comment continued: am opposed to the project; firm believer in the design review process and
support the reviewers recommendation that the applicant redesign to conform with the 30'-0" height maximum; the
recommendation of the design review consultant should be an integral part of the Planning Commission's decision;
see no reason that the brand new houses can't be designed within all the code requirements to fit on the lots;
concerned that the two new houses designed within 2 to 3 feet of the maximum allowed FAR, this will have a major
impact on neighbors; maximizing the FAR is the reason for needing to remove the protected redwood tree; could do
additional grading on site to further reduce the height of the houses to comply with the code, to exceed the height
with both houses has a multiplier effect on the neighbors, should meet standards as has been done when other double
lots have been developed in this neighborhood.
Additional commissioner comments: driveways should exit onto Montero Avenue to increase safety; two houses
on standard lots will fit into the neighborhood; the height of these houses is measured from the top of curb there is
a great slope on each of these lots, a challenge to reduce grade and maintain the integrity of the design height of
each new house, would like to see the height of the corner house reduced 1 -2 feet without changing the design.
Spoke with the Design Review Consultant who reviewed this project and do not agree that the new houses need to
be designed to adhere to the 30 foot height limit, the intent of a special permit for height is to allow the height to
increase to encourage for these types of traditional designs; the code has been changed to permit special permits in
lieu of variances to make this possible, commission had acted unanimously on similar special permits for new houses
.104 Easton and at 2306 Balboa. Special permits were created to achieve an architectural design, not to increase
plate heights, create attics or third stories; there is no mechanism in the code to protect old homes and the
.Lblished lot patterns of larger tots; when compares these new proposed houses with other new houses built
before the design review ordinance was adopted, can support these new houses because they add texture and
character to the area and support positive Burlingame residential patterns.
C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the conditional use permit for lot reorientation, design review and two special
permits for height for the project as submitted, by resolution, with the following conditions in the staff report: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped: Lot A:
August 4, 1999, Sheets 1 through 5 and G-1; and Lot B, Sheets 1, 5, and GP-1 Date stamped October 6, 1999, and
Sheets 2, 3, and 4 Date Stamped August 4, 1999; 2) that the project shall be constructed as presented in the plans
approved by the Planning Commission, including that the maximum height of the house on Lot B shall not exceed
35'-10" as measured from the average top of curb, and that any future changes to the size or envelope of each
building from the plans shown and approved, which would include adding a dormer (s) or changing a roof height or
pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection in each house, the
property owner shall submit a survey of the roof ridge of each structure and have a licensed civil engineer document
that the finished heights of the buildings shall be as shown on the approved plans; this survey shall be approved by
the City Engineer; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 1, 1999, memo and the Senior Landscape
Inspector's June 23, 1999 memo, shall be met; 5) that the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment prior to
issuance of a building permit or preparation for construction on either lot; 6) that prior to issuance of a building
permit for the new residence on Lot A, the applicant shall apply for and be issued a Tree Removal Permit from the
City's Beautification Commission for the removal of the split -trunk redwood tree adjacent to the rear of the
icture; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition
as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit, design review and two
5
r- of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13. 1999
sr -vial permits for height to build the project. The motion was passed on a 5-1-1 voice vote (C. Coffey dissenting,
C. Jeal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Luzuriaga moved approval of the lot line adjustment, with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was
seconded by C.Keighran. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the lot line adjustment map. The motion was
passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND FOR VEHICLE MANEUVERING IN THE
PARKING AREA FOR A NEW 3-UNIT, 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1009 BURLINGAME
AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (FRANK PANACEA. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
Complete information was not available to prepare the staff report, the item was continued to the October 25,
1999 meeting.
APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING
OFFICE BUILDING FROM GENERAL OFFICE TO HEALTH SERVICE USE AT 1820 OGDEN DRIVE,
ZONED C-3. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JERRY WARREN AND SUSAN
FULLEMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS)
P `erence staff report, 10.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report,
i...ewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration.
r -nmissioners asked: the dimensions of parking spaces 1 and 2 do not seem to meet code requirements, action
(.—, be conditioned on proper dimensions; is the second elevator necessary, the applicant can advise the
commission. There were no further questions of staff from the commission.
Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, discussed the project
noting that the present elevator is not ADA accessible, medical users felt that should have compliant ADA
access; looked at relocating the second elevator further inside the building, it would still interfere with two
parking spaces; replacing the existing with a new ADA compliant elevator would cost more than adding a second
elevator and there would be no access for one of the tenants during construction; thought it would be better to
place the elevator at the rear, put windows in it for claustrophobiac patients, and size it for a gurney; could
increase the size of parking space 2 by removing a wooden enclosure from the wall; will field measure spaces 1
and 2, saw a pick up truck parked in space 2, it fit. Could you get a hardship exemption from ADA for the front
elevator; did not try, felt having a second elevator was better, provide access if other is broken, front elevator
does not provide gurney access.
Susan Fullemann, 2866 Hillside and Jerry Warren, 2866 Hillside, also responded. What medical services can a
nurse practicianer do, such a practicianer can diagnose and prescribe medications under the guidance of a doctor.
Do they sometimes see patients without the doctor, yes. Who works in the lab area, one employee but not all the
time. There is a large waiting room which can accommodate a large number of patients and there are 9 exam
rooms, 9 people waiting and 9 in examining rooms plus on -site employees makes 25, only one less than all the
-king spaces on site, I'm psychologist and see only one patient an hour. This is not an HMO practice, all the
p,,ople pay by insurance and we will spend a longer time per patient and patients will not have to wait, back to
,31der style of medical service, some of the examining rooms will be used to see therapy patients, one is a
procedure room for testing; doctors will see a patient for about 30 minutes, the psychologist will see patients for
I-- of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13. 1999
or- hour to an hour and a half. Is the 332 SF for the elevator, yes. Are examination rooms for psychiatry and
i.. .icine, we provide a family health service, an integrated kind of medical service; we will use a few of the
examination rooms initially and more over time as we increase the number of patients. How will the shuttle
service work, many patients in the area, we will pick up and bring to the office, expect about 5 % of the patients
to arrive that way. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: first concern is parking in this location with a number of apartments across the street
on -street parking is a premium; wonder why not remodel the existing elevator it may increase the cost but it will
not affect parking; congested area would like to see more parking provided; don't understand how patients will
use examination rooms, but people will bring people to get service and wait; what is the hardship for the parking
variance, selected a building which is zoned for something else that is not a hardship; another problem is that the
availability of another elevator does not make up for the loss of parking; do not see how increasing the use in the
existing building says the property is too small and is therefore a reason for a variance; even if no elevator still
4-5 parking spaces less than required for intensified use of the building, can't find exceptional circumstances.
One way to address might be to tie a less intense medical use to the site with conditions of approval; otherwise
this particular medical use may be less than a typical medical use but a future medical user could be more
intensive in terms of parking; why does the applicant need so many examining rooms if they are returning to a
more personalized service would want fewer rooms and smaller waiting room otherwise they become like all
current medical practices; parking is an extreme problem if that kind of medical practice were to go here with 26
r maple on the second floor alone; this is a logical location for a medical service close to the hospital, but do not
4—Aerstand the use of two parking spaces to install a new elevator when they have an elevator they could make
. -k, 4 parking spaces for the change is more acceptable. Need to look at the second floor plan to staff, if it
N,-re to be used as office only they would not be before commission; why, because the trip generation of a
health service is different than that of a regular office use; we could condition this use, the idea of a new elevator
to improve access is not bad but the building is small for two elevators, if rebuild elevator at its present location
it should break down no more frequently than a new elevator, the new elevator is proposed at the rear of the
building which does not greet patients well nor is it as available.
C. Deal moved to deny the application without prejudice directing the applicant to eliminate the additional
elevator and rebuild the existing elevator to meet the needs of their use, better define use so that it demonstrates
how the use is less intense than a "typical" medical practice including number of patients, number of employees,
reorganize and reduce the number of examination rooms. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
Comment on the motion: Will need to craft verbiage for conditions carefully so we can enforce; staff noted the
need for a high degree of precision including a traffic study so could tell if the limited operation was consistent
with the conditions of approval.
C. Deal amended the motion to include preparation of a traffic and parking study based on the proposed intensity
of use compared to a "typical" medical practice to show the extent of the reduction achieved with the proposed
more limited use. C. Luzuriaga, the second, agreed to the amendment to the motion.
airman Coffey called for a voice vote on the amended motion to deny without prejudice. The motion
pissed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
7
f`v ol'Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13. 1999
,APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1256 DRAKE AVENUE AND 1257 CABRILLO
ENUE, ZONED R-1. (RAY STINNETTE AND SUSAN MCLAUGHLIN, TRUSTEES FOR STINNETTE
TRUST, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 10.13.99, with attachments. SE Murtuza and Commission discussed the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. There were no questions from the commission.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve this lot line adjustment to clear the titles of these two properties based on the
recommendations in the staff report, by resolution with the condition in the staff report: 1) that the lot -line
adjustment shall be recorded and reflected in the deed; a copy of the deed shall be sent to the city. The motion
was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion
passed on a 7-0 affirmative voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
DETERMINATION REGARDING NONCONFORMING MULTI -FAMILY USE IN R-1 ZONE AT 1532
HOWARD AVENUE.
r-ference staff report, 10.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report and
__.ed: what are the Sunday construction hours, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. established in the city amendments to the
ti 4ding code; building is in poor repair could it be returned to 3 dwelling units, yes that is what the
,__.tintenance and repair work described in the present building permits allows; under the current ordinance can
one expand a nonconforming use, no, the issue tonight is whether reducing the intensity of a nonconforming use
by changing within the existing envelope and footprint is possible and whether a reduction of a nonconforming
use is an allowed continuance or expansion of a nonconforming use and therefore not allowed. C. Vistica asked
that it be noted for the record that he owns and occupies a nonconforming use and feels that he should therefore
abstain discussion and vote on this determination. C. Vistica then stepped down from the dais. C. Deal noted he
too owns a similarly zoned property, a duplex in an R-1 zone, but noted that he did not think that this action would
affect his property value since this is an use issue, cannot see how this determination would change the code so do
not feel he has a conflict.
Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Tolu, the property owner, spoke. He noted that when he bought
the property there were three dwelling units with three tenants on the site; he wants to reduce it to two dwelling
units one for himself and one for his son; he is not proposing to add to the footprint but would be extending the
structure to include 8 SF of the existing porch by enclosing it. It was noted that the report said that the conversion
of the building to two units included enclosing of the entry porch and extending living area into an attic space.
Dennis Solon, the contractor, spoke noting that the porch is now 40 SF, they are enclosing 8 SF. to make a second
entry, they are using upstairs what is already there. Commission asked does the building permit issued include all
the work you are presently doing, submitted plans for repair found lots of termite damage and dry rot, so for the
-`ructural integrity of the house removed the walls; to make a duplex will not add to the footprint, will turn doors to
le each other and create one entry; waiting for this decision to see if can continue; could replace walls and have
A'--ee dwelling units.
D.
r'. of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13. 1999
0--rge Cannon, 1545 Howard Ave; Audrey Gustafson, 1540 Howard; Joann Stenbird, 1533 Howard; Marilyn
l -,ion, 1545 Howard Ave.; commented on the determination: staff directed us to request a determination,
submitted a letter on September 27 asking that the commission determine that the work being done was not normal
maintenance and repair but was reconstruction, and to determine that the second floor unit should be abated because
it had been 4 years since the lady who lived there had died, her son had an apartment on the first floor, and it had
never been rented since she owned the building; for these reasons the apartment should be abandoned. Commission
has worked hard to maintain the neighborhoods in Burlingame the many nonconforming multiple family uses in this
neighborhood impact parking and other attributes, this building should be required to move back to an R-1, single
family use. County records do not show Mr. Tolu as property owner, show property in trust for owner's son; the
two tenants downstairs moved out in June, the second floor unit was never a rental unit, it was a personal residence
and has not been rented since owners death. How did this happen, no one knew the property was for sale, then
someone came and gutted the place, why was it not cited for being dilapidated before all this happened, building is an
eye sore; this is a tall building and second floor looks into her yard, no privacy; work done went way beyond repair
altered the interior and then did the exterior. CA noted that the code does not address rental unit, multiple family is
determined by the number of food preparation areas/kitchens, it does not matter if units rented or owner occupied.
There is no parking on the street, where will occupants park; submitted pictures of work underway on the property.
Testimony continued: what could be done about dilapidation if found before work done; CA to be dilapidated it must
be found by the County Health department and Building Department on inspection to be a public nuisance, then the
property owner has the choice of correcting the problems or abating the building. There is the provision in the code
`automatic change by non-use", since owners home was up stairs and did not use for a number of years, cannot
b- used as a rental unit now; CA not relevant if owner lived there or not, it was still a dwelling unit, is not an issue
j since the applicant wants to change to two dwellings and is willing to give up the third unit. A dwelling unit
does not equal a rental unit, no. In the past the city wanted to turn this part of town to all apartments, residents
fought, now there are 4 multiple family units surrounding her house; she lives on a large parcel, five properties touch
it and three of them are illegal; parking is so bad cannot see backing out of driveway, tenants do not use on site
parking; this house is being rebuilt, it should have been demolished, support the residents by returning it to single
family; duplex is better than tri-plex but should be single family.
Property owner responded: there are four parking spaces on site in a car port built four years ago; the proposed
duplex will be used by only one family, he and his son, that should reduce the parking demand; Mrs. O'Brien died
four years ago, when her son came from out of town he stayed occasionally in the upstairs apartment.
Mrs. Cannon responded whenever talk about multiple family in an area like this require low cost housing, know this
will be a rental and no way will it be rented as low cost housing. There were no further comments on the item and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: to CA if have 3 dwelling units in R-1 zone and entire building is vacant for 2 or 3 years, is it
still units or does it loose its nonconforming status, CA in general if it is abandoned, boarded up, and no effort is
being made to lease or sell the property it loose its nonconformity, CP noted that if can document that effort is
being made to sell or lease a property for a given nonconforming use, can continue that use so long as not a
reconstruction. The term "extended" used in the code does not just refer to the residential use but to the movement
.he use within the building, the key seems to be if the work is determined to be "reconstruction" then clearly
cannot do. CA noted that the record is clear the city accepts this property on Howard as nonconforming. Not fair
.Ake a use away if cannot rent it; if owner reduces the number of dwelling units, can he increase in the future, no,
building permit was issued to repair and maintain three units, if do additional work to reduce to two dwellings that
9
1- v of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999
c,-ct goes beyond maintenance and repair; clear that this building applied for a permit to maintain and repair, that
k s not include removing all the walls, he has gone beyond that with his work; concerned about extending the use
into other areas of the structure, the porch and attic; does not change multi -family use if you live in one unit yourself,
still multi -family dwelling; now wants to change use to make it closer to a conforming use, but gone too far should
have checked the code first; need to have the Chief Building Official come and tell us what happened. Think that if
you reduce the type of use it should retain its nonconforming status, a decrease in the same use not a change of use.
C. Deal moved the determination that a nonconforming use could be reduced so long as the use was the same and
the expenditure to achieve the reduction was no more than maintenance and repair. The motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
Comment on the motion: would this be a rezoning; CA the premise of the nonconforming ordinance is that the
nonconforming use can be retained as long as it is kept up, that could be forever, unless the use changes. It is not
the same then as the building code which if you do a certain amount of work then you are required to bring some
services up to code; in this case the use would not change it would become less intensive but same use.
Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to determine that a nonconforming use could be reduced as
long as the use stayed the same and as long as the work to effectuate the change did not exceed maintenance and
repair. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica abstaining) voice vote.
emission comment continued: the second issue is the issue of maintenance and repairs "extending" the
nonconforming use; does rearranging uses within the structure trigger nonconformity; if allow replacement of a
.conforming use it will be there another 70 years and the intent of the code to move toward conformity will not be
achieved; does extending mean making the expected service life of the building longer; seems to hinge on the
concept of reconstruction, code says can't reconstruct; but does "extend" mean dimension as well as time; what is
reconstruction; is it similar to a variance where if demo can build back exactly the way it was. CA noted that under
"extension" cannot make nonhabitable area habitable within the same structure;.
C. Deal moved to determine that in a nonconforming use "extension" means that if an area is not used for living area
it cannot be converted to living area. Seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the
motion to clarify the concept of extension in a nonconforming use. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica
abstaining) vote.
C. Bojues moved to determine that reconstruction be defined in terms of replacement value of the extension and not
exceed 50% of replacement value. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
Comment on the motion: CA pointed out that this would be a definition only for the nonconforming section of the
code since this term is used in different ways in other places in the code. This determination would be made by the
building official, yes; can the commission get a determination from the Chief Building Official regarding
reconstruction, yes, his determination is based on the replacement value divided by the cost of the work proposed to
be done; could he bring the calculations for this project to the next meeting, yes if he is available, otherwise will bring
to the next meeting that he is able to attend.
C. Bojues withdrew his motion and moved to continue this determination to the October 25, 1999, meeting if all the
)rmation is available and the Chief Building Official is able to attend. The second agreed with the amendment to
trie motion. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed 6-0-1
10
r'=,v of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 13. 1999
(r Vistica abstaining). CA noted that commission could discuss the issue of abandonment of a use along with
i nstruction.
PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of October 4, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
MINUiE10.13
11