Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.01.12MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on January 12, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioner Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Civil Engineer, Donald Chang; Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Musso MINUTES - Commissioner Deal moved approval of the minutes of the December 8, 1997 Planning Commission; C. Mink seconded. Motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) . AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1701 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1, (JEFF AND SUSAN KOCKOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: Staff reviewed the project and commissioners asked for an explanation of what it means when a portion of construction has no permits. The item was set for public hearing on January 26, 1998. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TWO VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND FOR DWELLING UNITS IN FOUR BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT AND A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (ALEX MORTAZAVI, HABITAT ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ALEX & NATASHA NOVOSYOLOV AND MICHAEL AYLWARD & DEBRA MCCULLOUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the project and the commissioner made the following requests for information: floor plans indicate that in some units the living rooms have direct access to the garages without an intervening door, please clarify; the Negative Declaration indicates in one place that there may be a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12. 1998 potentially significant traffic impact caused by the project, then in another location states that there will not be, clarify; should the new tree evaluation be referenced in the environmental report; provide information on the amount of storage in each unit; do the CC and R's reserve the guest parking for guests only; how will the use of the church parking be controlled; provide a more complete analysis of the adequacy of a single exit onto El Camino Real; what color will the building be, how will its facade blend into the architectural style of the nearby and visible Baptist church; will residents of the condominium use the Baptist church parking for over flow, how is this being dealt with; how is the height of the building being measured; what are the sight lines like at the exit on to El Camino; the side walk is elevated above the curb at this location how does that affect sight lines. The item was set for public hearing on January 26, 1998, providing the commissioners questions could be answered in time. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (ALEX MORTAZAVI, HABITAT ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ALEX & NATASHA NOVOSYOLOV AND MICHAEL AYLWARD & DEBRA MCCULLOUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: There were no requests and the application was set for public hearing on January 26, 1998. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL BEER FOR OFF - SITE CONSUMPTION, ALLOW TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICES AND REVISE THE HOURS OF OPERATION AT 333 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, (GOLDEN STATE BREWING CO., DBA STEELHEAD BREWING CO., APPLICANT AND DONALD SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER). Staff reviewed the project and the commissioners asked for the following additional information: how many of the bars and restaurants with bars in Subareas A and B are open until 2 a.m. now; what has the actual use and timing of that use of the loading dock on California been since the business opened; are there any bulk sales of beer to off -site locations from this business; will the required trash cans be those selected for the streetscape improvements; will the conditions reflect the traffic engineers recommendation on customer pick up. The item was set for public hearing on January 26, 1998 ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION AT 1170 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (BENJAMIN & INOCENCIA POBLETE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 01.12.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. CA Anderson suggested some guidelines for the public hearing noting that the item before the commission is the 8 inch variance for fence height, the commission's decision must be based on the reasons given in the code; if an exception is granted it would run with the land no matter who owns the property. There were no further questions from the Commissioner's. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Chair Key opened the public hearing. Ceny Poblete, property owner ar 1170 Vancouver, spoke in favor noting that her husband was on a trip; she reviewed her letter stating the need for an additional 4 inches on the trellis was to provide privacy for both parties; from their deck you can see into their neighbor's garage. Commissioner noted that they needed to find exceptional circumstances on the properties to justify granting a higher fence, how is your lot different; primarily the height of the existing deck which allows people and dogs to see each other; not want trellis, but visibility has become a big problem, even added tarp to shield until vines grow; visibility is main problem, the property does slope some; tried a temporary 2 foot addition to fence,neighbor did not like and we removed it. Andrea Poblete Alvarez, applicants daughter, also spoke in favor noting that the reason for the fence was the problems with the neighbors and invasion of their privacy, this is documented and an unusual circumstance as well as a hardship. Elisa Johnson, 1228 Cortez, added in favor, that she had had a problem with a neighbor and if 4 inches on a fence would help them in their life, it is a hardship which should be granted. Speaking in opposition was Kathleen Petto, 1160 Vancouver, she noted that they had moved into the house in 1985, in early 1990's their garage had burned and they spent $60,000 rebuilding it; the Poblete's moved in and added to the Petto's property line fence without permission and added a rear fence without a permit; the City Attorney assisted in getting them to remove the illegal addition to their fence; sought mediation but neighbors refused and legal action ensued; the fence has remained, she noted some inaccuracies in the plans noting that this is not a proposed lattice or 1 inch addition on the rear fence, they exist; she had a problem with the high trellis because the fast growing roses and honey suckle over hang her driveway and create a nuisance; the neighbors become upset when she or her gardener trim the vegetation back; if the trellis were lower then it would be easier to maintain the vegetation on her side; the high structure creates a sense of her yard and property being walled in and reduces the use of her yard, it sets a precedent for the neighborhood and increases the isolation of neighbors, there is no evidence of hardship or exceptional circumstances; none of the previous occupants of the property next door needed a higher fence; her property is devalued by tarps, fencing, know city's powers are limited but would like the lower fence to be maintained so that the vegetation could be controlled and her property would be less walled in; if the city's allows the rear fence, its location should be surveyed; don't mind neighbors seeing me, their house already looms over the backyard about 10 feet off property line, to add 4 to 10 inches to the fence compounds this looming feeling of the two story structure. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the issue here is, are there exceptional circumstances and hardship justifying an exception to the fence regulations, this is a normal lot for the area in fact the lots are bigger than many in the city and there is an easement at the rear, have reviewed the material and listened to the evidence presented and can find no hardship, therefore move for denial of the fence exception request. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Discussion on the motion: talk to a lot of people who complain about two story houses and views into property, 8 inches on the fence will not offer a lot of privacy in this circumstance; one issue is who can cut the vegetation, CA noted that the general rule is California is that you can trim vegetation but you can't damage it. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Chair Key called for the vote. The motion to deny the fence exception request was approved 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) on a roll call vote. Appeal procedures to Tuesday, January 20, 1998, were advised. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND STORAGE AREA AT 1236 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (EUGENE A. & GLORIA BORDEGARAY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 01.12.98, with. attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked CA and CP on what authority could commission require applicant to provide two covered parking spaces, CP noted that question seemed to be directed at future need for parking if the house were expanded. The applicant addressed how this structure could be adjusted, staff would not it would probably need to be removed to meet a two covered parking space requirement; CA noted that this structure is almost the same size as a two car garage but provides only one legal covered parking space, the applicant must justify the reasons for his request; there is no requirement at this time for two covered parking spaces; can the roof ridge be 15 feet in height, yes that is the maximum allowed with this roof design. There were no further questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Gene Bordegaray, property owner at 1235 Cabrillo, spoke: the proposed garage is designed to meet his personal needs; tried to keep same foot print as the existing, dilapidated garage, to preserve the most useable yard area for his family and to protect the existing trees, two of which are of protected size, he is allowed 600 SF he has a footprint of 497 SF the additional area is 238 SF on the second floor; he has an older home which lacks storage area inside; he is 5'-10" tall and needs to be able to stand up inside the second floor storage area, with a 15'-4" height he can stand in 63 % of the second floor to get things in and out easily; the lot slopes to the rear about 2 feet so the structure will look lower from the street; there are garages nearby about the same height as he is proposing, so it will not dwarf existing structures; want the windows at I F-10" so that he can get natural light into the storage area and improve the appearance of the structure; the windows look into his property and 20' to 25' tall trees on the opposite side of his lot block views from the second floor garage windows into neighbor's yards; he is requesting storage area 11.2 % of the size of the house, not much over the 10 % allowed, given the minimum storage area inside the house; intends to use the garage for a work bench to do home repair work,hobbies and his wife gardens; realize that this might be considered a significant number of exceptions but they will not have a significant impact on the neighbors; have lived in Burlingame for 26 years, had kids so will not need any more bedrooms while he owns the house. Commissioner asked if applicant could explain more clearly the exceptional circumstances with the property; applicant noted the lack of storage space in the house which is one of the older houses in the neighborhood and if he rebuilt the garage without the second story and expanded the footprint he would have to remove two heritage trees and some fruit trees. Commissioner noted he asked about two car covered parking possibilities because the maximum FAR on this lot is 3420 SF and the present house and proposed garage are 3300 SF that would leave very little room in the future for anyone to expand, and not enough square footage to provide another covered parking space should one be needed; in the past 600 SF has been considered for a two car garage plus a little, not a one car garage; if add a parking space to it, this structure would be 1000 SF, K. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 bigger than ever approved, is this the right project for the future of the property; could lower plate to 8 feet and eliminate one special permit, need plate at 13 feet so get enough area in the second floor so he can stand up comfortably; ceiling over car is 7 feet but plate (where roof rafters hit) needs to be about 6 feet higher. Tom and Liz O'Conner, 1232 Cabrillo, spoke in favor noting the applicant's garage needs repair, 4 inches in height makes no difference to them; if going to spend money to improve property need to think about what the work will do for us, this will cost a lot and we support his request. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: have an ordinance for a reason, applicant wants to exceed city limits, city limits have been reduced over time because of the close proximity of properties and their affects on one another; today there is a hedge of vegetation screening, tomorrow a major frost and it is gone and so is the screen; do not see any exceptional circumstances with this property, something might fit in if built in 1935 but standards are different today; 600 SF is plenty, had many long discussions establishing the 8 foot plate line, a lot of debate getting the ridge increased from 14 feet to 15 feet, this structure will be massive on property line; applicant could reduce size to 600 SF, reduce the plate line to 8 feet, reducing the plate line would reduce the height of the windows which would reduce privacy and light intrusion on neighboring properties, could limit to 10 % of house for storage area, all of these changes would eliminate special permits; use of the propose recreation use, hobbies, gardening is no problem as is replacement at present garage location. C. Deal then moved to deny the application without prejudice with the direction for resubmittal given by the commission and the added limitation that the applicant resubmit to the commission within 60 days. C. Mink seconded the motion. In comment on the motion commissioners noted: different view, need to look at the neighborhood and the impact on the neighborhood and value to the applicant of a proposal and try to balance, he is asking for 6 permits: 735 SF with the majority internal, is not massive, not bigger than a 600 SF footprint which is permitted; in relation to the O'Conner garage it is smaller, so no impact on them or to the property to the rear since has a 15 foot setback; the plate height and roof height also relate to the impact on the neighbors, and these fit in with the other garages on the street; storage space is a premium today; no negative impact for window height since he sees only into his own yard and only affects his own property; the proposed recreation use is not a problem; bottom line with the established standards is a compromise that best fits the general use in the city, applicants not understand extraordinary circumstances, in this case they have an old house with little storage, nice old palms to protect, removal of nice part of yard if extend garage to the east; not believe that since he was on the commission we have approved a 600 SF garage that did not have a 2 car capacity. There were no further comments. Chair Key called for the vote on the motion to deny without prejudice by roll call. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chair Key ordered a five minute recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:55 p.m. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12. 1998 in the plans; the red tape was an attempt to show the 8 foot length of the privacy fence where the hot tub was going to be placed; the deck was lowered to three steps rather than two steps off the existing porch so that the vents to the foundation of the house would be above rather than under the new deck. Commissioner asked if the yellow tape is the deck surface what would the deck railing be like, it would be open about 4'-3" or so high all the way around the deck; is the spa self contained, it is an electric spa placed on the deck and sound proof enough not to bother the neighbor; clarify that the ribbons in place are 11 inches lower than the deck level shown on the plans and the red ribbons showing the screen are 5 feet rather than 6 feet above the surface of the deck, the applicant responded yes. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Deal noted that he was obliged to abstain from this item since he had had a business engagement with the applicant within the last year. C. Coffey noted that he visited the site, saw the ribbons, and felt that this was an improvement over the pervious approval, the neighbors have withdrawn their opposition, so move approval of the application as shown in the plans noting that if the applicant wishes to install anything lower he may with the conditions in the staff report and one additional condition indicating that any decrease in elevations is acceptable,by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. In comment on the motion: like to see the 11 inch reduction to deck height added to motion since that is the elevations represented to the Martins and a whole side of their house is glass adjacent to the deck, they will see people rather than roof with the previous project; want him to lower as much as possible, we saw the way he marked it, 11 inches lower, not what was on the plans; CA noted that the application also included an exception to the depth of the uncovered parking place so need some control. Cannot have arbitrary reduction in uncovered parking space depth. Would accept lowering deck a maximum of 12 inches except, that it would increase the visibility of people on the deck for the neighbor; what saw from neighbor's property was that from inside living room a lower deck would be less visible to neighbors; visited Martins and understood that the reason they did not come to the meeting was that they saw the story poles and tape in place and were satisfied that they would not see anything that impacted them (these were the elevations 11 inches lower and the screen 5 feet tall from deck surface); those lines did not show the railing height and the Martins may not have understood that, tried to envision 3 more feet and did not think that it would affect view; Martins are not here to comment on the planned deck which was higher than that shown. C. Coffey withdrew his motion and C. Luzuriaga withdrew his second. C. Coffey made a new motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 22, 1997, Sheets lA and 2A; 2) that any changes to the deck height (elevation 108.4'), deck rail height (elevation 111.4') or deck area (875 SF) and any changes to the redwood lattice divider (18" wide X 8' long X 5' high as measured from the surface of the deck at the approximate center of the deck next to the spa) shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 3) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, on the basis that no distant views are obstructed and with the conditions in the staff report adjusted to lower the elevations of the -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12. 1998 surface height of the deck 11 inches and the height of the 8 foot long privacy screen so that it is 12 inches lower or 5 feet as measured from the surface of the deck, the motion included the approval of the variance for an 18 foot uncovered parking space. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. On the motion a commissioner asked for clarification that the motion included the reduction of the height of the privacy screen by one foot; the maker of the motion and seconder acknowledged that it did. Chair Key called for a voice vote, the motion passed 5-0-1-1(C. Deal abstaining, C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNERS REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken at the regular City Council meeting on January 5, 1998. - The commission discussed the revisions to the definition of "financial institutions" and directed the City Planner to set it for public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting, January 26, 1998. There were no changes suggested. ADJOURNMENT C. Galligan moved to adjourn the meeting; C. Mink seconded the motion, the vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary MINUTES1.12