HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.04.24i1i �W
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
March 24, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman
Ellis on March 24, 1997 at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer,
Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved
as mailed.
AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 1112 BALBOA
AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND ROBERT AND ANN
HOEKSEMA, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Requests: applicant provide information on the number of houses on both sides of the street for this
block which have three bedrooms and one covered parking space; what is the hardship on the property
which prevents provided a two car garage. Item was set for public hearing; on April 14, 1997 providing
the information requested is available in time.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AT 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1,
(JEAN MARIE AND TOM BUCKLEY. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS).
se
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1997
Reference staff report, 3.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria,
Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant
so would abstain from the discussion and vote on this item.
Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Tom Buckley, 113 Costa Rica, noted that the staff
presentation of the project was complete and he would answer questions. Commissioner noted that he
did not understand the skylight portion of the application since the light wells do not appear on the plans
nor do their dimensions or how they would be implemented; applicant noted that the light well would
extend from the existing skylights vertically to the new roof where a skylight would be installed, the
existing skylights would be removed and their locations finished off, the light wells would direct light
into the existing second floor of the house; understand that this proposal does not meet the standards of
new construction because of the sequence of construction; applicant noted that had persuaded wife that
cropped roof would look OK, have decided that she was right and not best appearance, now want to
correct; if increase height of roof add habitable area which would increase size of house over present
FAR without any review although skylights limit useable area some.
William Ward, 120 Occidental, spoke in opposition noting that the original design cut off the peak of the
roof to comply with the code; now asking to exceed the code; beautiful house as is; his problem is with
the process being perused i.e., designed a certain way to avoid review, then come back and ask for
exception. -? �b�5ed guscd
There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: asked why the FAR would of apply if area converted to habitable area in
future, staff noted that existing attic areas are exempFAR calculation, also would not meet new
construction criteria. Two reasons given for request the flat roof leaks and want to look like a true tudor,
two different reasoning; roof leak in a new roof can be fixed. Why, if one looks at the site and
surrounding properties, this one would not have impact at 7 feet; neighbors were notified, neighbors did
not oppose. C. Coffey moved to approve height variance. Motion died for lack of a second.
Further discussion: ambivalent, know applicant, built a fabulous house, works well with entire block but
need to look at Council direction, here benefit from guidelines having flexibility but with a variance need
to meet the finding requirements of state law. With a handful of exceptions no one has a house over 30
feet. Popularity with neighbors is not a test for a variance; test of unusual circumstances is not met; need
clearer direction about where more flexibility for design is appropriate presently do not have latitude to
do; this is a variance request and cannot find exceptional circumstances to justify.
C. Galligan moved to deny the application for a height variance for the reasons stated suggesting that the
City Council may wish to give more direction; seconded by C. Wellford.
On the motion it was noted that the house is well designed and nicely detailed; don't know why property
needs this, compatibility is consistency with self, and project works as :it is; talked to neighbor Mr.
Furesz at 117 Costa Rica Avenue and he said that he would experience loss of light if the roof was raised
along their common property side; should consider adding condition that attic area never be used for
habitation, it§ a small street, if add bedrooms will add more parking, now can't see the streetscape for
watching out for the parked cars.
-2-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1997
Chairman called for the vote. The motion to deny the application was approved on a 5-1-1 (C. Coffey
dissenting, C. Deal abstaining) roll call. Applicant was informed that the item could be appealed until
the council meeting on April 7, 1997.
APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1544 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1,
(MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND REBECCA AND HARRY T. BARR, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 3.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria,
Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Michael Gaul, 1237 Laguna Avenue, architect, noted that the
lot was narrower than many in the city and deeper which was the reason for wanting the continue the
existing non -conforming side setback; he took exception to the condition :requiring that the windows in
the sliding glass door at the rear of the garage be replaced with wood, the edge of the window is 9'-6"
from side property line, he would like to retain the glazing the portion of the window that is 10'-0" from
property line or relocate the window next to the door, further from side property line; commission asked
staff the reason for the 10 foot requirement, staff noted that it was a art of the accessory regulations
established in the 1970's to insure privacy to adjacent neighbor Harry Ba�roperty owner spoke, he
noted that the existing garage is dilapidated, it has a dirt floor and no real foundation, the roof leaks.
Want the sliding glass door to increase light inside new structure so kids can do projects in the garage,
would like to put glass in the part of the door 10 feet from property line or add a window on the other
side of the door, 10 feet from property line.
Ha:::Ba�'544 Ralston Avenue, spoke in favor noting that the current garage is dilapidated, has no
oor, have put a piece of canvas across door; asking for side setback variance, window is a last minute
minor item. The new garage is designed to match the house. There were no more comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Mink noted that the new garage would improve the safety by removal of the existing structure which
is dangerous; good solution which will look better from the street; should add a condition to move the
sliding glass door over 6 inches so that the windows will not be within 10 feet of property line and moved
to approve the side setback variance with the conditions as amended by resolution. Motion was seconded
by C. Galligan.
Discussion on the motion: favor replacing the garage, necessary to preserving the open space in the yard,
been at this location for a long time, so not creating an additional problem; concerned with waiving the
requirement for the solid door, lots of other windows in this structure; sliding door will enable use of
structure for recreation, as pointed out by applicant, and other uses beside parking; door could be opened,
no need glass for light; sliding glass door not conducive for garage; went on site inspection concerned
about existing side property line fence next to garage, it too is falling down, could fall on new garage.
Proposed a condition to require replacement of side property line fence adjacent to new garage; maker
of motion and second agreed. Do not feel that there is a privacy problem with this door when it is within
6 inches of meeting the 10 foot requirement; am concerned about the nearby oak tree whose roots could
be damaged by this new construction since there is no slab or foundation under the existing garage,
excavation could substantially damage tree as w 1 a ving to prune lower limbs to accommodate ridge
height. Proposed a condition to requir an pplict the ave an arborist report prepared addressing the
impact of the construction on the oak tree and necessary protection actions to be provided during and
after construction, the report should be reviewed by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector for validity
-3-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1997
and approval of the required protection measures prior to issuance of the building permit. The maker
of the motion and second agreed to the amending the motion.
The chairman called for the vote on the motion which was approved with the following amended
conditions by voice vote 7-0. The conditions are:
1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped February 6, 1997, Sheets 1 and 3, Site Plan and Existing Elevations, and Sheets 2 and
4, Floor Plan and Elevations, date stamped March 14, 1997, and sliding door at the rear of the
garage shall be moved over 6 inches so that the windows will not be within 10 feet of property line;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 10, 1997 memo (driveway paving shall end at
the garage slab and all garage roof drainage shall go the front of the property) shall be met; and
3. that the side property line fence shall be repaired or replaced.
490
4. A the applicant shall be required to have an arborist report prepared addressing the impact of the
construction on the oak tree and necessary protection actions to be provided during and after
construction, the report should be reviewed by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector for validity
and approval of the required protection measures prior to issuance of the building permit.
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Appeals procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIANCES AT 1432 CASTILLO
AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LISA AND STUART HOSMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 3.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria,
Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Commissioners asked about the public utilities easement, can
temporary pavement be allowed since this site has a narrow driveway ;now. CE responded if city
easement could apply for an encroachment permit, removal or damage would be at owners expense, no
fence could be placed in easement. Some easements are not official city easements, then use is more
uncertain. Unclear what type of easement this is. CA commented that improvements are a problem if
they increase the cost of a contract to make repairs, also need to know where sewer is; if easement issues
are opaque item can be continued until more information on the easement is available.
Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Brad Clark, 15 Crystal Springs Road, San Mateo, and Stuart
Hosman, property owner spoke; it was noted that there are some hardships on the property, the driveway
is narrow, the narrow width also resulted in the structure being placed too close to the property line on
the other side; there are sewer and water lines in the easement; understood that the city accepted the
easement through default, it has no parcel number; city takes care of services in easement; would prefer
to put in turf block to paving in easement, narrow driveway is 64 feet long, its been there since 1927;
only issue with the city is the extension at the front of the house which is 7 feet more than it should be,
but the lot is narrower than 50 feet. Commission asked how close to the driveway is the sewer main,
at least 1 to 1.5 feet from the edge of the driveway to the 6 inch water line, the sewer line is on the other
-4-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1997
side of the easement; there is room to drive down the driveway. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Galligan commented understand the problems of a 45 foot wide lot but 7.5 foot driveway is
uncomfortable to use especially with bigger modern vehicles, it would be prudent to have access to the
covered parking, need at least 8.5 to 9 feet; would condition approval to get an encroachment permit and
to pave or turf block to a driveway width of 8.5 feet; and he so moved to continue the item to the next
meeting, April 14, 1997. Motion was seconded by C. Wellford.
Discussion on the motion: concern is that parking be used, present could knock off side mirrors; turf
block would be a good solution, could reuse if needs to be removed for utility work; another issue is the
3 foot side setback which is extended to the second floor, particularly since this is not living area it could
be pulled back; if the applicant is going to come back he could address this as well. He is within the
declining height envelope but is taking advantage of the 3 foot setback variance on the second floor, it
is attic area the length of the structure; applicant noted that it would be easy to redesign the side of the
house, could do by next meeting. , Need to decide if change in wall would affect aesthetics of structure.
Commission recapped 4iseassiag noting that in his revised submittal the applicant should address the
paving within the easement area, to at least 8.5 feet and some way to address the 3 foot setback on the
second floor. The applicant can come back to the Planning Commission at their meeting on April 14,
1997, if he has been able to clarify the easement issue to determine if he needs an encroachment permit
and has the plans ready for review for that agenda. This item has been continued and is not appealable
at this time.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL AGENCY AT 1500/1500A ADELINE
DRIVE, ZONED C-1, (JILL HARMON AND TONA COHENDET, APPLICANTS AND NANCY
KURKGIAN AND MARMORA TERRELL, PROPERTY OWNERS).
Reference staff report, 3.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria,
Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration with a revision to condition # 2, adding that they shall not be open earlier than 7:00 a.m.
or later than 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., on Sundays, in
compliance with specific limitations of the ordinance for that zone. Comments from Mr. Tancer, 1512
Highway Road, regarding parking and signage were read into the record.
Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Jill Harmon, 935 Capuchin Avenue and Tona Cohendet,
1408 Hillside Circle, the applicants, presented their special permit application and clarified their hours
of operation, reaffirming that they will be and have been closed Saturday and Sunday for the past 12 to
15 years. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. WellfZWe
this aPappropriate use of this site, is consistent with the General Plan and is less
intensive previous retail use. On the basis of these findings he moved to approve this special
permit by resolution with the following amended conditions;
1. that the travel agency shall use 931 SF at 1500 Adeline Drive and 414 SF at 1500A Adeline Drive
as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 11, 1997 (floor
plan) and March 18, 1997 (site plan);
-5-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
March 24, 1997
2. that the business may be open from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM Monday - Friday and closed Saturday
and Sunday and shall not be open earlier than 7.•00 a. m. or later than 7.•00 p. m. , Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6: 00 p. m. , on Sundays with no more than 4 employees on site at any
one time;
3. that any changes to the hours of operation, number of employees, size of tenant space or any other
aspect of the business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; and
4, that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition
California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and was approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL USE AT 220 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,
ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D, (HENRY KWONG, APPLICANT AND BUDI SUSETYO LEONARDI,
PROPERTY OWNER) J.
Reference staff report, 3.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria,
Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Commission asked the correlation between the numbers in the application and the revision of those
numbers in response to study meeting questions.
Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Henry Kwong, 1786 Seventeenth Street, San Francisco
responded to Commission's question stating the revised numbers give a more practical evaluation of
possible customers. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal commented that this special permit for retail use is not detrimental to the neighborhood, is a
good business and will be an asset, he then moved to approve this application by resolution with the
findings in the staff report and the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be designed as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 12, 1997, Sheet Al; 2)
that the business may operate seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m; 3) that the requirements
of the Chief Building Inspector's February 18, 1997 and February 27, 1997 memos shall be met; 4) that
the plumbing to the shower in the display area shall be a cold water line only; and 5) that any
improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Key and was approved on a 7-0 voice vote. It was noted for the record
that the revision of the number of customers could cause concern due to greater activity and could cause
a parking problem if they achieve the projected numbers. Appeal procedures were advised.
DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY
Planning Commission reviewed the CP Monroe's summary report of their actions from the special study
meeting on March 10, 1997. It was agreed that the focus of the Commission's concern would be the R-1
district regulations. They then agreed that delaying demolition of single family dwellings until a building
permit was an appropriate action in terms of securing future development: would be consistent with its
W
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1997
neighborhood and felt that they should build on the work already done to address the City Council's
concerns.
At the special study meeting the commissioners had identified several items which they figured were
appropriate to cause single family residential construction to be reviewed in some fashion. In their
discussion they reduced the four proposed items to three: base structure square footage; single car garage;
an alteration to the front facade. It was pointed out that families are smaller and want different space
today, children do not share bedrooms, want space to dedicate for computer rooms, TV rooms, etc.
which results in larger houses actually generating a smaller parking demand than in the past.
Commissioners expressed a concern about the impact of front landscaping;; while we require trees we do
not address the amount of paving or greenery which could soften a "big" structure. Landscaping should
be a factor considered.
After considerable discussion the commissioners agreed that a three tiered approach may be the most
viable. The review line for each tier would be the size of the house. For example for a house 2000 SF
or less, the existing rules would be applied. If the proposed project meets all those standards a building
permit (and demolition permit if required) would be issued writ public notice.
The second tier would be a project which is between 2001 SF and say 3000 SF. Second tier projects
would be required to go through some kind of minor modification review with notice to neighbors within
some pre -defined radius. These project would be reviewed on the basis of the extent to which they
complied with "bonus issues" such as greater setbacks (30% more than. required on side), detached
garage at rear of site, conservation of open space on lot including percentage of impervious surface, not
lining up with windows on adjacent properties, second story fit existing house, etc.
The third tier projects over say 3000 SF would be reviewed before the Planning Commission based on
stated criteria for "neighborhood consistency". All neighbors within 300 feet would be noticed and
findings of consistency would need to be made.
In their discussion the commissioners noted that the base square footage sizes discussed were total square
footage on site, house, garage, accessory structures at time of submittal. Thus houses that are already
4500 SF would be subject to third tier review, even if the change were small; while very small houses
(1000 SF) could go ahead and expand up to 2000 SF without public review as they can now. Staff would
note that this system may necessitate some minor adjustment to our current definition of "new
construction" but is manageable.
Commissioners noted that the objective was to review "big" houses; not to be anti -development, allow
old housing stock to be recycled; provide speedy and economic processing; blend into neighborhood and
not unduly impact neighbors on either side.
PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of March 19, 1997
[oil) Ili IN, Ik1:3ZW
hENUTES3.24
-7-