Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.07.14MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 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 July 14, 1997 at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey (7:03), Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Wellford and Key Absent: Commissioner Mink Staff Present: Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the June 23, 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 VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR THE ADDITION OF A PATIO ENCLOSURE AT 1656 LASSEN WAY, ZONED R-1, (WES RANKIN, PACIFIC COAST SUNROOMS, APPLICANT AND GERALD & LANA SCOTT, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: explain what are the exceptional circumstances with this property, applicant provided information about the neighborhood, what is exceptional on this site; the application talks about many houses in the area with lot coverage over 40 %, provide addresses of these sites; the proposed patio area is large, understand the health request for enclosing the spa, but why does the patio need to be so large? Item set for public hearing on July 28, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION) TO A RESIDENCE AT 9 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1, (NELYA SRULOVICH, APPLICANT' AND MARK AND NELYA SROLOVICH. PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: it is not clear why the applicant believes a two -car garage cannot be provided on the property, explain why the property cannot support a two -car garage; the plans show 39.9 % lot coverage with a one -car garage, appears that more living space is being added at the expense of a one parking space deficiency, address that aspect of the request; the elevations given for the property corners and for the top of curb are -1- Burlingame Planning Camndssian Minuta July 14. 1997 -dl given as 0' elevation, is this correct; please provide accurate information on elevation points to determine declining height envelope point of departure; the lot is 50' x 115' and the house is not centered on the lot, there is a wide area on one side with a double gate, what is the width of that: area, can a two -car garage fit in this side area; the plans show a 1085 SF basement, what is in the basement area? Item set for public hearing on July 28, 1997. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A 3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1705 MURCHISON, ZONED C-3, (PETER LIPSON, STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND CALIFORNIA TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION. PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: in April of last year, there was another project approved on this site, provide table of how this project compares to the previous project; the staff report refers to the height of the building as measured from top of curb, ask applicant what is the actual height of the building from adjacent grade. Item set for public hearing on July 29, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORP., APPLICANT AND WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: note that on plans that both signs are designated as Sign "A", please clarify; the upper case letters are shown as 4-1/2', what is dimension of lower case letters; provide an estimate of what percent of the building will be occupied by Forbes. Item set for public hearing on July 28, 1997. .APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR VEHICLE STORAGE AT 1860 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (ART MICHAEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: since the basis of this request is that the drainage channel will be enclosed and covered over, provide a detailed drawing of what the section is going to look like, provide basic elements of the covered drainage channel and what is being accomplished; the mitigation project approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) provides for mitigation on Bear Gulch and `Nest Union creeks, where are these creeks located; the letter from RWQCB refers to a report regarding the. mitigation project, provide a synopsis of the report; in review of the previous proposal, it was acknowledged that there were occasions when there was a few feet of overflow water in the drainage easement, explain the consequence of overflow waters, will it cause damage to cars, where will it back up on other properties, how will covering the channel affect drainage and overflow; reference to the City maintenance of the covered culvert, is it easier to clean an open ditch than the culvert, will there be additional cost to the City because of the covering of the culvert; if the culvert were made deeper, would it help mitigate the flow of water through this area; the variance for the front setback landscaping was granted in the previous application, with this application will this variance need to be reapproved; provide clarification of what happens on the site, what is definition of "short-term overflow parking", will this be guest/event parking? Item was set for public hearing on July 28, 1997. -2- BurGngamc Planning Commission Minute 1.4 14, 1W7 ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 808 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (ANDY SHABAZIAN. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Andy Shabazian, applicant and property owner, 808 Morrell Avenue, was present to answer any questions. C. Galligan questioned could the weight be shifted on the load bearing wall to provide 20' x 20' interior dimensions. The applicant stated that it is not his intention to touch the existing garage structure. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the existing garage is 17'-10" and to require an additional 2" would be an undue hardship. He then moved approval of the parking variance application and special permits, by resolution, subject to conditions in the staff report and addition of one condition: that the existing gas heater shall be removed and the gas line shall be capped, with amended conditions as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 21, 1997, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations, and date stamped June 2, 1997, Floor Plan for Garage and Attached Room; 2) that storage in the accessory room attached to the garage shall be limited to a maximum of 156 SF of floor area; 3) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes, shall never Include a kitchen or sleeping area and shall not be used for any home occupation use as defined in C.S. 25.68.010 without an amendment to this special permit; 4) that the existing gas heater shall be removed and the gas line shall be capped; and 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. Commission discussion: the code provides if you have 18' x 20' garage, it is a legitimate garage, it has been compromised because of an existing wall and entry, simple to correct and it is not a great expense, concerned that because of slant, it is in fact a one -car garage. If change were made, no variance would be needed. It is unclear how it can be made into a legal garage, existing 18' x 20' when built, interior was compromised over time. Concur in thought process, cannot see how it can be done, noted that entrance door is not significant encroachment on garage. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey passed on a roll call 4-1-1-1 (C. Galligan dissenting, C. Wellford abstaining and C. Mink absent). The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING, SIDE SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AT 2205 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (JAMES McFALL, APPLICANT AND JIM AND LORETTA STEPHENSON, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with -attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. 9911 Burlingame Planning Commission Minu a My 14, 1997 Chairman Key opened the public hearing. James McFall, 1530 Escobita, designer/architect, stated that Mills Creek bisects the parcel at an angle making a portion of the site unbuildable, clarified that two of the variances are for existing conditions, and -a small declining height envelope variance. C. Deal stated that there are three components to the request, the side setback for left side is existing, code changed later, no need to change; parking dimensions are 19' x 18'-8", short in length only, and the existing garage is lower than rest of structure, hard to extend toward building, not desirable to expand toward street. The declining height envelope variance is created by the new development, agree property is long and has creek, but is proposing 3693 SF house, front facade looks as big as maximum size allowed. C. Deal then moved approval of the Hillside Area Construction Permit, parking and side setback variances for an existing condition noting the existing structure is F-4" short in length and the garage would not be that easy to enlarge and to impose code compliance would cause a hardship and there is no view blockage. The action proceeded with the denial of the declining height envelope variance request noting that the request is created by new development and there is no existing condition that would merit granting of a variance. The approval of this motion is subject to the information in the staff report, with plans as required to be revised by the applicant, by resolution, and subject to the final approval of the City Planner, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be revised to meet the zoning requirements for declining height envelope and final plans shall be subject to the approval of the City Planner; and 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. CA clarified the necessary changes could be approved at staff level, with the City Planner to approve the change in the plans meeting the declining height envelope. Commission discussion: it was noted that the existing conditions were condoned at the time the structure was built; regarding the declining height envelope variance, clear from presentation that thought went into project, can be built without variance, but would be better with feature proposed; the intent of the declining height envelope is to create space between buildings, no opposition from neighbor, clearly took neighbor into consideration, there is merit with design. Applicant has worked with neighbors and site; in reviewing the neighborhood, it does not feel that a one foot intrusion merits turning down application. The house is 3693 SF, request is a variance not a special permit, the applicant can adhere to declining height envelope requirements. It is a large house, declining height envelope is not an existing condition, not comfortable making decision based on whether, or not, the neighbors liked it. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and passed on a roll call 4-2-1 (Cmsrs. Coffey and Galligan dissenting and C. Mink absent), approving the hillside area construction permit, parking and side setback variances and denying the declining height envelope variance. The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WITH A BATH AND TOILET, WHICH WILL BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES AND FOR WINDOWS WHICH WILL BE WITHIN 10'-0" OF A PROPERTY LINE AT 219 BLOOMF:IELD ROAD, ZONED R-1, (LENORE MONTGOMERY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for ,consideration. -4- Burlingame Planning Cm mission Minutes luly 14, 1997 Chairman Key opened the public hearing. C. Deal noted that a 4' separation between accessory structures is required to be ground to sky, need to add that to special permit request:. Lenore Montgomery, 1090 Carolan, applicant, was present and clarified -she has owned property for 9 years, and the accessory structure was used as storage, would like to use it as it was used before, a hobby room, recreation room, not asking to enlarge it, but to bring it to current standards. C. Galligan asked for clarification on one of the uses, what is meant by work on small engines? Applicant stated reference is to hobby engines, not automobile engines. C. Deal asked if applicant intends to reside in house. The applicant stated that it is rented, and she intends to include accessory structure in lease to tenants. C. Deal asked why the shower needs to be there. Applicant responded it will be a hobby room, and it will be practical to have it there when doing woodworking, electronics work. C. Key noted problems with showers, other things happen, notes there is a gas heater, will it be safe if hobbies involve combustible materials? Applicant intends to replace with new gas heater, will meet current standards. C. Key noted that original shower in structure happened without permits. C. Coffey asked how large is existing house? Applicant responded it is 1870 SF, 3-bedroom, 2- bath. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the project is the same as it has existed in excess of 35 years, applicant came forward and wants to continue use and make it legal and safe, it is a remodel of an existing non -conforming use. He then moved approval of the project based on the testimony given, including the conditions in the staff report, and the addition of two conditions: 1) that the existing antennas on the accessory structure shall be removed; and 2) that the fiberglass canopy on the accessory structure and the fiberglass between the main structure and the accessory structure shall be removed. The amended conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 27, 1997, sheet 1 (plot and roof plan), sheet 2 (floor plan), and sheet 3 (exterior elevations); 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Senior Engineer's June 2, 1997 memos shall )e met; 3) that the 560 SF accessory structure shall be used as a multi -purpose room with a bathroom (shower, sink and toilet) and the accessory structure shall not be expanded without another special permit; any changes in use or facilities other than as a multi -purpose room shall require application to the Planning Commission for a special permit; 4) that there shall never be a kitchen are or cooking unit in the accessory structure; 5) that the accessory structure with full bath shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; 6) that the existing antennas on the accessory structure shall be removed; 7) that the fiberglass canopy on the accessory structure and the fiberglass between the main structure and the accessory structure shall be removed; and 8) that the project 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. Deal. Commission Discussion: C. Wellford stated has problem with full bath, this is not a primary residence, existing bath was not constructed with permits, no real solid reason given for granting the full bath. C. Deal then made a motion to amend the conditions, adding special permit to have two structures less than 4' from each other and to delete the approval of the shower. The motion to amend was seconded by C. Wellford and passed on a 4-2-1 (C. Coffey and Galligan dissenting and C. Mink absent). The Chairman then called for a roll call vote on the amended motion, by resolution, with amended conditions as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 27, 1997, sheet 1 (plot and roof plan), sheet 2 (floor plan), and sheet 3 (exterior elevations); 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Senior agineer's June 2, 1997 memos shall be met; 3) that the 560 SF accessory structure shall be used as a multi- -5- Burlingame Planning C rnmissrart Minalff July 14, 1997 purpose room with a sink and toilet, and the accessory structure shall not: be expanded without another special permit; any changes in use or facilities other than as a multi -purpose: room shall require application to the Planning Commission for a special permit; 4) that there shall never be a kitchen are or cooking unit in the accessory structure; 5) that the accessory structure shall never be used, rented, or converted into a second dwelling unit; 6) that the existing antennas on the accessory structure shall be removed; 7) that the fiberglass canopy on the accessory structure and the fiberglass between the main structure and the accessory structure shall be removed; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C. Galligan dissenting and C. Mink absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1506 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND PATRICK AND AMY MCCLELLAND, PROPERTY OWNERS. Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were recommended for consideration. A letter from James Sochim, 2020 Adeline Drive was read into the record. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Andy Raymundo, Sinclair Associates, 15 N. Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo, the applicant, described the project, went over questions raised at study meeting. Reasons stated for variance request, want to keep house compact, step massing away from street and rear property line, the reason for the variance is the nearness of neighboring house, wants to provide contiguous open space in rear yards. Patrick and Amy McClelland, 1506 Vancouver, property owners, stated they want an enclosed back yard for security and safety of daughter, 50 % of houses on street have one -car garages. C. Wellford asked if McClelland's had talked to neighbor about what can be done along that side between the houses; Mr. Raymundo stated this would be addressed in the landscape plans and noted that the garage will be single story and is low compared to neighbor's floor level. C. Key asked where will garage be in relationship to neighbor's kitchen window. Applicant stated the garage is about 2' forward from the neighbor's window. Jim and Sue Sochin, 2020 Adeline, spoke against the proposal. The proposed garage is moved so far forward, it will block off kitchen window, and natural light which comes in during early evening hours. The Sochins presented pictures to the Commission. C. Coffey stated that the Sochin's side setback is 2'- 10", and owners knew house was close to property line when home was purchased. The applicant responded by stating that the Sochin's had consulted a real estate expert who stated home would be devalued, but the neighbors would have more privacy in back yard, one of the neighbor's windows is already blocked by a redwood tree. The applicant stated that the neighbor's kitchen shutters are closed most of the time. There was no further comment and the hearing was closed. C. Galligan stated it is a difficult decision, rules set in place by City Council, has reevaluated information given on projects approved over last couple of years, there was an impossibility in the other cases to comply with the code, and were not unreasonable given the location. Other requests were dimension variances, not number of spaces. Architect showed three possible ways to provide required parking. Understands concern regarding light and air, but exists everywhere in town. Lot is standard to large by Burlingame standards, the issue is should an exception be granted, can't see exceptional circumstances, and can't make findings. C. Galligan then made a motion for denial. C. Deal seconded the motion. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July I4, I997 Commission discussion: the first floor setback variance is also for the garage, it is not a small lot, house is doubled in size, options 2 and 3 should be explored, need to have cars off the street. We require two -car, not every lot is conducive to two -car garage. Noted it is a shame that the proposal did not consider the neighbors concerns, to set the garage back and provide longer driveway. The chairman then called for the vote on the motion to deny. The motion failed on a roll call 3-3-1 (Cmsrs. Wellford, Coffey and Key dissenting and C. Mink absent) vote. C. Wellford then made a motion to deny without prejudice, so the applicant could come back with an alternative design. Commission discussion: would like the neighbors to work in concert, other options need to be considered; this site is no different than every lot, if you want a one -car garage, than the regulations should change, would be inconsistent with steps taken in the past; a lot of people do not question the requirement, should not hand out a variance when requirement can be satisfied, unfair when there: is no justification; issue is not 1-car or 2-car, should deny without prejudice so the neighbor and property owner can get together. If a one - car garage, and it can be set not to obstruct kitchen windows, maybe it should be considered. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and failed a roll call 3-3-1 vote (Cmsrs. Deal, Galligan and Ellis dissenting and C. Mink absent). C. Galligan then made a motion to approve, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans date stamped July 1, 1997, sheets A-1, A-2, and A-3, with a maximum ridge height of 29'-10" for the residence and 13'-6" for the garage roof (as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the -house, 94.6% and a distance of 3'-9" from the garage wall to the right side property line; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official memo requiring at least one window or door to meet the egress requirements for each bedroom (May 19, 1997), and the Senior Engineer's memo requiring a property survey for the west side of the property with two corners set (May 19, 1997) shall be met; 3) that if additional bedrooms are added to the residence in the future, an amendment to the variance approval shall be required; 4) that the window proposed for the window enclosure on the second floor, north elevation (plans date stamped July 1, 1997) shall be installed as a single unit with a single header; and 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. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and failed on a 0-6-1 (C. Deal, Galligan, Ellis, Wellford, Coffey and Key dissenting and C. Mink absent) roll call vote. The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. The Commission adjourned for a 10 minute break at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Due to the late hour, the length of the agenda and the number of people in. attendance for Item #16, 525 California Drive, the Chairman amended the order of the agenda and asked if anyone objected to moving this item forward. No on objected. BIZ BurUngame PlanMng COMMUsian M&Uga lacy If, Z997 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MONTESSORI PRE- SCHOOL AND KINDERGARTEN AT 525 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B, (LYNETTE & PAUL MUHIC. APPLICANT AND GERALD E. FREY, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Lynette Muhic, applicant, states the need to relocate the Montessori facility, looked at 50 properties, this site is most suitable, can offer quality educational experience. Parking lot layout revised to allow for safe exiting. C. Galligan asked about number of students, will some be half -day students? Applicant clarified that there will tie no more than 24 students on site at any one time. C. Galligan asked the City Engineer if this increase in vehicle trips will affect traffic. Donald Chang, Public Works, Senior Engineer, stated this increase would not be considered significant. Cindy Montgomery, 1354 Cortez, Ken Hansen, 1205 Floribunda, Lorna Danset, 1139 Bernal, Gene Hannan, 1400 Edgehill Fred Heron, 552 Edinburgh, San Mateo and Lisa Rosenthal, Burlingame Elementary School Board member; all spoke in favor of the proposed Montessori School. C. Key noted she had a call from Lisa Rosenthal, who also supported the project. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal stated his two concerns regarding parking had been adequately addressed, exiting and entering is suitable, was concerned about the apartment building, owner of building has done research and is in favor of project, building will serve the school well. The special permit will not be detrimental to the area, but will be an asset, no problems with the San Mateo County pre-school nearby, site has adequate parking with the City lot. C. Deal then made a motion for approval, with an amendment to Condition No. 2 to state that there will be no more than 24 students on site at any one time; as follows, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the pre-school and kindergarten classroom space shall be limited to 650 SF on the first floor of the building at 525 California Drive, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 1, 1997, Sheets 1 and 2; 2) that the pre-school and kindergarten shall be limited to 24 children on site at any one time and shall not be open for business except during the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and was passed on a roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent). The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING AT 920 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, (RICHARD AND MAUREEN HARBER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were recommended for consideration. Burlingame Planning CommWw" Mutuw July 14, 1997 Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Richard and Maureen Harber, 1125 Killarney Lane, applicants, gave a history of the site and responded to questions from the study meeting. They bought the property in 1995, disclosure stated it was a duplex and other units were done without permits, working to get units in legal condition. C. Galligan stated this is a tough application, so far it looks as though duplex use was legitimate, at some point there was a conversion, no record that fourth unit was legitimate. This is an R-3 zone, if destroyed, could build more condos, uses in the surrounding area are condos and apartments. C. Coffey noted that the separate building was built afterward, do not know when the conversion took place. C. Deal states that originally there were two units. Division was made to make front house two units at some point, not sure when, and not sure when garage was converted. C. Coffey based on the assessors records that there was a residential addition in 1955, could be assumed the change occurred prior to 1954. In favor of applicant's position, have existed for a long time this way, and there is no way to find the date of the conversion. Sandra Johnson, 922-A Chula Vista, lives in converted ;garage unit, nice place to live, hope project goes through, there is room for four cars to park. C. Coffey asked when she had moved in? Ms. Johnson stated 1991, and noted there was a prior tenant. Dave Schnell, 924 Chula Vista, spoke in opposition stating initially had a problem, has known the tenants, there was confusion on what's going on and what has gone on in the past. He appreciates the property owners rights to property, doesn't want anything negative to happen to tenants, but is concerned with the affect on his property, there are parking problems on the street. Commissioner asked when was the front house subdivided. Mr. Schnell stated that it was done by a previous owner 10 years prior to selling it. How long Mr. Schnell has lived there, Mr. Schnell stated he has lived there since 1982, and his mother lived there since 1964. He stated the garage was converted about 1983, and the front was divided 4-5 years before that.. Cedric and Lisa James, 926 Chula Vista, stated parking is problem on the street, against parking variance, understand has gone on number of years, but new owner knew there were no permits, not right to just let it go. Mr. Harber responded that there will be no impact, business in cause parking problem, current tenants don't have more vehicles, could increase no matter how structures are situated. C. Galligan stated that neighbor indicated 4th unit went in in 1982, does Mr. Harber have information on when they were constructed. He responded that he did not know, and stated the issue was parking. C. Galligan unclear what Commission should be focusing on, Planning Director unaware when the units were converted, should we continue the item to get more information. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: it is clear after listening to testimony that originally there was a single unit in front and a cottage in the back, previous owner did not get building permits for the conversions, units were added, parking was taken away. The new owners are a contractor and a real estate agent, there is a disclaimer stating there are two legal units, they knew what they were buying. These are clearly illegal units, parking is not adequate for property, garage unit should be converted back to a garage, cottage unit O.K., front building, if parking can be provided for two units, then O.K. Commission noted that Mr Schnell lived next door since 1982 and mother since 1964, conversions were made in 1982 or 1983, could have complained at that time. No proof as to when it was done, need to clarify issues. C. Galligan stated there is an inherent unfairness in the process if the issue is more than a parking space. Neighbors testimony is compelling. Recommend that project be referred back to staff for additional information regarding the totality of the problem. C. Galligan then made a motion to refer the project back to staff and continued to a date uncertain. The motion was second by C. Deal and was passed on a roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent). This application will be renoticed to the neighbors when scheduled for the continued hearing. The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. In Burlingame Planning Commission Mingles July 14, 1997 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM( PERMIT FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1408 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER.) Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1408 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER.) Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Senior Engineer Chang discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended to council for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Ron Grove, 1621 Balboa, applicant and property owner was available for questions. Commission stated they were unclear on standings relative to the reciprocal easement, now understands that City has some control, if there are any amendments to easement, City will have the opportunity to review and approve changes to access. Mary Moore, 1400 Cappuchino, stated concerns with parking on Cappuchino and Grove, all parking spaces on Grove in front of her house are now taken, parking on Cappuchino by non-Cappuchino residents results in trash and obstructing fire hydrant. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan moved approval with the requirement for the access easement to be added to the conditions, by resolution, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 1, 1997, sheets Al through A6, and Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map sheet 1 of 1; 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area covered by structure shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 134.03' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real for a maximum height of 34'-10", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 3, 1997 and July 14, 1997 memos, the Chief Building Official's June 2, 1997 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 2, 1997 memo and the Senior Landscape Inspector's June 11, 1997 memo shall be met; 5) that one (1) guest parking stall (8'xl7') shall be designated at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stall shall not be enclosed; 6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 7) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, -10- Burlingame Pkmina Canmissian Minutrs • July 10, 1997 including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapers and furniture; 8) that the on grade parking garages and uncovered parking stall shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 9) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 10) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; 11) that an approved and recorded access and backup easement shall be required prior to issuance of building permit; and 12) the this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. This action includes recommendation to Council of the Tentative Map. Commission discussion: Information given on easement sounds okay, however, since commission is acting on claim that it will occur, would like- guarantee, recommend added to conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and was passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent). The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. Commission noted that the parking issues on Cappuchino should be referred to the TSP commission. The Commission discussed their option to continue items after 11:00 p.m. and voted unanimously to go forward. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4, (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND RICHARD BALUSHIAN. PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were recommended for consideration. and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4, (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND RICHARD BALUSHIAN, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Senior Engineer Chang discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works Department comments, and study meeting questions. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway, applicant noted that the requested variances on this project had been eliminated, and it now conforms to the zoning ordinance. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. -11- Burlingame Planning Commission Minuus July 14, 1997 including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 8) that the on grade parking garages and uncovered parking stall shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 9) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 10) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; 11) that an approved and recorded access and backup easement shall be required prior to issuance of building permit; and 12) theat this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. This action includes recommendation to Council of the Tentative Map. Commission discussion: Information given on easement sounds okay, however, since commission is acting on claim that it will occur, would like guarantee, recommend added to conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and was passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent). The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. Commission noted that the parking issues on Cappuchino should be referred to the TSP commission. The Commission discussed their option to continue items after 11:00 p.m. and voted unanimously to go forward. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4, (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND RICHARD BALUSHIAN, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were recommended for consideration. and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4, (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT Alm RICHARD BALUSHIAN, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Senior Engineer Chang discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works Department comments, and study meeting questions. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway, applicant noted that the requested variances on this project had been eliminated, and it now conforms to the zoning ordinance. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. -11- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes My 14, 1997 C. Deal stated that looking at the new project, it is an improvement, understand the desire not to cantilever the building , but the solution works, offers parking and satisfies requirements. C. Deal then made a motion to approve the condominium permit, by resolution, and recommended approval of the tentative map, subject to conditions in staff report as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 2, 1997, sheets Al through A8, sheet L1, and Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map sheet 1 of 1 (date stamped July 2, 1997); 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50 % of the lot area and any increase in the -lot area will require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 34'-9" as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Lorton Avenue (36.65'), and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 2, 1997 memo and the Fire Marshal's June 2, 1997 memo shall be met; 5) that one (1) guest parking stall (9'x2l') shall be designated at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stall shall not be enclosed; 6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 7) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture;; 8) that the on grade parking garages shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 9) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 10) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; and 11) the this project 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. Wellford and was passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent). The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. APPLICATION FORA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMITS AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN AUTO PARTS DISTRIBUTION FACILITY AND CAR SALES :LOT AT 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED, C-2, SUBAREA D, (PUTNAM BUICK-PONTIAC-GMC TRUCK, APPLICANT AND J. P. PROPERTY. L.L.C. PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, Planning Department comments consideration. with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, , and study meeting questions. Sixteen conditions were recommended for -12- Burlingame Planning Commission Minuus !a!y 14, 1997 Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Ron Morris, Morris Engineering, Joe Putnam and Rick Corso, Putnam Buick, Pontiac and GMC Truck, applicants were available for comments. Mr. Morris stated that the parking issue is confusing, but is clarified in staff report. The building to be removed is Unreinforced Masonry, could retrofit building, but it would still not be up to current code. New building will enhance property, will blend with look of adjacent garage. C. Deal noted that the code requires 46 parking spaces, plan is to provide, 13, why? Rick Corso responded that this will not be a full. service dealership, no service work, just used car sales. There are only two employees for the parts warehouse on -site. There will be 5 - 6 sales people, and they drive company cars and park on site. C. Deal stated that the new building would have 40,000 SF of warehouse, code requires 1 space per 1000 SF, asked applicant to address why this requirement is not needed. Mr. Morris stated that other cities have a different code requirement for bulk warehousing of 1 space per 6000 SF, notes that there is no usage by general public. C. Deal asked if consideration had been given to ramping from parking structure to roof of new structure for additional parking? Mr. Morris stated that this had been considered, but there is a 14" difference in height and it is not feasible. C. Galligan stated that normally if a property doesn't have enough space, then it can't support the use. This case is a request to make a determination that use doesn't relate to the formulas in the code. Asked CA if this is the essence of request, is a variance the proper vehicle. CA outlined options, including code amendment, stated variance request could be tied to the use with a limited number of employees, and the variance could be limited to stay only as long as the use stays. Joe Putnam requested the Commission consider changes to the conditions, specifically last part of Condition No. 9 which states no loading or unloading of car carriers in the public street, and No. 13, that there shall be no outdoor public address system. Stated that none of the other dealerships have such prohibition, but some have limits on hours and noise levels, would agree to such regulation. Commission discussion: has the applicant considered using pagers. Mr. Putnam stated that it had been considered but was costly compared to speakers. Stated other dealerships have speakers, seems inequitable to prohibit; asked about the ground -floor plan, is there area in the building for dropping off and picking up materials; Mr. Morris indicated yes; further clarification of site plan; Mr. Morris responded noting the used car display sales area; conflict with the parking variance for 30+ cars, building could be made smaller; asked if car carriers could load and unload on site; Mr. Putnam responded that car carriers are 60' long and would require a huge turnaround, if make such requirement it should apply to all properties; asked if they have a lease for the spur line where car carriers are currently unloaded; applicant stated that this is not a leasable parcel; regarding the unloading of car carriers in the street, the issue came up before and the CA stated it was illegal in the vehicle code; would like to change condition so that they shall not use a travel lane; would also like to see conditions that applicant provide parking plan of all operations, that car carriers shall not block a public street, and that the variance shall go with the auto parts distribution use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan then stated the mitigated negative declaration is consistent with the use, not an abuse of the property with mitigations in staff report, no benefit from EIR or focused E11t. Special permit for use and height seems to be a fair and reasonable use consistent with surrounding properties, height is congregated so it allows more parking and circulation. States that it is appropriate regarding the variance to make a determination that imposition of the 1 space per 1000 SF is inappropriate , and is a hardship as it relates to the use, and is a reasonable request. He then made a motion to approve the :[Negative Declaration, Special Permits and Variance, by resolution, amending the conditions as follows: a) with an amendment to number nine which states that no car carriers shall use the loading zone nor shall they block any public street; Amendment to No. 13 that any outdoor public address system be approved by Planning and Engineering 'department staff, with conditions similar to those applied to other car dealerships in the area; add condition No. 18 that the applicant shall designate spaces in the parking structure and other spaces on site, and shall provide a data sheet to show how these are allocated to the various uses; add Condition No. 19 that the -13- Burlingame Planning Commission Mimes July 1 4, 1997 variance for the parking determination shall run with the special permits; and add Condition No. 20 that if parking spaces in the garage are rented to uses not associated with Putnam;, the rental agreement shall be reviewed and approved by staff. The amended conditions are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 11, 1997, Sheet Al and A3 through A7, and date stamped June 30, 1997, Sheets A2 and A8; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 2, 1997 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 2 and June 16, 1997 memo, and the Chief Building Inspector's June 2, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4) that the overall height of the building as measured from the grade the top of curb shall be 42'-0"; 5) that the used car lot use shall be subject to review should the property owner lose the right to load and unload car carriers in the abandoned railroad spur adjacent to 925 Bayswater Avenue; 6) that the at -grade automobile display area at the front of the site shall not exceed 7820 SF as shown on the site plan date stamped 6/30/97; 7) that the project shall be subject to the state -mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 8) that the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for demolition of the existing structure; 9) that there shall be no on -street loading or unloading of trucks delivering or picking up parts or merchandise by customers or employees of the various Putnam dealerships, or the applicant shall obtain approval from the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for an on -street loading zone on Bayswater Avenue. If approved, the applicant's use of this area for deliveries to the parts warehouse shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. , and the loading zone shall be marked with a 30-minute time limit for loading and unloading; no car carriers shall use the loading zone nor shall they block any public street; 10) that all employees of the parts distribution facility and car sales lot shall park in designated spaces in the adjacent parking garage, and their cars shall bear stickers identifying their place of employment; 11) that this proposal shall be required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department and the City's landscape requirement; 12) that the applicant and property owner shall coordinate with the San Mateo County Health Department to ensure that this project does not impact ongoing remediation for removal of a gas storage tank on the site; 13) that the speakers for any outdoor public address or amplification system shall be oriented only toward California Drive and the system shall be of such quality that the amplification be the lowest level of sound possible, that in no case shall the public address system be used after 7:30 p.m. daily, and that the operator shall be responsive to complaints about amplification levels by nearby residents; 14) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code; 15) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary; and abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 16) that all on -site illumination including the car sales lot lighting shall be shielded and directed only on to the site; 17) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully :investigated, and appropriate methods of removal determined by appropriate professionals acceptable to the City and completion approved before work commences; 18) that the applicant shall designate the spaces in the parking structure and on the property which are required parking spaces for this use, other uses on the property, and required parking which is provided on this site for any other site; and that the applicant shall provide a data sheet which outlines the parking requirements for each of these uses and where the required parking for each is located; 19) that the parking variance shall run with the special permit for the auto parts distribution use, and any change of use on the property (100/150/198 California Drive) shall be required to conform to the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and requires approval of the Planning Commission. The auto parts distribution use is defined as an in-house, wholesale parts distribution warehouse to auto dealerships owned or controlled by the owner of the distribution center; in addition, the used car department may have offices a the parts center; there shall be no more than eight (8) employees of the center and the used car department working at any one time in the center; and 20) that if any parking spaces in the parking garage are to be -14- Burlingame Planning Cmuftission Minutes Ady 14, 1997 rented, leased, or used by businesses not associated with the owner's dealerships, the owner shall first submit a copy of the rental agreements to the Planning Director for review for conformance with the requirements of the special permits and variance for the property. Commission discussion: agreed regarding the Negative Declaration and height limit, but take exception to the fact that the configuration buys extra parking when only five stalls are shown, and more spaces in the garage could be designated for this use. In terms of the determination, doesn't think there is enough information to justify why auto parts warehouse is less intense than other warehouse. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis and was passed on a roll call 4-2-1 (Cmsrs. Coffey and Wellford dissenting and C. Mink absent). The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 3 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1 (JOEL M. WEISE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.14.97, with attachments. Planner Brooks discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan moved approval noting that this one year extension of a hillside area construction permit is in keeping with the original action, noting the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown nn the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 30, 1996, sheets 1 through 4, site _an, floor Plans and Elevations; and 2) that the project shall receive a building permit before August 12, 1998, and the project 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. Ellis and passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining and C. Mink absent). The Chairman read the appeal rights. PLANNER'S REPORTS - Planner Brooks reviewed City Council's regular meeting of July 7, 1997 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. -ALNUrW.14 Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary -15-