Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.09.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, September 8, 1986 at 7:31 P.M. ROT.T. CAT.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the August 25, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. Item #4, Special Permit - 1109 Burlingame Avenue, has been withdrawn; Item #7, Parking Variance - 1320-50 Howard Avenue, continued to the meeting of September 22, 1986; Item #8, Master Sign Program - 1199 Broadway, continued until further notice. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, A PORTION OF WHICH EXTENDS 4' INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD AREA AT 2828 HILLSIDE DRIVE Reference staff report, 9/8/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, findings required for variance approval. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. David Howell, Peninsula Drafting Service, was present representing the applicants. He stated the 9' fence to the west is probably 15-20 years old, maximum height might be 91, it is a sloping lot; the existing bath is too small for the house and not adequate for the applicants' expanded family. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found no problem with this request, there is a need for a functional second bathroom, with the sloping lot the addition will not affect the neighbors nor be detrimental to other property owners, there are few alternatives to this proposal and it will not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance with the following condition: (1) that the .applicant shall comply with the approved plans date stamped August 115, 1986. Second C. Graham. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 8, 1986 Comment on the motion: the closest house is 40' away and at a different elevation; it is a large lot; suspect the city put up the 9' fence to protect the reservoir. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING SPA ROOM AND DETACHED GARAGE BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS BY A PREVIOUS OWNER AT 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/8/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, CA comment, applicant's letter, code requirements for variance approval, study meeting questions. CP noted the pool is in place. Two letters from nearby property owners were referenced: Donald and Bess Huff, 2001 Easton Drive, in opposition, and Henry Bettman, 1249 Bernal Avenue, expressing concern about the existing "shack" which does not appear to be up to code. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: front setback is at least 151; assessor's office appraisal report dated 10/8/53 shows there was a one story cabin, this would be considered nonconforming; suggested condition #2 which would require 143 SF of the existing garage structure be removed to maintain minimum clearance between the house and the garage and the cottage and the garage. Kay Bradley, applicant, discussed her purchase of the property, believing she would have a two car garage and that all structures were legal; the company preparing her property evaluation report stated all structures seemed to be up to code and if there was a question she should ask the previous owner; she had noted that the garage was close to the property next door, previous owner had told her he simply enclosed an existing garage and that it was legal. Applicant explained the need for both a spa and a pool, the pool is not heated and spa is used in the winter; no one lives in the cottage; she purchased this property without a real estate agent since the previous owner wished to deal directly with a buyer. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: if removal of the rear 143 SF of the existing garage is required only the variances for side setback in the case of the garage and rear yard setback in the case of the spa room would be needed; an independent seller is subject to all disclosure laws a real estate establishment is subject to; the pool is in place and a building permit was issued for the installation; CA commented the pool is irrelevant to this application. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 C. Jacobs found no problem with the location of the garage, it is the only place it can be put on this property and there is a lot of foliage; there is a need to make the garage smaller; the cottage has been on the property for a long time, it isn't that bad looking and no one lives there; basically the two variances are not: excessive; the city should not get involved in what happened in the sale of this property; it would not be detrimental to grant the variances for side and rear yard setbacks if the special permits are eliminated by reducing the size of the garage. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the two variances from side yard and rear yard setbacks and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 21, 1986 and City Engineer's memo of August 8, 1986 shall be met; (2) that the rear 143 SF of the existing garage structure shall be removed so that a minimum 4' clearance can be maintained between the eaves of the house and the eaves of the garage as well as between the eaves of the cottage and the garage; and. (3) that the applicant be given one year (September, 1987) to comply with the removal of the rear wall of the garage and four months (February, 1987) to comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: approve of this action which will grant minor variances while eliminating three special permits merely by taking 10' off the rear of the garage. Motion approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 56 SF BATHROOM ATTACHED TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN AT 100 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/8/86 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff memo addressing history of code enforcement on this property, applicant's letter, letter from applicant's elderly aunt regarding use of the cottage, study meeting questions. Petition in support signed by 11 residents of Barroilhet and Costa Rica Avenues was noted. Any action should be taken by resolution; if granted, five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing; if denied, two conditions were suggested. Discussion: UBC requirements for a habitable structure; number of bathrooms in the house. C. Graham noted applicant is a fellow real estate agent but he did not feel he had a conflict of interest; CA determined he could participate in this item since he was not with the same real estate firm and had no transactions with the applicant. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Cheryl Feldman, applicant, was present. Commission/applicant discussion: there are two full baths and a toilet on the property, this would be the fourth; applicant's sons are high school age, it will not be possible for her aunt to live in the cottage until the oldest son is away at college; there is a bedroom, bath and den on the first floor of the house, a bedroom and bath upstairs; the boys cannot share the small room in the house, they Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 need their privacy. Responding to Commissioner comment, applicant stated she could not understand why she was denied a building permit for a bathroom in the cottage and had a friend install it since her son needed a bathroom. Commission reaction to this statement: Commission deals with property, not personal problems; applicant knew the rules but ignored them and installed the bathroom (applicant said she told Planning staff exactly what happened); this appears to be blatant disregard for the code, city would have a real problem if such cases occurred all over town. The Chair requested audience comments. Dean Paolillo (1065 East Hillsdale Boulevard), a friend of the applicant, spoke in favor: applicant did not expect this kind of treatment, with the special permit the bathroom would be legal, it is not such a large request, merely a compromise with the city which would fit the applicant's needs; Fire Marshal had no objections; feel sure this isn't the only occasion something has been built without a permit, the fact that the applicant came in to ask about it has some merit. There were no further audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Harold Hughes, attorney, 405 Primrose Road, representing George Koernig, 112 Costa Rica Avenue: his client has lived immediately adjacent to the subject: property since 1947, the bathroom in question is located on the property line adjacent to his client's living room, it is an unattractive, small, separate structure, roof line is not the same, an unsightly structure to be viewed from one's living room; his client objects because of its appearance and the potential as a rental unit; Mr. Koernig signed the petition in favor but he quite strongly opposes the application now; the structure is so small it seems there would be little hardship to the applicant in removing it; his client should not bear the hardship of this situation. Robert Anderson, 113 Crescent Avenue: live about a block behind the applicant's property; most of his comments have been discussed this evening; he had questioned whether applicant applied for a permit, this request for a special permit is another remedy; it would seem a real estate agent should be familiar with zoning requirements; it is a big house, don't think an issue of hardship really exists; bathroom structure seems to encroach on the property line; with one son about to leave home this house should accommodate the family; illegal units can be transformed into nonconforming units and then they become rental units, an economic benefit to a property owner which. would be denied to law abiding citizens. Doug Hampner, 1270 Armsby Drive, Hillsborough: am a student myself, can't understand a high school student living like that with no guidance or supervision nor a real estate agent violating the law with no remorse, think permit should be denied. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: this Commission cannot deal with family problems, the city has denied second units in the R-1 zone, Commission does not have authority to change that law and to allow this request Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 would set a precedent. Commission and staff discussed the fact that the accessory structure had been there for many years, it is not a habitable structure with reference to UBC regulations; the bathroom was added without a building permit and attached to the accessory structure within 3' of property line, if the special permit is; not granted the applicant will have to remove it; the accessory structure could be used for storage. With the statement that the city has codes which are! basically laws, this addition is not an asset to the community, it will affect the neighborhood, the house seems large enough for this family, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Denying Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the illegal bathroom attached to the detached accessory structure shall be removed within 30 days (October, 1986) and the structure returned to the use for which it was originally designed, storage; and (2) that neither of the two detached accessory structures on site shall be used for residential purposes. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: in favor of the motion, approval would be precedent setting, there are regulations which have been developed as a guideline for the city, this is a large lot and there are other alternatives to gaining additional square footage such as an addition to the house. Motion to deny approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:37 P.M.; reconvene 8:45 P.M. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT - TARE -OUT FOOD SERVICE AND CATERING OPERATION - 1109 BURLINGAME AVENUE Item withdrawn by the applicant. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT THE MARRIOTT HOTEL, 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Reference staff report, 9/8/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, need for BCDC approval. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Comment: landscape screening of the installation will still be required. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this is merely an amendment to the placement of the dish, a slight move, if BCDC approved it view corridors will be maintained and with the understanding the original landscaping requirements will be met, C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the dish antenna and fence shall be installed at the location shown on the Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 plans submitted and date stamped August 26, 1986; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 21, 1986 and the original use permit (June 16, 1986) shall be met; and (3) that the applicant shall submit to the city a copy of the BCDC plan approval letter prior to receiving a building permit. Second C. Graham. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - AUTO DETAILING SERVICE OFFERED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC - 1362 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE It was determined the applicant was not present. C. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 22, 1986; second C. Schwalm. Motion approved on voice vote, one dissenting vote. 7. PARKING VARIANCE - 1320-50 HOWARD AVENUE Item continued to the meeting of September 22, 1986. 8. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM - 1199 BROADWAY Item continued until further notice at the request of the applicant. CONSENT ITEM 9. TWO MINOR MODIFICATIONS - SECOND FLOOR BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION - 2018 RAY DRIVE Item was not called up for review. PLANNER REPORTS - SPECIFIC PLANNING CONCERNS FOR FUTURE ACTION Reference CP's memo of 7/31/86. Commission requested additional items for study: parking requirements for condominiums and apartments; concern about regulations for abandoned properties and nonconforming parking, alternatives other than a variance or buying another lot for parking; possibility of making it easier to build an oversized garage, thus getting more cars off the street. CE's suggestions were also noted: paved access to required parking; single family residential driveway width; regulations to keep required parking open to the users of a building and not leasing it out to others; hotel valet parking. Staff noted the need to prioritize these items in view of available staff time. CP will take this amended list of concerns to City Council and request consideration be given to a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 PERMIT REVIEW - CAR RENTAL - 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY This company moved to a new location on March 31, 1986. Car rental agency permit will expire September 30, 1986. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its September 2, 1986 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary