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1109 Burlingame Avenue, has been withdrawn; Item #7, Parking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