HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.05.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1986
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Giomi on Tuesday, May 27, 1986 at 7:30 PM.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs,
Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor (arrived
7:35 PM)
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 12, 1986 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. Staff noted Item #7 (Sign
Exception, 1010 Cadillac Way) has been continued to the
meeting of June 9, 1986.
CONSENT ITEMS
1. MINOR MODIFICATION - 909 LINDEN AVENUE
Item was not called up for review.
2. MINOR MODIFICATION - 916 AZALEA AVENUE
Item was not called up for review.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
3. RECOMMENDATION ON DRAFT EIR-67P AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
WITH AMENDMENT FOR THE SEQUOIAS-BURLINGAME LIFE CARE FACILITY FOR
THE ELDERLY, 1781 EL CAMINO REAL
CP Monroe reviewed her staff memo (5/27/86) discussing the purpose of
an environmental impact report. Responding to Commissioner question
she stated that, in her opinion, the collective document addresses all
of the issues.
C. Graham moved that Commission find the environmental document to be
adequate and that EIR-67P be recommended to City Council for
certification. He further moved for adoption of Commission Resolution
with Exhibit A attached recommending the EIR. Second C. Garcia; motion
approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
May 27, 1986
, 4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 7.5' AND 7' PROPERTY
LINE FENCE AT 122 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, statement
in support signed by two nearby property owners, findings necessary to
grant a fence exception. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: location of the fence with respect to property lines; new
fence has been constructed 6' high but the applicant wishes to add to
this height; it was determined the fence is 3' to 6' inside the
property line.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ashley Smith, applicant,
representing his parents who live on the site, addressed Commission:
the old fence is deteriorating, total height of new fencing will not
exceed 7.51, the additional height is necessary because of the site's
proximity to Hwy. 280, it will be a buffer for traffic noise and glare
from automobile lights and for wind. In addition the extra height
would obstruct view of a storage shed close to property line on the
south side. He felt a uniform height would be more aesthetic.
Photographs were distributed to illustrate the new fence and a section
of the existing fence.
Commission/applicant discussion: distance to 280 from the rear lot
line; applicant stated vegetation on the old fence gave his parents
privacy, they have lived there for eight years, existing fence has been
there for 35 years; existing 10' fence perpendicular to the property
line will remain, it is not visible from the front. Applicant
presented a letter in support signed by 22 nearby property owners.
The following spoke in favor of this application, stating they had no
objections and the new fence would enhance the appearance of the
neighborhood: Rose Gibson, 126 Loma Vista Drive; Raymond Molini,
103 Loma Vista Drive; Carl Moberg, 87 Loma Vista Drive. There were no
comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed.
Commission/staff comment: reason for a 6' review line for fences.
C. Schwalm found there is no public hazard, the neighborhood properties
will not be damaged, they will be enhanced; due to the location on top
of a windy hill it would be a hardship upon the petitioner to require
only a 6' fence. C. Schwalm found this a proper case in which to allow
an exception to the code and moved for approval of the fence exception
with the following conditions: (1) that the fence as installed shall be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped April 23, 1986; and (2) that prior to installation the property
owner shall obtain a building permit. Second C. Graham. C. Giomi
added a finding that the fence height was necessary to buffer light
glare from Hwy. 280. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C.
Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1986
5. TWO VARIANCES (FOR 43.5% LOT COVERAGE AND A 3' SIDE YARD) TO ADD A
SECOND FLOOR TO THE HOME AT 1264 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letters, findings necessary to grant a variance. Two
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission discussion: location of new foundation; proposed extension
of the footprint of the first floor of the house; suggest a third
condition to require a construction fence; staff explained applicant's
desire to retain part of the existing detached garage at the rear, if
this structure were entirely removed he would not need a variance for
lot coverage; utilities proposed for the portion of the detached garage
which would be retained.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Armando and Victoria Diodati,
applicants, were present. Mr. Diodati commented: it would be difficult
to move the second floor over 31, this is not unusual in this
neighborhood; the closest neighbors are 40' away; would like to enlarge
living area on the first floor of the house; the detached shed in the
back is now a two car garage, would like to cut this in half and retain
some area for hobby purposes to keep chemicals out of the way of
children (new first floor of house includes a two car garage),
electricity would be the only utility in the shed, a hose could be used
for water needed in pottery making, shed would not be used as living
area.
Commission/applicant discussion: applicant stated he had no plans to
put in a pool at present; a Commissioner felt the architect could have
designed plans to meet the applicant's needs without requiring a
variance; applicant advised he wanted the freedom of opening up the
whole first floor, if he didn't raise the house up he couldn't put in a
garage; in his consultations with the architect they felt the best
approach would be as proposed. It was determined total square footage
of the house with the addition would be 2,436 SF; the area behind the
proposed three car garage would consist of a bathroom, stairs, sewing
room; there is a small existing basement; variance for lot coverage is
needed because applicant wanted some storage space in the back yard.
Further Commission comment: have no problem with the side setback
variance but can find no exceptional circumstances for exceeding lot
coverage, this is merely a desire of the applicant for additional
storage space. Mrs. Diodati felt exceptional circumstances for
retaining a part of the shed in the back yard for hobbies would be
safety for her children as she works with stained glass. Another
Commissioner commented that allowing the variance for lot coverage
would set a precedent and if the applicant wished to retain storage
space in the back yard he might better reduce the square footage of the
addition to the house.
There were no audience comments. Applicants advised neighbors on both
sides had no objections, garage in the rear is in nobody's way and is a
nice looking structure. The Chair then closed the public hearing.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1986
With the statement that the applicant could get a good sized home
within lot coverage requirements with minor alterations to the proposed
plans, C. Jacobs moved to deny the variance for lot coverage. Second
C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: believe the variance for lot coverage
should be granted, there are exceptional circumstances, in this day and
age people need more storage space, this is a minor request, structure
is already there, applicant is reducing its size and needs the space
for enjoyment of his property. Motion to deny the variance for lot
coverage passed on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm voting no.
C. Schwalm moved for approval of the 3' side yard variance with the
following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform
architecturally to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 30, 1986 as amended by the revised site plan date stamped
May 19, 1986, the footprint of the house to be adjusted to meet lot
coverage requirements; (2) one foot of the driveway shall be retained
for the use of the property at 1260 Drake Avenue and a permanent access
easement shall be recorded with both properties to insure the
neighbor's continued access to their garage and off-street parking; the
easement shall be recorded before a building permit is issued; and (3)
that during construction the lot shall be enclosed by a 7' construction
fence. C. Schwalm's findings for variance approval: there are
exceptional circumstances in that it would be difficult to cut the
second story back to meet code requirements after lifting this floor;
the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property right of
the owner to provide room for his family; that it would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and would not
adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Motion seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C.
Taylor voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RELOCATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SF
GARAGE AT 1524 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study
meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Elvira Nogues, applicant,
discussed her desire to raise the floor of the garage as it floods
during rainy weather, the present garage has electricity only, they
would like to add a utility sink for gardening purposes, moving the
garage to the back will add to their enjoyment of the back yard from
their living room; adjacent neighbors have no objections. It was
determined there is a small bathroom located off the kitchen. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement the proposal will replace what is already there with
an improved structure and it will be moved to the rear of the yard to
enhance the existing yard, C. Leahy moved for approval of this special
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1986
permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special
Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the
Senior Building Inspector's May 15, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that
the garage addition as built shall be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 18, 1986
and shall include a sink with water and sewer and electrical service;
and (3) that no part of this garage structure shall ever be used for
residential purposes. Second C. Garcia. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1010 CADILLAC WAY
Item continued to the meeting of June 9, 1986 at the request of the
applicant.
Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
8. VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 200 SF SUN ROOM - 950 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
Requests: height of the structure; letter discussing the need for this
structure and why it is enclosed; how will hot tub be installed, in the
ground or above. Item set for hearing June 9, 1986 if height of
structure has been determined.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADDITION OF AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR WITH
HEAT RECOVERY UNIT AT PENINSULA HOSPITAL, 1783 EL CAMINO REAL
Item set for hearing June 9, 1986.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO DEMOLISH BUILDINGS, PAVE AND LANDSCAPE FOR
USE AS A NEW AND USED CAR SALES LOT - 1044-1060 BROADWAY
Requests: research conditions for second access and parking in original
Bekins Building proposal; where will employees of the new car lot park;
information on signalization/circulation, possibility of signal at
Carolan and Broadway; does applicant have permission to use Whitethorn
Way; impact of night lights from the lot shining onto Broadway. Item
set for hearing June 9, 1986.
11. FENCE EXCEPTION - 8' SECURITY FENCE - 840 MALCOLM ROAD
Requests: how much of the building is leased by the tenant who is
asking for the fence; does placement of the gate affect adequate
parking for other tenants of the building, will parking meet the needs
of the building; is the enclosure being made for a specific purpose;
who is requesting installation of the fence, property owner or tenant.
Item set for hearing June 9, 1986.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1986
12. SPECIAL PERMIT - RENT-A-CAR OPERATION - 1299 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Requests: size of fleet; hours of operation; map of car rental
agencies; will fleet increase in five years; where will cars be parked
on site if more than 10. Item set for hearing June 9, 1986.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
- Permit Review - DHL Courier Service, 865 Hinckley Road
- Permit Review - Peninsula Sports Center, 1239 Rollins Road
PLANNER REPORTS
Minor Modification Application Procedure
Reference staff memo, 5/27/86. Following brief discussion Commission
agreed with staff to list minor modification items on the agenda under
Planners Reports.
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its May 19, 1986 regular
meeting and May 21, 1986 study meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. in memory of Tom Moore, Traffic
Engineer, Public Works Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy
Secretary