Loading...
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