Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.07.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, July 27, 1987 at 7:31 P.M. She called for a moment of silence for the firemen fighting a fire in Mills Canyon this evening. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy Absent: Commissioner S. Graham Staff Present: Adriana Garefalos, Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the July 13, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD A GARAGE TO AN EXISTING WORKSHOP WHICH CAUSES FLOOR AREA OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 500 SF, AT 309 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/87, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff site inspection which revealed there was a shower in the workshop, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: history of this property; code enforcement action in 1976 to abate an illegal dwelling unit; how and when were utilities restored to the workshop; staff advised water connections were already there, applicant put in the shower, sewer connection is required for the washing machine; building department inspection in 1986 which stated there was no bathroom in the shed; staff advised an inspection today indicated there is a shower put in without building permit, there is a washer and dryer, no toilet. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Charles Lewis, applicant, was present. Some discussion ensued regarding a planning commissioner's inability to inspect the workshop. Applicant stated he would like to have the garage; when he purchased the property approximately 3-1/2 years ago there was a shower of sorts in the workshop and plumbing facilities existed at that time, he did replace the shower and put in a washer and dryer. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: garage would improve this property but have reservations about the shower, water and sewer connections in the Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 workshop after code enforcement action in 1986; CA advised it is not unusual to have a washer and dryer with sewer connection in an accessory building; have reservations about approving this application with the shower, would prefer to require removal of the shower; the shower is there, don't think a shower makes a structure habitable living space but would go along with removal of the shower. With the statement that this applicant has given Commission a good plan with all necessary information, the staff report does not have adverse comments, there have been no neighbor complaints, C. Garcia moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the four conditions in the staff report. Second C. H.Graham; motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi, Jacobs and Leahy voting no, C. S.Graham absent. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 24, 1987 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's May 26, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that the garage shall be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 15, 1987 except that the maximum dimension of the garage shall be 20' x 231; (3) that as a part of the new construction the driveway shall be paved from the garage to the sidewalk; (4) that no toilet or bathroom facilities shall ever be placed in the garage or shed and that neither the garage nor shed shall be used separately or in combination for residential purposes; and (5) that the existing shower in the shed shall be removed. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Leahy dissenting, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SETBACK TO ADD A FOURTH BEDROOM AT 2973 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/87, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Helen Prewett, applicant, was present. She discussed her plans, access to bedroom #4 is through another bedroom, a hallway did not seem appropriate since it would have taken the area that is now their view from that end of the house, the use of this bedroom is needed only for the time their four children are living at home, they need living space now, later that room will become a study/studio. A Commissioner asked if the additional bedroom had a closet and discussed with staff whether code requires that a bedroom have a closet. C. Jacobs advised she would abstain from voting on this item since she is a next door neighbor and commented on an A frame addition in the area which stands out and is not appealing; she felt, as a neighbor, this proposal is more in keeping with the neighborhood. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further discussion: a Commissioner was uncomfortable calling the additional room a bedroom if it did not contain a closet, and concerned about the possible effect on a property owner, for lending purposes, when selling his property; CA commented what the city calls a room and a lender calls a room are totally separate, for the city's purposes and planning purposes this is a bedroom. Another Commissioner pointed out the only detriment to a bedroom without a closet is to the owner, a bedroom will appraise higher than a sitting room. C. Ellis found fourth bedroom access through the third bedroom rather strange but applicant's explanation made sense, it is mostly canyon in the back, not concerned about rear yard setback, from the aerial photograph and houses that were visible it would appear there are other buildings that are within that rear setback. C. H.Graham made findings, incorporating the statements of C. Ellis: the canyon is behind and this addition would not obstruct neighbors' views or be detrimental to property or improvements of other property owners; and the variance would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. H. Graham moved for approval of the variance request with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 6, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that the bedroom addition shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 29, 1987; and (3) that the area added and no portion of the existing house ever be used as a second dwelling unit. Second C. Ellis; motion approved on a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs abstaining, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A DETACHED GARAGE WHICH WILL EXCEED AMOUNT OF STORAGE AREA ALLOWED, WILL HAVE WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINES AND WILL HAVE WINDOWS MORE THAN 10' ABOVE GRADE, AT 2316 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R ! Reference staff report, 7/27/87, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. She noted letter (7/27/87 from E. R. Sears, Sr., Ruth R. Sears, Jane L. Sears, 2312 Easton Drive) in opposition to the two story addition at the front of this property, this addition meets all code requirements. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During discussion CA confirmed the two story addition at the front is totally within code and not relevant to the special permits for a detached garage which Commission is considering this evening. Responding to Commission question, staff advised the dormer windows, extending out from the roof, would increase area within the garage somewhat. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Pamela Stearns, applicant, was present. She stated the dormer windows in the garage would face her Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 house, on the other side they would face an easement. Audience comments: Sandra McNutt, 1308 Carlos Avenue - she had no objection to the dormer windows or height of the proposed structure; she was concerned about moving the new garage forward, she has a greenhouse window in her kitchen, looking off -side can see Easton, if the garage is moved forward she will be looking directly into the structure; she also felt this may detract from the appearance of her rather long driveway. Jane Sears, 2312 Easton Drive - she noted it has been stated her letter is not appropriate, she did feel some consideration should be given to their special situation; Burlingame should take a page from Hillsborough's book and not block views, keep the city beautiful, if there are codes enforce them. Applicant advised she had talked to her neighbors regarding this proposal, the objection of Miss Sears had not been raised until this evening. Applicants have a small side yard, they wanted to move the garage up to add to outdoor living area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: am somewhat uncomfortable with only 15' in front of the garage to the sidewalk, a compact car would fit but larger vehicles would overhang the sidewalk, very few people will park a car up to the garage door, would be much more comfortable with 201; CE has stated 15' from garage to back of sidewalk is enough for most compacts and mid-sized vehicles; would prefer 20' because a permanent garage is being created which will be there for a long time, this special permit involves three items, it is not uncommon for Commission to change an application slightly. With the statement this house was placed on the property a long time ago, the front addition is within code, the neighbor on San Carlos stated she does not object to the height or windows, this is a congested area and would like to put the garage back another 51, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 22, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that as built the new detached garage and addition to the house shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 8, 1987, except that there shall be 20' between the garage and the back of the sidewalk; and (3) that no portion of the garage shall ever be used as a dwelling unit and no utilities except electricity shall be extended to the garage. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. VARIANCE FOR PARKING TO ADD A BEDROOM TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 617 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/87, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: there must have been a garage on this site at one time but no one seems to know where it was; if the addition Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 as proposed is allowed there never will be a two car garage; would like to know what lot coverage would be if they put a two car garage in the rear of the property. PLR advised if applicants chose to place the addition over the existing house and added an accessory detached two car garage in the rear 30% of the lot, coverage would increase to 36%; if the existing structure in the rear of the lot remains and a garage is added in front of it, lot coverage would be about 38.5%; with the proposal as it stands now lot coverage is 38%. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Victor Gray, applicant, was present. He commented that to his knowledge there never has been a garage on the property, there was an existing structure in the back when he moved in, the house is very old and in poor condition; he felt his planned remodeling and addition would be an asset to the neighborhood; he had considered a two car garage at the rear of the property but decided if they did that and added a bedroom the lot would become too chopped up, most of one side of the lot would be driveway and there would be no backyard, it would not be a pleasing design. His lot is 5,000 SF, house was built in 1906. A Commissioner asked if the addition were slightly smaller how wide must the driveway be to go to a double car garage in the rear; CE advised 9' is a practical minimum. Applicant stated the existing structure in the backyard is not as old as the existing house, it is being used for storage; since the house has no garage nor closets they are living in one bedroom and using another bedroom for storage. Staff advised the proposed garage is 13' wide, 27' long. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: there is a fairly long driveway, think the proposed plan is well conceived, am in favor of keeping the backyard, it would be a hardship upon the applicant to require a two car garage in the rear. PLR discussed parking requirements of the code: if applicants had an existing one car garage on their property and a driveway at least 35' long from the front property line, they would meet the code requirements for covered parking and could add any number of bedrooms. A Commissioner noted it would be possible for a property owner to build a one car garage and come back later for a bedroom addition and not be required to have a two car garage. PLR stated since currently this is a two bedroom home, a one car garage meets the code requirement for parking. The parking variance is required because they are proposing to add a bedroom simultaneously. If the project was phased and the garage built first, they could come back later with the bedroom addition and not need a parking variance since the long driveway would satisfy the requirement for a second parking space on site. Commissioner comment: we are creating a possible problem in the future if we allow only a one car garage. C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house on the lot, applicant is adding to an existing home, it would be a hardship on the owner to create a a two car garage in the rear of the lot, he would then have no backyard, this is a more pleasing design than a piecemeal approach; the variance is necessary Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, it will not be detrimental to other property owners and will not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city, the zoning will not change. C. H.Graham moved for approval of this variance application with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's June 29, 1987 memo shall be met; and (2) that the addition and improvements shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22, 1987. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. RETIREMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT J. LEAHY Chm. Giomi thanked C. Leahy for his service to the city and welcomed Mrs. Leahy who was in the audience. Secy. H.Graham read Planning Commission Resolution of Commendation and Appreciation which he presented to the retiring Commissioner. Mayor Gloria Barton thanked C. Leahy for his years of service to the community and presented a city plaque in appreciation of his 11 years on the Park and Recreation Commission and six years on the Planning Commission. C. Leahy expressed his thanks "in spite of the sewer lateral and non-smoking ordinances" to Commission members and Mayor Barton. A recess was called at 8:43 P.M. for refreshments in the outer lobby. Meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF AN AMATEUR RADIO .ANTENNA AND TOWER AT 733 PLYMOUTH WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/87, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Letter in opposition from David L. Rodgers, 442 Chatham Road (received 7/27/87) was noted. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE confirmed concrete has been poured with city inspection, calculations for the foundation have been submitted to the Building Department. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Vernon Howard, applicant, was present. At applicant's request the Chair read letter in opposition to the antenna pole. Applicant commented there are 90' light standards in the neighborhood, and he did not think his installation would be visible in that area (442 Chatham Road). Responding to Commission questions, applicant stated putting the tower up and down involves a great deal of work, he would prefer to leave it at 51' most of the time, raising and lowering it can be done mechanically with the appropriate adaptation; he has been a ham radio operator for 58 years, it is his hobby, he talks to stations around the world, may have indirectly helped to lessen world tensions; speaking to the 51' height, if the antenna is low most of the energy shoots straight up, if higher it goes out to the horizon and bounces back at a distance, the most effective height would be around 701; it could be said a ham operator is never satisfied with his antenna and is always looking for the right length. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Robert Reisfeld, 724 Lexington Way - he could understand the importance of his hobby to the applicant but felt installation of a large antenna would change the neighborhood from a pleasant residential area to something quite different; what would it do to radio and TV reception. John McMorrow, 736 Lexington Way - he was concerned about TV interference, has experienced interference; and suggested review in three months if it is approved. Marjorie Truitt, 737 Lexington Way - she was concerned about TV and radio reception, felt it would be an intrusion into a residential neighborhood and could set a precedent for installations of a similar nature. Applicant responded to the concerns: ham radios can interfere with TV sets, computers, radios and telephones; all interference can be cured with cooperation between the ham operator and those affected; it could be the fault of the ham operator or a fault in the design of a computer or TV set; there are devices which can be added to TV's and computers to take care of interference, manufacturers sometimes leave these off; interference is a matter of concern to the FCC. Applicant stated the FCC recognizes amateur radio service which can provide emergency communication, provides an opportunity to further international goodwill; he believed that limited preemption is warranted. He felt his tower would be more aesthetic than telephone utility poles because of its latticework. At the present time he has a vertical antenna which is much more likely to interfere with TV reception; he is proposing a horizontal antenna which at 51' would be one-quarter as likely to cause interference. Devices to eliminate TV interference cost roughly $10.00 plus installation charge; ham operators are happy to work with any problems, he does try to live in harmony with his neighbors. Mr. Howard stated his antenna is designed for a wind factor of 80 miles per hour. Regarding complaints to the FCC, if there is a severe problem the FCC will come out, inspect and see where the fault lies. Transmissions can be made any time of the day or night; typically there are 3 to 4 entries per day in his log, 5 minutes to 1/2 hour long, seldom as much as 1/2 hour. It is turned completely off when not in use; when not fully extended the antenna would be 21' high. He carries homeowner insurance which covers his antenna tower. Robert Reisfeld had a further comment: appreciate applicant's thoughts and explanations but, if the special permit is granted, residents of the neighborhood will be the ones having the difficulties. He asked Commissioners to consider how they would feel if this were in their backyards before making a decision. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: regarding interference, the burden of proof is not on the resident, all he has to do is report the problem to the FCC, if the ham operator doesn't fix it the FCC will come out and help; most interference on TV is from Citizen's Band radio, not ham radios, but the FCC takes care of that also; horizontal antennas are very directional, radiation downward is minimal, the higher the Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 antenna the less interference there will be; am not an expert but do have concerns, people have their rights, would consider voting yes with review in 3-6 months, would prefer that neighbors didn't have to argue with the applicant or go to the FCC, do have concern about the 51' tower being up all the time, if it were under power it could be taken up and down more often; it seems with only five transmissions a day, 30 minutes at most, 2-1/2 hours out of 24, it could be retracted, power for retraction would be a good idea. This lattice tower will look less obtrusive at 511, it is a see-through tower, if pulled down to 21' it will appear as a solid mass and could be more intrusive to the near neighbors; would support review in 3-6 months, if interference is the fault of the design the neighbors shouldn't have to be involved, have a problem with regulating retraction, how can this be controlled; would prefer that the neighbors and applicant try to work out any problems, review would keep Commission informed; have no objection to 6 month review but in a worst case it would be necessary to go to the FCC; prefer to outlaw such installations in residential neighborhoods but there are federal guidelines the city cannot cross. Ck commented on the FCC guidelines and cautioned Commission about the need for very specific and reasonable findings on any limitations they imposed, approving with limitations could prove to be a problem. C. H.Graham moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's June 29, 1987 and City Engineer's June 23, 1987 memos shall be met; (2) that the antenna shall be placed in the rear yard at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22, 1987; (3) that as built this antenna shall be a maximum of 16' x 24' with an 18' turning radius placed on a retractable tower with a minimum extension of 21' and a maximum extension of 51' above grade with a nonreflective finish maintained by the applicant; and (4) that this special permit shall be reviewed in four months time (December, 1987). Second C. Leahy. In discussion on the motion it was determined the applicant must return to Commission for special permit amendment should there be any change to his installation larger than a 21' to 51' tower topped by a 16' x 24' antenna with an 18' turning radius. Comment: am uncomfortable with this, don't like to see such installations coming into the neighborhoods of the city, but Commission has no choice; hope it can be worked out with the neighbors and will not cause problems. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs voting yes reluctantly, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 27, 1987 6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND WEEKDAY OPERATING HOURS AND ADD HOURS ON SATURDAY, BY SPORTS THERAPY CLINIC AT 1545 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/27/87, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Stan Conte, applicant, was present. He confirmed this is the same business he started at the Burlingame Athletic Club, 888 Hinckley Road and moved in 1986 to this location; his business has grown. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement these extended hours are on a weekend when there is less traffic in the area and more available parking, extending the hours might actually alleviate some of the traffic congestion, this is a needed service, C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for approval of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit Amendment with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the April 8, 1986 use permit for a sports therapy clinic shall be amended to allow hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon on Saturday, closed on Sunday; and (2) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in six months time (January, 1988) and each two years thereafter. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A CHANGE OF COPY ON A NONCONFORMING POLE SIGN AT 1288 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 7/27/87, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was noted this is a code enforcement item, the sign is in place. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Peter Baird of Signco, representing Wheels for Rent car rental agency, was present. He discussed the erection of the sign by the present car rental business and felt it was a misinterpretation of the city's letter by the property owner who told the new tenant to go ahead; conditions on the site remain the same, same property owner and same type of business. CA advised he had talked to representatives of Wheels for Rent and told them they needed a sign exception to erect the sign, sign was subsequently put up without benefit of permit. Mr. Baird acknowledged his company has copies of city sign ordinances, this has been a valuable lesson. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 27, 1987 Commission comment: remember when the sign was first approved, this sign was determined to be a pole sign, the new sign code regulates such signs, think the sign should come down; sat on the Commission in the 70's when this was an issue, the city does not want signs bigger than buildings, this sign is almost as large as the room from which sales are made for the business. C. Jacobs moved to deny the sign exception with the condition that the existing pole sign and face be removed within 60 days. Second C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: happy to see this sign go, it is the most objectionable sign in the city. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PLANNER REPORTS C. Ellis reviewed City Council actions at its July 20, 1987 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary