Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.05.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 23, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, May 23, 1988 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, H. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioners Giomi, S. Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 9, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. The Chair introduced County Supervisor Bill Schumacher who was in the audience. Mr. Schumacher acknowledged the introduction and commented on the importance of a Planning Commission to the governmental process, to a city and to its citizens. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE DISH - 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Requests: when was this dish installed, why was no permit required at that time; discuss FCC preemption referred to in applicant's letter; will the dish be screened; method of fastening dish to the roof; where can it be seen from. Item set for public hearing June 13, 1988. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION - MASTER SIGN PROGRAM - 1199 BROADWAY Requests: effects of the building owner's refusal to allow window signs; history of the application since September, 1987 when it was first received; detail on how the signs will be attached; has the application changed since the conceptual proposal in September, 1987. Item set for public hearing June 13, 1988. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - 1730 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: location of the new parking space; indicate on diagram existing on-site parking, are all these spaces marked; comment from Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1988 Page 2 Fire and Building Departments regarding loss of a stairway in the mid portion of the building; discuss parking requirements with the relocation of office space. Item set for public hearing June 13, 1988. U eAIMNAKOIN 4. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE AT 728 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/23/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During discussion it was noted no trees are marked on the plans, will this construction affect the large tree on the neighbor's property; staff advised the proposed garage is too large to be considered under the Minor Modification procedure; total garage and storage area requested is 660 SF, storage area exceeds 10% of the floor area of the house, when a second story is added to the house within the next two years storage area in the garage will not exceed 10% of the floor area of the house. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael McCallion, applicant, was present. He advised they plan to remove all trees except the redwood tree on the side, they will put redwood siding on the rear of the garage for the benefit of the neighbor and will plant some trees behind the garage for privacy, any trees which are removed will be replaced; they had not considered the effect of construction on the redwood tree next door on the fence line but had talked to the neighbor who had no objections to the garage, they did not discuss the redwood tree; they plan to add to the house in the near future and storage area in the garage will be used to store supplies for this project; applicant confirmed he was a contractor. A petition in favor (included in the packet) signed by 16 people in the area was noted. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff explained the storage area is partitioned off from the garage space, therefore the second special permit is required. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the two special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the garage as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 21 and 22, 1988; and (2) that no part of the garage shall ever be used for residential purposes nor shall any other utility except electricity be extended to the garage. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 23, 1988 Comment on the motion: cannot support this application, concern about the storage of building materials; possibility of setting a time limit on the storage of building materials; have no problem with the proposal, happy to find someone who wants to build an adequate garage with adequate storage, when he adds onto the house storage will become less than 10% of the floor area of the house and within code, would not like to see the wall in the garage removed; storage of materials has no bearing on this application. Motion was approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 209 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/23/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter. She noted seven letters in support received after preparation of the staff report. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Michael Walneuski, applicant, was present. He felt strongly that the requirement for additional covered parking should be waived and the variance granted; additional cars can be parked in his long driveway; they would not like to remove an existing oak tree in order to relocate and enlarge the garage, the tree is a noise buffer; the variance is necessary for the preservation of their property rights. He explained that they investigated code requirements in January of 1988, proceeded with the design and after submitting plans for review discovered they now needed a variance. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: staff advised the issue of tandem parking which requires a variance was not discussed; think there is room to move the garage back and provide a two car garage to code, this would also provide some distance between the new addition and the garage and still retain the tree; a site inspection did not indicate the garage could be moved back and keep the tree, this would also limit backyard area; had hoped a two car garage was possible on this site but after site inspection feel that if the garage were moved back there would be a problem with the oak tree, have concern about damage it might do to the roof of a new garage. Further comment: the city used to give priority to parking, now there seems to be priority given to trees, what should the city's priorities be; can support the project because of the long driveway Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 23, 1988 which will provide space to park cars; there will be only three bedrooms in this house. C. Harrison moved for approval of the parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's May 6, 1988 memo shall be met; and (2) that the project shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 12, 1988 with a one car garage 12'-4" x 211-711. He found there were exceptional circumstances with the existing oak tree in the rear and the length of the driveway which provides space to park more cars, the variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a property right of the owner, it would not be detrimental to the public or other property owners and it would not affect the zoning plan of the city. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting, Cers Giomi and S. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1417 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/23/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, previous application which was denied without prejudice and special permits which have been eliminated with this revised request, staff review, applicant's letter, Commission concerns about the previous application, letters in opposition received after the previous action. CP noted two additional letters in opposition received after preparation of staff report for this meeting. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner noted several of the letters received commented on changing the zoning in this R-1 area; staff advised applicant has a home occupation permit limiting use to the house, when a home occupation permit is allowed it does not change the zoning and the city has no intention of changing the zoning in this R-1 area. Paul Costa, applicant, was present. He told Commission the assembly/fabrication of items he had proposed for the workshop area in the previous application will be moved to Oakland, he will confine workshop activities to his hobbies. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in opposition. Freda Freund, owner of the property at 1413 Bernal Avenue, next door, spoke in favor of the application. There being no further audience comments the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: this is an unusual circumstance, have never seen a 61 plate line on a garage; have no problem with the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1988 Page 5 proposal, it is a good change from the previous application; commend applicant for putting a two car garage in such a small area. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the two special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's May 17, 1988 memo shall be met; ( 2 ) that the garage as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 13, 1988; and (3) that the applicant shall apply for and receive the building permits for both the garage and remodeling of the house simultaneously. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:27 P.M.; reconvene 8:33 P.M. 7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A BEDROOM ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1020 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/23/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised variances for tandem parking had been discussed with the applicant, if these were considered two variances would be required, one for tandem covered parking and one for tandem dimensions. A Commissioner asked the length of the driveway. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Ken Ibarra, architect and Tony Kossiakoff, property owner were present. They advised the driveway is 52' to property line. Commission/applicant/staff discussion: possibility of building a two car garage creekside, other agency permits required if this were done; possibility of putting a two car garage on the front part of the lot, size and density of the trees was noted and that two of the trees touch the house now, root lines are extensive; applicants stated the creekside is wild, deep and dense. Commission comment: do not see how a two car garage could be put over the creek area, extending the garage to -the rear would cut down on existing yard space, the side of the house at the front is on the embankment of the creek; the whole creek bed is wooded. Speaking to a Commissioner's desire to put a two car garage behind the front setback, applicant stated they would also run into a property line problem. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 23, 1988 Speaking in favor, Robert Rosselli, 121 Pepper Avenue, contractor, who commented the costs related to building a garage over the creek would be astronomical. Regarding extending the garage to the rear, applicant stated they hoped to keep as much of the back yard as possible, it is not large and they would like the space for outside activities. A Commissioner asked what percentage of the lot is absorbed by the creek; architect stated there is at best a 3' flat walkway on the side and the bank slopes down dramatically from there, lot line in the back is on the other bank of the creek. Distance to the rear property line if garage were extended for a 39' deep tandem garage was discussed. There were! no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During Commission discussion staff explained the plans which would remove an existing at grade shop/storage area with study and sunroom above, replacing it with an at grade family room and garage extension with two bedrooms and bath above; extension to 39' for a tandem garage would be to the rear. C. H.Graham moved for approval of a parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variances with the following conditions: (1) that tandem covered parking and a tandem dimension of 39' in depth shall be allowed, and that no portion of the designated parking area shall ever be used for residential purposes; (2) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 29, 1988 as amended by Commission's action this evening; and (3) that any additional studies required by the City :Engineer shall be completed and reviewed by him prior to issuing a building permit. C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the location of the creek, it would not be feasible to build a two car garage over it, there is not enough width on the side of the garage to extend it to two car dimensions, but the lot is deep enough to allow a nonconforming tandem garage 39' deep without a hardship upon the homeowner; the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood nor would it affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. In comment on the motion it was determined this motion would not interfere with the proposed addition. Motion was approved 5-0 on roll call. vote, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 23, 1988 PLANNER REPORTS - 1209 Howard Avenue - Review of proposed floor plan for second floor and conformance with conditions of approval of parking variance Reference staff report, 5/23/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to construct a lightwell on the second floor of the structure to allow natural light to reach the first floor and that this area be calculated as part of the permitted 1,224 gross SF of storage area approved for the building rather than the 3,500 SF of office area. Commission consensus appeared to be that action on the parking variance was an attempt to limit office space, this request will in no way increase office space. The proposal was approved. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its May 16, 1988 regular meeting and May 18, 1988 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:18 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary