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