HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.05.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 9, 1988
0 .
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, May 9, 1988 at
7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Jacobs
Absent: Commissioner Harrison
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos,
Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank
Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the April 25, 1.988 meeting were
unanimously approved.
A ENDA - Items #4 (two variances, 1524 Cypress Avenue) and #8
(special permit, airport parking facility) were
continued to the meeting of June 13, 1988. Order of
the agenda was then approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
C. H.Graham nominated Ruth Jacobs for Chairman for the 1988-89
term; motion was seconded by C. Ellis; nominations were closed and
Ruth Jacobs elected Chairman on unanimous voice vote.
C. S.Graham nominated Harry Graham for Vice Chairman; motion was
seconded by C. Garcia; nominations were closed and Harry Graham
elected Vice Chairman on unanimous voice vote.
C. Garcia nominated Mike Ellis for Secretary; motion was seconded
by C. Jacobs; nominations were closed and Mike Ellis elected
Secretary on unanimous voice vote.
C. Giomi passed the gavel to Chairman Jacobs. The new Chairman
thanked C. Giomi for her guidance during the past two years, her
patience and graciousness.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
May 9, 1988
ITEM FOR STUDY
1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE -
728 CROSSWAY ROAD - ZONED R-1
Requests: utilities in the proposed garage; size of existing
garage; statement from applicant regarding why the proposed storage
area cannot be reduced by 30 SF and eliminate one special permit.
Item set for public hearing May 23, 1988.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
2. VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION
TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2009 CLARICE LANE
Reference staff report, 5/9/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter,
letter from applicant's architect, letter in support from the
neighbor at 2007 Clarice Lane. One condition was suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Anthony Kakis, applicant and his architect, Thalia Georgopoulos
were present. Applicant discussed the fact that the code had
changed since his architect started working on the plans, they had
checked code requirements with the city in February, 1988; redesign
of structural changes would add considerably to the cost of the
project; they have discussed the proposal with their neighbors and
have received no negative feedback. In discussion with Commission
the architect advised foundation plan will meet all city
requirements at the building permit stage, prior to the code change
this project did not meet side yard setback requirements and would
have required a variance from the Commission, an additional 2'
setback would require redesign of the whole project.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: number of bedrooms existing
and with the addition; understandably there is a problem with the
applicant not knowing of the code change but feel this addition
would be too much house next to other homes, the present next door
neighbor who has approved of the addition may not always live
there; because of the slope of the lot the addit'Con will tower over
the house next door, it will appear to be much higher than it is
and might infringe on the privacy of the neighbor's backyard, it is
too tall to go straight up.
With the statement the architect did contact the+ city in the first
instance regarding code requirements, then there was a code change,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
May 9, 1988
the result is understandable; lot coverage is only 26% where 40%
maximum is allowed, building height will still be 5' less than the
maximum allowed, C. Giomi moved for approval of the variance with
the following condition: (1) that as built the project shall be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped April 15, 1988.
C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the
topography of the lot and other physical characteristics of this
property, this is a reasonable way to extend 'the structure, the
code was changed after design of the project had begun, the
variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
property right of the owner, it would not be detrimental to other
property owners and it would not adversely impact the zoning plan
of the city, the property will remain R-1 zoning.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis, primarily because the plans were
well along when the code change became effective, the addition will
be higher on the neighbors side because of the slope but should
not have an extreme impact. Comment on the motion: there is a
procedure in the city that when an active application exists it
would not be affected by code changes, but there is no precedent
for someone starting plans in February and submitting them in April
after the code changed not being subject to the new regulations.
Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and
Jacobs dissenting, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
3. PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD BEDROOM WITHOUT
PROVIDING A SECOND COVERED PARKING SPACE ON SITE, AT 431
BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/9/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants letter, petition in support. One condition
was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Size of the
existing garage was noted.
Eric and Krista Hanson, applicants, were present. Mr. Hanson
commented on their desire to proceed with the addition while
preserving play area in the back yard for their children and
retaining the character of the house, he felt addition of a carport
would detract from the site, many lots on Bloomfield have 100'
frontages and there is never a problem finding a parking space on
the street. Mrs. Hanson expressed her concern for safety,
Bloomfield is a busy street at least a couple times of day, if a
carport were put in the back it would remove area used by the
children for their bicycles and tricycles; they like the character
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
May 9, 1988
of the neighborhood, if a carport were required they would lose
established rose bushes.
Responding to a Commissioner question about what is unique about
this property, Mr. Hanson stated it is unique+ in terms of the
character of the house, a carport would detract from its
appearance, the children's play area is a prime asset. Mrs. Hanson
read letter in support (May 9, 1988) from Robin and Michael
Liffman, 401 Bloomfield Road (next door neighbor); they stated they
had reviewed the plans and liked the addition very much, it would
enhance property values in the neighborhood, a carport would
detract.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement this is a nice addition, it. will enhance the
home, additional parking would take up a good portion of the back
yard, exceptional circumstances can be found in that it is a corner
lot, it does not have a good sized back yard and applicants would
lose half of this if a carport were added, the variance is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of
the owners, it would not be detrimental to the neighbors and would
not affect the zoning plan of the city, C. S.Graham moved for
approval of the variance with the following condition: (1) that as
built the addition shall be consistent with the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped April 13, 1988. Motion
was seconded by C. Giomi.
Comment on the motion: if a carport were added applicants would
still have an area roughly 30' x 50' in the back yard; the existing
garage has a laundry area partitioned off at -the rear so tandem
parking would not be possible, am somewhat uncomfortable with this
proposal in that there is no parking available in the front of the
site but think a carport would detract, it would not enhance the
neighborhood; since the city has no architectural review Commission
must go by the code, there is room to add a carport; from a site
inspection it does not appear anyone is using the existing garage,
there is only 31% lot coverage on this property, approval could set
a precedent, there is a shed in the back yard now which could be
removed to add more play area, think Commission should require two
covered parking spaces; would hope applicants would provide a two
car garage and add space for a laundry, there is room for a two car
garage, think they should be required to provide one.
Motion to approve the variance failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers
Ellis, Garcia, H.Graham and Jacobs voting no, C. Harrison absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
May 9, 1988
4. VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A
DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AT 1524 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Item continued to the meeting of June 13, 1988 at the request of
the applicant.
5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO
THREE PARCELS AT 1249 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/9/88, with attachments. CE Erbacher
reviewed this request to divide an existing parcel into three
parcels. He discussed zoning, minimum lot size, street frontages,
setbacks, Town of Hillsborough review, Hillsborough requirements,
city staff review, parcel map criteria, lot frontages and lot sizes
in the neighborhood, study meeting questions. CE recommended
approval with 11 conditions as listed in the staff report and noted
Commission may wish to discuss compatibility of the proposed lots
to pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood.
Commission/staff discussion: all development conditions will be
shown on the map and recorded with the deed; Hillsborough will
require driveway access to Armsby be limited to a 301 maximum width
driveway at the joint property line between the two parcels
fronting on Armsby; staff did not know if this proposal had been
reviewed by the architectural review committee in Hillsborough; the
matter of utilities going through Parcel F which fronts on
Vancouver will be resolved with PG&E and the telephone company; CE
advised contours shown on the map are the existing contours, no
major grading is proposed, just the driveway; the two parcels on
Armsby will have an Armsby address coordinated with Hillsborough;
FM advised there would be no problem with Burlingame's fire
response, they are familiar with this area.
John and Theresa Colombo, applicants, were present. Chm. Jacobs
opened the public hearing. The following members of the audience
spoke.
Ken Musso, 227 La Prenda, Millbrae: he spoke in favor of the
proposal as one of the future parcel owners.
Clarence Cravalho, 1265 Vancouver Avenue: he expressed concern
about fire safety, particularly correct response from 911; he was
also concerned about his retaining wall and that it not be
disrupted by any new construction and felt a two story house would
tower over his home if put on that side of the lot as well as
invading his privacy in the back yard. CA advised Burlingame does
not have design review, this application is a map to create three
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
May 9, 1988
parcels, the developers would be required to build to city codes
regarding setbacks and height.
Charles Kavanagh, Civil Engineer who prepared the map, stated they
hoped to save the 24" pine tree by realigning the driveway slope,
they are proposing a drainage ditch to collect any surface waters
and help protect the slope, as the upper lots are developed,
easements can be granted over the lower lot, drainage water would
go through a closed conduit to an approved drainage facility on
Vancouver.
Carl Goldstone, 10 Fagan Drive, Hillsborough: he was concerned that
perhaps Hillsborough's Town Manager and Council were not aware of
this proposal and that the only condition requested by the Town of
Hillsborough was the 30' driveway, he felt this project might
impact Hillsborough as much as Burlingame, if Burlingame grants the
subdivision a condition should be included that the Town of
Hillsborough grant an easement for access onto Armsby; he believed
Hillsborough should have a public hearing on this matter since two
of the parcels front on Armsby. CA stated that Hillsborough's only
control is access from Armsby, not over the subdivision in
Burlingame, access may not be a matter for Council action in
Hillsborough and it is up to the developer to get the access. A
Commissioner shared the concern of Mr. Goldstone that the Town of
Hillsborough be aware of this project.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: CE confirmed the map is
complete, access is a part of the conditions of the map action;
have a problem with the abutting driveway, this will not be
attractive and will look like a street, could some planting be
required down the length of the driveways; think the full 30' width
is needed to make a turn from the street; concern that the Town of
Hillsborough has not been adequately informed about this proposal;
conditions include items which will have to go to Hillsborough for
action; since action on an access easement must go to Hillsborough,
think Commission should concern itself with the effect of this
development on Burlingame.
C. Giomi moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to
City Council for approval with the 11 conditions listed in the
staff report. She found this proposal is compatible with the
pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood and complies with all
criteria for map action. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia.
Comment on the motion: concern about safety on Armsby Drive.
Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and
H.Graham dissenting, C. Harrison absent.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
May 9, 1988
Recess 8:52 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A RETRACTABLE SUPPORT
TOWER AND ANTENNA FOR AMATEUR RADIO AT 1769 ESCALANTE WAY,
ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 5/9/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Five
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
CA advised it is not the amateur's responsibility to take care of
any interference, interference problems should be reported to the
FCC for correction.
William Raskoff, applicant, was present. He :stated he would be
operating his station 10-12 hours a week; he has considered the
neighborhood and wants to preserve its character; the installation
would be surrounded entirely by tall trees (:1001 eucalyptus on
Skyline, 651-70' eucalyptus along Trousdale and 45' Monterey pines
on his property), he distributed photos of the site, the antenna
would be placed behind the 45' Monterey pine trees. Dr. Raskoff
advised the installation would not be visible! from the Skyline
Terrace Apartments and it would be 120' from his neighbors' houses;
generally he operates his station late at night, or early morning;
interference would not be a problem nor receiving FAA clearance
since the installation would not be as tall as the trees. In
support of his request he discussed the public service rendered by
ham radio operators in times of natural disaster.
Responding to Commission questions, applicant advised he bought his
equipment last year; he can raise and lower -the antenna either
manually or by motor; the wire seen on a site visit was being used
for tests of reception; he plans to connect the antenna to the
second floor of the house below grade or possibly 25' above his
rear yard.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: most problems of interference by ham
operators are caused by tubes in old equipment, this is solid state
and is almost noise free.
With the statement the applicant is doing everything he can to
reduce impacts; the installation would be no different than looking
at a TV antenna on the roof; interference, if any, would be
minimal, C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and
for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits
with the following conditions: (1) that the antenna shall be
installed at the location shown on the plans submitted to the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
May 9, 1988
Planning Department and date stamped March 28, 1988 with a maximum
tower height from grade when extended of 401 and of 20, when
retracted and with a maximum antenna size of 271 x 141; (2) that
the tower shall be operated as described in the applicant's letter
of March 28, 1988; (3) that the tower and antenna shall be painted
a nonreflective color and the property owner shall be responsible
for maintaining the nonreflective surface; (4) that should this
tower cease to be used for amateur radio transmissions for a period
of one year it shall be removed at the property owners expense;
and (5) that if FAA clearance is required the applicant shall
receive it before receiving a building permit. Motion was seconded
by C. H.Graham.
Comment on the motion: unlike a previous application for amateur
radio, this does not appear to be detrimental 'to the surrounding
neighborhood or to property values. Motion was approved on a 6-0
roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A ROOF MOUNTED SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT
EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 5/9/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter,
study meeting questions and subsequent letter from applicant.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Chandler Eason, representing the applicant, Embassy Suites, was
present. He commented that the location of the antenna shown on
the aerial photo indicated location of the cable TV antenna, the
proposed location for the satellite dish antenna is on the roof
inside the parapet wall, it will only be visible from the bay side
where it extends 11-6" above the parapet, not actually visible
except from an airplane; the 71-6" height will be less when
installed and the receiving angle of the dish is determined; it
will be in a fixed position; the 1.8 meter reflector is
approximately 61.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption
of Commission Resolution Approving Special .Permits with the
following conditions:(1) that the 5'-11" satellite dish antenna
shall be installed at the location on the northeast corner of the
roof as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped March 30, 1988 with a maximum height of 71-6" above
the surface of the roof; (2) that the dish shall be painted a gray
nonreflective color and the nonreflective :surface shall be
maintained by the leaseholder; and (3) that it shall be the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
May 9, 1988
responsibility of the leaseholder to remove the dish antenna if it
is no longer required for interchain communications.
Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved unanimously on
voice vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT - AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY - 615, 701 AND 731
AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Item continued to the meeting of June 13, 1988 at the request of
the applicant.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of Planning Commission denial of fence exception -
2612 Hale Drive (applicant was found to be in compliance with
this denial)
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its May 2, 1988 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Ellis, Secretary