Loading...
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