Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.01.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, January 28, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Jane Gomery, Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 14, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. Item #3 has been continued. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, PORTIONS OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 1 (APN 025-168- 080 & 090). 1800-1826 ROLLINS ROAD Reference CE's staff memo, 1/28/91, with attachments. CE reviewed this request for a lot line adjustment to transfer a piece of property no longer used for a private spur track from 1800 Rollins Road to 1826 Rollins Road. CE recommended the map be forwarded to City Council for approval. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Louis Arata, civil engineer, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council approval of this tentative and final parcel map, seconded by C. Galligan, all aye voice vote. Staff will forward to Council. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 28, 1991 2. VARIANCES TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A TWO STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1347 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/28/91, with attachments. PLR Gomery reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE commented on his concerns about the placement and size of the attached garage. The present design requires an access easement or lot line adjustment for backup maneuvers from the garage on Lot B, if the proposed lot was subdivided in the future. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Bob Lundstrom, applicant and property owner, was present. He stated they do not intend to subdivide but would hope not to encumber the property for future owners, they have considered other options for placement of the garage but feel that if the property were divided the new lot would be left with a small back yard. The present proposal seemed the best solution. He noted there is a 7' wide easement along the side property line which separates the adjoining property from the proposed addition. Alan Olin, JD & Associates, designers, discussed the project: the addition to the rear of the existing house would be only a minor modification if it were a single story; because it is a two story addition a variance to declining height envelope is also required; the objective of the declining height ordinance has been met since there is adequate space between this residence and the neighbors to mitigate the impact of bulk. Mr. Olin noted the neighbors are in favor of this proposal. Commission/staff/designer discussion: the 7' easement is a public utilities easement owned by the city and not developable; if the property were subdivided the detached garage would be completely on the new lot. Staff explained the existing subdivision lot line; there are two lots being used as one, and the area is legally two lots. The location of the driveway shown on the plans was discussed. The following members of the audience spoke in favor: Tim Regan, 1351 Montero Avenue; Larry Hickey, 1321 Montero Avenue; John Crehan, 1328 Montero Avenue. All felt the applicant would be upgrading the property and enhancing the neighborhood; they expressed no objection to the side setback or declining height variances. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would not be participating in discussion or voting on this proposal. Regarding the side yard setback variance, C. Galligan found that since the house is situated on one of the 50' lots this is an exceptional circumstance, and it is appropriate to treat this as one lot, not two; there is a 7' public utility easement (PUE) which provides additional side yard setback; regarding the declining height envelope, the intent of the ordinance is to provide light and air by the restrictions of the envelope, in this case the PUE provides Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 28, 1991 additional light and air. The property has a large front setback and does not appear to be obtrusive to any of the neighbors who spoke. The spirit and intent of the declining height ordinance will be met. Based on these findings C. Galligan moved for approval of the two variances subject to the conditions in the staff report. He also commented on the concerns about the backup maneuvers, noting it is not possible to grant an easement to oneself. The owner seems to understand the obligations of both lots. Motion died for lack of a second. Further Commissioner comment: this lot should stand on its own, it is a big addition, and if the lot is subdivided, the conditions should be clarified with this application. CE stated the applicant could do a lot line adjustment now to comply with the current zoning code or he could combine both lots and subdivide them later. Further concerns: dealing with two lots with a house on one and a garage on the other; do not see any exceptional circumstances, property does not have an unusual shape; uncomfortable with the lot line situation; it appears the applicant wants the advantage of a double lot and wants to ignore the disadvantages of a single lett; he says it is only a single lot so he should be granted the variances; this is a situation which can be corrected by moving the lot line or reducing the size of the garage in order to accommodate the backup maneuvers. C. Kelly moved to deny the two variances without prejudice, seconded by C. Jacobs with the understanding-4pplicant will return with a design which meets all concerns express4a this evening. Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures,were advised. 3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1542 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Item continued. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORTS PLR Gomery and CA Coleman reviewed City Council actions at its January 23, 1991 regular meeting. Special Permit Review, 4uto sales, 1330 Rollins Road - acknowledged. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 28, 1991 REVIEW OF FENCE AND HEDGE ORDINANCE Reference CA's January 16, 1991 memo with attached draft Ordinance Making Clarifying Amendments to Fence and Hedge Regulations and Procedures. C. Mink moved that the draft ordinance be approved and recommended to City Council for adoption, seconded by C. Graham. Discussion followed regarding maximum hedge height, fences/hedges on commercial property which abut residential, redundancy in having definitions listed twice in the zoning ordinance, why are findings of exceptional circumstances required for a hedge/fence exception, fence exception does provide some control, criteria need to be established. It was suggested this item be put on the next agenda for discussion. C. Mink withdrew his motion and C. Graham her second. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary