Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.11.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, November 14, 1988 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Giomi 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 October 24, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #4, Tentative Parcel Map, 1249 Vancouver Avenue was continued to the meeting of November 28, 1988. Order of the agenda approved. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - EXPANSION OF EXISTING ORIENTAL RUG AND ANTIQUE SHOP - 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Requests: history of sign compliance for this business; plan showing proposed interior remodeling; include original conditions of the special permit. Item set for public hearing November 28, 1988. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 152 SF GAZEBO AT 2713 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/14/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to questions, staff advised the code requires a 41 separation between the pool and proposed gazebo, there appears to be much more than that; the backyard takes a sharp slope upward, gazebo will be located in flat area immediately behind the house, it will not block views and is 111 tall. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 14, 1988 Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mrs. Desai, applicant's wife, was present. She stated the gazebo would be used for entertainment, her son intends to use it as a clubhouse, it will not be enclosed. Commenting on the lack of a letter explaining the purpose and need for the proposed project, she advised her husband has been out of town and she teaches school, she had thought perhaps the landscape architect would take care of such a letter, the purpose is for entertainment and to beautify the backyard. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition. Carl Lollin, 2804 Rivera Drive: concern about adding another structure to this property, with a new owner it could be enclosed, utilities added and an illegal conversion occur, the 111 height will not obstruct neighbors' views but another structure added at another place on the lot could obstruct views, concern about fire hazard from weeds on the hill especially with children using the gazebo. Commission pointed out 40% lot coverage is allowed by the code, total lot coverage with this proposal is only 13%, any accessory structure over 50 SF must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, this gazebo will not block views. FM Reilly advised his department works annually with the residents to abate weeds in hillside areas. Further comment in opposition. Morrie Gersh, 1616 Granada Drive: he lives up the hill from this site and asked what fire protection plans have been made for this new construction, last year the Fire Department inspected the whole area and wrote all property owners asking them to abate the weeds, nothing was done on this lot. Fire Marshal discussed Fire Department's procedure to alert all residents of the need for clearance of weeds around their properties, some people are very cooperative but it is difficult to get compliance. Virginia Lollin, 2804 Rivera Drive determined the gazebo would be constructed of redwood, she was concerned that redwood would burn easily, fire would go up the hill and could easily spread. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham found no problem with this application; regarding fire danger, she did not think it would be increased by the addition of this gazebo which would be no different than a deck or a fence or any other wood accessory structure which did not require a special permit; children need the backyard for play area, they would not play in front on Trousdale. C. S. Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the 152 SF gazebo shall be constructed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 23, 1988; and (2) that the gazebo shall never be enclosed or converted to any other Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 14, 1988 use without prior approval of the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: gazebo will be located in a cultivated area, not on the hill; Fire Department needs to pursue the concerns of the neighborhood regarding weed removal; children will be in the backyard even without the gazebo; it will not obstruct views. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH BEDROOM AT 1612 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/14/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff explained the sequence of events leading to the applicants decision to apply for a variance. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Bob Gamble, applicant, was present. He stated they had seriously considered adding a second story but this presented several problems, the family room needed to be on the same level as the dining room and kitchen, to add another bedroom upstairs they would have to extend the existing structure to the rear anyway, placement of stairs would take additional space and present a hazard to their young children, extension of the garage would take away rear yard play area for the children. He stated there is space to park two cars, one in the existing garage and another parked behind the gate; the lack of an additional covered space would not create a visual impact; their neighbors have no objection to the project. They would like an additional bedroom but if the variance is not granted they can use the additional family room space. Responding to a Commissioner question about the sequence of events, Carol Gamble advised they had sold their previous home, they have two babies, they had a contractor ready to go and needed to move, so decided to proceed. In support of the variance Mrs. Gamble noted there is a 143' long driveway where cars can be parked behind the front setback, with this proposal the neighbor's yard will not be shaded as would be the case with a second story addition, there are exceptional circumstances in the way the property is situated in relation to the neighbors. Paul Rotter, architect, discussed the sequence of events leading to the variance application and the fact that the owners were committed to a contractor and a time schedule; he felt there were exceptional circumstances in the existing house and its placement on the lot; there are only two places for another garage structure, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 14, 1988 one in the front yard which would be detrimental to the neighborhood or adjacent to the present garage in the middle of the backyard which would require demolishing the existing garage; if the existing garage were enlarged it would prohibit any addition to the rear of the house. Regarding a second story addition, the city was discussing second story regulations but there had been no ordinance adopted at that time; additional parking space is available in the driveway behind the front setback and is permitted as an exception under the code. Responding to a Commissioner question, architect advised most suburban areas require a two car garage for a single family home. The following members of the audience spoke. Ivor Morris, 1608 Ralston Avenue: he had no objections to the proposal. Michael Love, 325 Chapin Lane: for the record he advised he did an informal survey on Chapin Lane and found parking requirements were met but none of his neighbors park in their garages; he felt there were good reasons for the regulation requiring two covered parking spaces but in this instance with the long driveway he would find for the applicants and not require more covered parking. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During Commission discussion there was concern expressed with how the application for variance evolved. C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances as outlined in the applicants' letter, the shape of the lot and location of the existing dwelling limit the addition of a two car garage or extension of the existing garage, the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the owners, it would not be detrimental to the neighbors nor adversely affect the zoning plan of the city since there is room to park two or three cars in the driveway behind the front setback. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 19, 1988 and November 41 1988. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. In comment on the motion C. Ellis stated his concern with the process of the application but found there were exceptional circumstances in the narrow lot, the house sits back on the lot which takes away area in the back which could be used for a second garage; he would not want to see a garage put in the front even if there is room; the house with its front door on the driveway side limits putting anything in the front. Further comment: there was a time factor involved in the sequence of events; cannot support the motion because the house covers a lot of property, it will be a four bedroom, two bath house with family room on one level, 37% lot Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 14, 1988 coverage, a good portion of the backyard is used, a second story would be a better solution and it could be done without impacting the neighbors, this would also keep more play area for the children; could a second story be added under the new declining height envelope ordinance; there is about 1,600 square feet behind the new construction, three covered spaces could be put in that area, if applicants are allowed that many rooms a two car garage would be better; even if the deck were taken away entirely would there be enough space to get into a two car garage. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and S.Graham dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - 1249 VANCOUVER AVENUE Item continued to the meeting of November 28, 1988. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA AT 1128 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 11/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP/Commission discussed definition of the Broadway commercial area and allowed/prohibited uses, height limit, parking, entrance from sidewalk to the lobby of the apartment use; apartment units are not being built to condominium standards, since there are less than 20 units they could not be converted to condominiums; retail entrance. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. N. N. Gabbay, architect, was present. Gene Klein, Barker Blueprint, 1127 Chula Vista Avenue asked about number of parking spaces provided; staff advised the project meets the code requirement for parking for retail, office and residential. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison commented this will be a nice addition to that particular area, mixed use will enhance the area. C. Harrison moved for approval of the special permit and for Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's October 16, 1988 memo and the City Engineer's October 25, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 12, 1988; (3) that the project shall include four 1 -bedroom residential apartment units, 800 SF of retail space with frontage on Chula Vista and 1,512 SF of office space; and (4) that the six parking spaces at Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 14, 1988 grade shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the residents on site and shall be protected by an electronic gate that only residents have keys to, the seven parking spaces below grade shall be reserved exclusively for the retail and office uses on site, the property owner shall be responsible for security within the commercial parking area and it must be available to the public during the hours when the commercial tenants are on the site. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: concern about office area on Chula Vista; location of the electronic gate. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO HOLD CLASSES AT THE IBIS HOTEL, 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 11/14/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: peak hour is considered to be 4:30-5:30 P.M.; possibility of the classes being held slightly later, starting at 6:30 P.M.; this use is not airport oriented. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. William Adams, Controller of Ibis, was present. His comments: with the off -ramp from 101 traffic congestion from Broadway will be eliminated; Ibis does not anticipate a subsequent contract with this school; they were not aware of the need for a special permit. Regarding a change in hours from 6:00 to 10:00 P.M. to 6:30 to 10:30 P.M., Mr. Adams advised he would like to discuss this with the applicant. Ibis has been negotiating for classroom business to fill their meeting rooms, they anticipate a different clientele within two years and will not need this business. One Commissioner thought 10:00 P.M. was late enough for students so was opposed to changing the starting time. Mr. Adams had no information on the degree completion and management programs mentioned in applicant's letter. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: hotel meeting rooms are primarily to serve patrons of the hotel, not for local people to hold classes, may be setting a precedent by allowing this use; do not have a problem with the use at this location; agree, Ibis is a newer, smaller hotel trying to stimulate business, think that's important, would not support this use at Hyatt or Marriott. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the classes be limited to Tuesday Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 14, 1988 nights from 6:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. for a total of 50 sessions, each session to have a maximum of 25 students and one instructor; and (2) that this use permit shall expire February 15, 1990. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: will support the motion but have some concerns, would not want to see this as a regular policy for all hotels; Commission considers each individual application on its merits so this will not be setting a precedent; in some degree it is a service to the people in the area; is hotel advertising for this type of business (Controller Adams stated they are not promoting this type of business, 40% of their business is tour and travel, 20% is corporate, 15% group, they are not after this type of business). Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham voting no, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. CITY PLANNER REPORTS Special Permit reviews were acknowledged for the following: 1405 North Carolan Avenue, Mr. Detail Special Permit; 1405 North Carolan Avenue, wholesale auto sales special permit; 1710 Gilbreth Road, special permit for John Sutti & Associates. Regulation of Automobile Rental Businesses in the M-1 and C-4 Districts Reference CP's staff report and draft ordinance. Some discussion ensued regarding traffic management, definition of automobile leasing and automobile renting, reason for specifying one acre in the criteria for automobile rental businesses. Draft Ordinance Regulating Automobile Rental Businesses in the M-1 and C-4 Districts was recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission. Discussion of New Ordinances CP Monroe reviewed and discussed ordinances recently adopted by the Council: Interim Ordinance Prohibiting Development and Subdivision of Creekside Lots; Interim Ordinance Regulating Second Story Additions in Hillside Areas with Minimum Lot Sizes of 10,000 Square Feet and 7,000 Square Feet; Ordinance Establishing Declining Height Envelope for R-1 and R-2 Districts. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 14, 1988 - CP reviewed City Council actions at its November 7, 1988 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary