Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.02.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 1988 L TO OR A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, February 8, 1988 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the January 25, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO 2 -BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE IN ADDITION TO 2,500 SF OF SHOP SPACE AT 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Item continued to the meeting of February 22, 1988. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO HOLD COMPUTER TRAINING CLASSES IN THE OFFICE BUILDING AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 2/8/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff site inspection, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: since this use has been in operation for six months and must have signed a lease for the space, concern if the special permit were not granted; staff advised it is the landlords responsibility to advise a prospective tenant if he needs a use permit and the business license application form clarifies it is not a license to do business; use permits run with the property, in this case it would run with 1,764 SF Suite 460 only within the conditions of approval. Parking was also discussed. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Verne Skjonsby, office manager and instructor at the site (applicant) stated that the property manager changed at the time they took the site, the lease Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 8, 1988 was signed in another office off site, he did not know if they were aware of the need for a use permit; his office relocated from San Mateo, last year they had 224 people, only 25 were within commuting distance; the impact of this use on parking therefore is positive, approximately 1.5 parking spaces per week while the leased area is entitled to 5 spaces daily. Most trainees fly in from somewhere else and stay in local hotels nearby. Responding to Commission questions, the applicant advised their main office is in Baltimore, another in Florida, the local office is a branch of the Florida office; they train only those who buy their company's product, they do not contract with other computer companies for training; training is for construction software, basically bid estimation; classes are not full every week, he had one student last week for a concrete program, there are seven students this week for an electrical program; class size varies from one to 10. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham stated that since clients fly in from out of town and will continue to do so, it appears to be a nationwide company, this would justify granting the special permit; the building is partly vacant so the need for parking spaces is less, if it should go to 100% occupancy applicant would undoubtedly be giving up some parking space for other tenants or visitors. 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 training classes offered from the 1,764 SF area in Suite 460 shall not exceed a maximum of 14 people and two instructors, four days a week, Monday through Thursday; (2) that this business shall not employ more than one person full time at this site and part time employees shall be limited to those training the smaller (four person) sessions as described in the applicant's letter dated January 8, 1988; and (3) that all the required parking spaces on this site be available to the tenants and their public for use. Comment on the motion: clarification that total number of people allowed on site would be 16; will vote affirmatively since the building is not totally occupied now, it is a needed use in the area, class size is small and will not impact parking. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Staff was requested, if possible, prior to any subsequent application for classes in the C-4 zone, to document the number of classroom uses which have been approved in this area. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 8, 1988 FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 3. FENCE EXCEPTION - 2612 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: why is this situation different than any other houses facing each other; would like applicant to address why he cannot use landscaping for screening rather than a higher fence; it was noted that the code requires the need to find hardship as it relates to the property, not to the applicant personally; is there a contractor for this project, if so who. Item set for public hearing February 22, 1988. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TENNIS CLASSES AND HOURS OF ILLUMINATION FOR THE TENNIS COURT LIGHTS - 405 PRIMROS13 ROAD, ZONED C-1 Staff will research other permits for classes in the area and their limitations. Requests: age of students and teacher; expected noise level; could the proposed hours be changed to start later and end earlier; parking demand information; number of tickets given in the area; indicate on the aerial photograph the location of nearby residential properties; length of classes; information from traffic sergeant on what areas have the worst problem; where is access to the tennis courts, will it impact the office uses; how tall is the fence around the courts; how will classes impact use of the tennis courts by tenants of the building. Item set for public hearing February 22, 1988. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - ROOFTOP SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA - 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: location of the existing TV antenna; how will the dish antenna be screened, what is its exact location on the roof; provide site plan; why cant the antenna be put in the patio area at grade; can applicants argument for the rooftop location (lack of ground space and concern about theft/vandalism) be supported, given the number of existing similar antennas in the area. Item set for public hearing February 22, 1988. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - GROUND MOUNTED SATELLITE DISH - HYATT HOTEL - 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: why not designate the height of trees for screening if this installation is approved; information on size, height and species of proposed trees; is the installation site over any structure; what is the size and height of the pool/spa/mechanical room adjacent to the installation shown on the electrical site Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 8, 1988 plan; request comment from the Parks Department if proposed eucalyptus trees are the best for screening; will these trees screen the antenna from view from the freeway; what species will be less of a clean-up problem for the installation. Item set for public hearing February 22, 1988. PLANNER REPORTS The following permit reviews were acknowledged: Special Permit, Sports Therapy Associates, 1545 Bayshore Highway Special Permit, Allstate Insurance, 1502 Adeline Drive onsideration of Park,ina Reauirements for Sinale Familv Housin CP Monroe reviewed her staff memo, 2/8/88: present parking regulations, the issue, staffs observations (new construction, remodels). Staff is proposing clarification of the intent of the existing parking standards, addition of a requirement for remodel of a five or more bedroom home and tightening the parking requirements by tying conformance for remodeling/additions to any structural addition, not just a bedroom addition. A draft of revisions to Code Sec. 25.70.030-a Requirements for particular uses, was attached. Commission discussion/comment: code wording "behind the front setback", why not behind the sidewalk; visual impact and attempts to get cars out of the front setback; see no problem once cars are beyond the sidewalk (staff noted if this were put. in the code many homes would have part of their required parking on city property and would require an encroachment permit); CE commented that to require a legally dimensioned space in some areas would push garages to the rear or nothing but garage doors would be seen in the front resulting in large curb cuts eliminating on -street parking, could end up with all living area in the back or on top. Further comment: property line varies with properties; three bedroom condos are required to provide 2.5 spaces, in favor of requiring more parking in R-1; could agree if Burlingame had larger lots, it is much more difficult with smaller lots; would prefer to tie parking requirements to structural improvements (whatever the measure) rather than to number of bedrooms. CP noted her suggestion would separate parking requirements from bedroom, bedroom is used for the definition of amount of parking required, it is one way to encourage compliance for all remodeling/additions, not just the addition of a bedroom. Discussion continued: concern that there is no good measure of what aspect of a dwelling generates parking; would not want to see Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 8, 1988 a lot of homes in the city with two car garages in front just to satisfy parking requirements; how much worse doers a two car garage look than five cars parked in a long narrow driveway; concern about using square footage as a measurement of parking compliance since it could lead to undesirable extensions. Staff commented Burlingame's code differs from many in that density for commercial or multiple family residential is based solely on parking requirements, the long time code relationship between parking and density is good. Concern about parking in the front setback may have evolved from concern about looking down the street and seeing cars parked within the landscaped areas of front setbacks; parking needs to have a relationship to density of use and somehow be tied to livable space, not to a bedroom. Commission comment: these parking requirements might keep people from improving their homes and from adding a family room; need some type of parking provided in relationship to density , think 100 SF is too restrictive and there would be too many variances requested; possibility of looking at a percentage of existing floor area rather than a certain amount of square footage to trigger parking requirements; enforcement of on -street parking requirements is important, changing the requirements will have no effect if not enforced; regulation has to have some reasonable relationship to what Commission is trying to do and must be fair to property owners; do not think (d) would be reasonable but would be happy with it if made similar to (a), e.g., third parking space allowed in the front setback. Commission consensus appeared to be: look at something other than a fixed square footage to trigger parking requirements; keep staff's suggested parking requirements in (a) through (d) of the draft, allowing for further discussion on the wording of "within" or "behind front setback". - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 1, 1988 regular meeting. Ali ilWINAUT 11 The meeting adjourned at 9:38 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary