Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.12.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, December 11, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the November 27, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEM FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MONTESSORI PRE-SCHOOL/CHILD CARE CENTER AT 1 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Requests: age of students, will there be older children coming to the center after school in the afternoon; will there be a designated loading zone, if employees use the drive for parking where will children be dropped off; what use is next door to this site; will any of the children be using public transportation; exterior lighting and signage; how will children get from cars to the school and school to the cars, will they be escorted by employees; what handicap facilities are included; is this facility in operation at another location now. Item set for public hearing January 8, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION Chm. Ellis advised the audience of appeal procedures for the action items. 2. VARIANCE FOR SIDE SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1515 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 11, 1989 Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised on-site parking will meet code requirements. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Tom McCarville, designer representing the applicant, Michael Economou, was present. His comments: the mass of the project will be in the rear of building, appearance from the street will be the same, existing garage will be replaced with a garage in the rear 30% of the lot and parking requirements are met on the site. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she had no problem with this proposal, there are exceptional circumstances, the easement at the side will allow the addition without impacting space of the neighbor, it will not be disruptive to the neighbor. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance application with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 13, 1989; and (2) that the project shall be built to meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1785 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed code regulations for the required uncovered space. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Wilson Ng, designer and nephew of the applicant, Jimmy Huang, discussed the proposed project: the reason for the new addition is to provide space for additional family members and children back from school; applicants have lived in this house nine years and want to stay in Burlingame; it would be difficult to expand at grade so they are proposing a second story addition. He presented photographs to illustrate his contention the addition will not greatly impact the neighbors, it will not block sunlight; because of vegetation the addition will not be seen from the house directly in back on Escalante and there will be no obstruction of the bay view; the house at 1795 Hunt will not see the addition because of the change in grade; the house at 1775 Hunt will see some of the addition, about 3'-41, sunlight will not be affected because of the orientation of the houses; rooftops would be the same height for 1765 and 1785 Hunt because of the elevation of the lots; they propose a gable roof for the addition Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 11, 1989 so it will blend into the neighborhood, there is a bathroom window on the side, this will have frosted glass. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Ng advised he had not been inside the house of the neighbors at 1775 Hunt but the property owners had, they had talked to some of the neighbors; applicants have lived there for nine years, it is the house on the corner which has been on the market. Staff explained the requirement for variance approval, Commission must find there are exceptional circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply generally to property in the same district. Commission asked applicant to address this finding. Mr. Ng responded it would be difficult to move the garage back because of the existing structure's floor plan, this would require removal of the- family room. Commissioner comment: the house is placed square but the street and sidewalk are at an angle, therefore length of driveway varies. Mr. Ng stated the closest to the property line is 18.51, some is at 19'-511, there is 20, to the sidewalk but not to the property line. Regarding putting the addition on the same level as the existing structure, he stated depth of the backyard is 861, about 10'-15' of that is level, they did not want to build into the hill nor lose back yard; the way the house is placed on the lot the garage could not be extended another 1.51, they would have to move the whole front end of the building, heavy beams would be a problem and this would weaken the stability of the entire structure. Commission comment: visited the property at 1775 Hunt, if pitched roof were removed and a flat roof retained it would reduce the impact, the only windows at 1775 which have views are on that side and these views will be blocked. Mr. Ng replied the neighbors at 1775 won't be able to see the roof because of the angle, a flat roof is possible but will not look as good nor blend with the neighborhood; plate line of the addition would be less than 101, ceiling joists 21 x 81, if constructed with a flat roof it would be about 10' above the existing roof. A Commissioner noted that most of the discussion had referred to views of the bay, there is view of the hillside also; Mr. Ng said this had been mentioned to the neighbor. Another Commissioner noted the addition would be 13'-6" above the existing flat roof. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. James Gray, 1775 Hunt Drive: he has been a resident of Burlingame for 19 years, the addition will destroy his view from the north side of his house, it will reduce privacy in their back yard, the plans he has seen would change the ambience of the whole block from an Eichler to something else. Cuno Buechi, 1765 Hunt Drive: the block is composed of Eichler homes, not a mixture of designs, this addition as proposed would Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 11, 1989 take away the privacy and view of his neighbor at 1775 Hunt and reduce his privacy, it would change the character of the entire block; he felt it would be a crime to change a famous architect's design and asked that this unique block remain as it is. John Rosenberg, 1770 Hunt: he lives diagonally across the street, he is a realtor and stated 1785 Hunt has been on the market in the past four to five years; the residents of 1775 Hunt will definitely have blockage of view because of the height of the building, there will be some wall obstruction, this is the only two story house on that block and will negatively impact the aesthetics of the area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: replying to a question, staff discussed area of the city which falls under the hillside area construction ordinance, roughly Mills Estates and the area on the other side of the canyon roughly above Alvarado. With the statement he still has not heard a finding to support approval of the parking variance, in looking at the property and the neighbor's property he thought there would be an obstruction of view, C. Kelly moved for denial of the variance and the hillside area construction permit. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. Discussion on the motion: this particular application does not affect the straight out view, losing view to the side is no different than what happens in numerous areas in the city, it is not fair to impose these restrictions on this property just because of its location, will not support the motion; this site is in a hillside area, therefore Commission has an obligation to find it as such, these homes were built to take advantage of the slopes of the land, this house was not typical Eichler design since the main living areas at 1775 Hunt were designed to look out over 1785 Hunt, Commission is not an architectural review board, whether this would change the character of the neighborhood is not a factor, rather Commission is considering the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas of nearby properties, think 1775 Hunt will be affected enough to warrant denial. Further comment on the motion: the house at 1775 is an unusual Eichler design with windows along the property line separating this property from 1785 in order to take advantage of the view of the hills and even out toward the Bay Bridge, these windows were not added later, the house was designed that way, therefore addition of a structure on top of 1785 would greatly impact the view of the owners of 1775; think there could be an addition with a lower roof which would not be as obstructive, protecting the Eichler appearance of the block and neighbor's view of trees and open space. It was suggested Commission might deny this application Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 11, 1989 without prejudice. Another Commissioner preferred to leave the motion as it is. Continued comment: at first thought I might support approval, a site inspection indicated that from 1775 there is a view of trees or at least something, the windows on the side of this house are unusual for an Eichler, given these windows and previous comments during Commission discussion it appears there will be blockage of view, support the motion to deny the hillside area construction permit. A Commissioner commented on the parking variance, there are at least 100 houses in the Ray Park area where variances have been allowed when the house as constructed does not allow modification to meet code which has changed since the house was built; would vote for approval of the variance and request separate motions. Maker of the motion, C. Kelly and the seconder, C. Giomi agreed to separate motions. Motion to deny the hillside area construction permit was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham voting no. Motion to approve the parking variance was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote with the following conditions: (1) that the project parking shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 8, 1989; and (2) that the project shall be built according to all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Additional comment: wanted to give applicant and his designer an opportunity to design an addition without being concerned about the parking. It was suggested applicant spend time with the neighbors, take photos of the roof line from inside their house and actually show the neighbor by constructing poles where the potential obstruction would occur. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMITS IN ORDER TO USE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR DWELLING PURPOSES AT 919 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Continued to January 8, 1990 at applicant's request. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PERSONAL SERVICE RETAIL HEALTH SPA AT 1550 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 12/11/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff noted restrictions imposed on some retail service businesses in the M-1 district, concern about peak hour traffic in that area, the city's policy and attempts to maintain industrial Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 11, 1989 character of the area, experience with parking/traffic problems with other athletic clubs in the M-1 zone. Staff advised there is no realistic way the city can monitor this business for compliance with the conditions and number of employees/customers allowed except by complaint, the business could grow, there is a suggested condition that if the parameters of the business change the permit be amended, it would be the applicant's responsibility to do this or, of course, staff would on complaint. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Larry Friesen, architect representing the applicant, Hanna Hoang, addressed Commission: they have been trying to find an appropriate location since February, in C-1 zones there were problems with physical layout, parking, leasable tenant space, workable lease agreements; they found leasable space in the M-1 zone which lent itself more appropriately to this type of business; regarding number of patrons on the premise at one time, each room will be used by one client at one time, they are used in private, with five rooms there will be a maximum of five clients using the facility at one time, to schedule an appointment the client will be scheduling a room and must schedule an hour to use that room. Regarding parking and the two employee parking stalls on the adjacent property, this property is under the same ownership as the project site, property owner has said he can accommodate the six required parking spaces for this use on the project site, these will be designated spaces. A Commissioner questioned number of employees, with a full time person at the reception desk and five rooms being used how does this relate to only two employees. Hanna Hoang, applicant, stated she expects the business to be slow at first, all five rooms will not be in use, she will have two masseurs and a receptionist, if the business grows she will add more people, clients must schedule a room for 40 minutes to one hour to use any part of the facility; she has been in this business previously, now works part time, not at this location. Herbert Humber, managing partner of Mahler-Gilbreth Properties, property owner, spoke in favor of the application; he advised this use would not interfere with any of the other tenants, there has always been a surplus of parking on the property, there will be no problems taking care of the present tenants and their customers; there has been some cleaning of this suite but no construction work. The warehouse will be opened up to the adjoining business for additional warehouse space, the adjacent section is vacant at the moment. The building is about 70% occupied presently, parking is assigned, it is predominantly warehouse with 10-15% office, there is adequate parking for all uses in the building. A Commissioner asked, given the fact that the warehouse area at the rear will be opened up to the adjoining tenant space, does that change the structural requirements of the rear wall. Architect Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 11, 1989 said he is acting only for the applicant, he has not been involved with the additional warehouse space. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: cannot support the application, this is not an appropriate use in the M-1 district, there are health clubs there now but they would not be approved now based on history of such uses in M-1, delis are restricted in the area, office space is limited, the proposed use could be precedent setting for the whole area and is not in the best interest of the city; agree, cannot support the request, there have been too many parking problems with the existing health clubs, am not completely satisfied that the parking situation for this business will be met, there is a potential for substantial growth and it could grow quickly if it is an outstanding business, with five massage rooms and additional employees and customers the parking demand would not be met on site. Based on the preceding statements, C. Graham moved for denial of the special permit. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: have a concern about retail in the M-1 zone and the potential for growth, think this business will grow, it is projected to grow, and with that will come compounded problems; Councils direction in the past has been to protect the M-1 area for light industrial use, will support the motion. Motion for denial was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC AREA PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING IN THE ANZA AND BAYFRONT PLANNING AREAS Continued to January 8, 1990. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its December 4, 1989 regular meeting and December 6, 1989 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly, Secretary