Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.07.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, July 12, 1993 at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES - AGENDA - FROM THE FLOOR Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink None Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Phil Monaghan, Associate Civil Engineer; Steve Langridge, Captain of Fire Prevention The minutes of the June 28, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. Order of the agenda approved. There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING 1. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT REPORT REVIEW AND PUBLIC COMMENT CP Monroe noted purpose of the public hearing was to take comments from the public and Planning Commission on the Preliminary Draft of the Housing Element before it was submitted to'the Department of Housing and Community Development for review. The hearing was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation and every participant at the public workshops was also sent a notice. CP Monroe introduced Bob Ironside, consultant who prepared the element. Ironside reviewed the specific requirements for a housing element, the need for sufficient land properly zoned to meet the city's assigned need for all economic segments of the community. City does not have to build housing directly but cannot exclude anyone from housing opportunities. Discussed briefly the city's fair share of the Bay Area's housing need and the goals and policies suggested to meet the needs. The Commissioners asked for several clarifications regarding what kind of changes to zoning might be required to implement the element; how income eligibility .>figures were arrived at; the city's participation in generating the ABAG regional housing needs and Burlingame housing need numbers; the effect on the hospital's options if its property is excluded from the element; does the housing element require that infill Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 12, 1993 sites be developed with units at the expense of safety; was the capacity of the city's water, sewer and other infrastructure considered when the sites and their densities were determined. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Four people spoke: Peter Deutsch, 1633 Lassen Way; Maryalice Bigham, 1320 Skyview Drive; Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Avenue; Bruce Balshone, 1795 E1 Camino Real, Millbrae. Their concerns included that the City Council had dropped all the property owned by Peninsula Hospital from the site list, but some properties at the north end of town still seemed to be on the map; Burlingame should not provide housing sites for Hillsborough to meet its affordable requirements; did not want lower end housing, it would hurt property values; concern that the way the programs to assist the homeless were listed made it unclear as to which -were shelter programs; shelter programs should be clarified by the season of the year when they are available; not necessarily need shelter in Burlingame but city should increase its financial contribution; data on homeless should be confirmed with recent county study; options should be kept open regarding Peninsula Hospital land because the future of the national health care system is uncertain; support amnesty program for existing nonconforming second units but will require some revisions to zoning requirements in order to work. Closed public hearing. Commissioners noted several issues and concerns: adjustments to wording; discrepancy between quantified need and number og units targeted; desirability for cities to cooperate in -providing some types of housing such as for homeless; impact of small units on overcrowding statistics; need to include recent city actions addressing -'protection of neighborhood character; more extensive table comparing Burlingame to other cities in county to clarify proportional share; how to deal with landholdings of Peninsula Hospital; use of existing city parking lots, surface or air rights, for housing; need to address obstacles in -the system for people remodeling single family homes; issue of condominium conversion and construction and how it fits into maintaining lower rental units vs. maintenance. ITEMS FOR STUDY 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO MAINTENANCE/ REPAIR AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR ONE STALL AT 1501 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED C-1 Requests: comment on gas station review which requires the location to have commercial uses on both sides of the street; contact Caltrans to determine their present position regarding a 20' setback on El Camino Real; total number of employees/customers is estimated to be 11 persons, often people park on Highway Road and the city receives complaints, where will 11 people park; concern about auto repair on Sunday in a residential area, why will this not be detrimental to the area; accident statistics on the corner of Adeline and El Camino Real; does applicant have plans for a fence/wall along the Adeline Shopping Center; trash bin access will be cut off during business hours, BFI Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 12, 1993 will have to use E1 Camino Real for entrance and exit, how will applicant address the traffic problem created by the trash bins; was this site a full service station at one time, there might have been a toxic problem on the site, this needs to be addressed and cleared by the county; will they use impact wrenches; since- this has been classified as a gas station, if this use is permitted can a full service station go in on the site in the future. Item set for public hearing July 26, 1993. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO SALES IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1327 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE C Item set for public hearing July 26, 1993. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO SERVICE AND STORAGE AT 1221 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: number of employees on site; how will this expansion affect the storage applicant had for the part of his business on the separate site; would like a better description (graphic) of how the parking along Whitethorn Way is assigned among the businesses on the private street. Item set for public hearing July 26, 1993. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. VARIANCES FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACKS, REAR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE TO REMODEL THE FIRST FLOOR AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR AT 1349 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commissioner comment: footprint on.record of survey does not match footprint on the plans. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jackie Deppiesse, applicant and property owner, was present. She hoped all information provided was correct and advised she is trying to improve the property as she wants to live there. Mark Snow, MHS Design Group, discussed the project: most of the problems are existing, the only other alternative would be to demolish and rebuild; they tried not to go beyond what was already there; 68 SF was added to accommodate a family room area and give separate living space for the applicant's mother; front entrance is being rearranged to give better access to the home. Mr. Snow was asked what is unusual about the property other than the house is too big for the lot; he replied lot is only 3,500 SF, smaller than others in the neighborhood. It was pointed out applicant is proposing a house which is only 150 SF smaller than the lot. A Commissioner noted the legend on page 3 does not apply to the lower level plans, why are ceiling joists shown separately from the floor Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 -) July 12, 1993 joists; designer said with old houses they have found it is best to build a new addition without depending on the lower level of the old house, in this case they will be providing beams supported independent of the original structure, it reduces a redo of the existing structure. He was asked how he would support the ceiling joists when interior walls have been removed; Snow replied they would provide new ceiling joists where needed. Commissioner- comment: there is not much left of the old building, most of the interior walls will be removed, on the exterior one hour walls will be required, this is not a simple remodel, it is almost a complete tear down. Designer replied the foundation is still intact, it would take $50-60,000 more if they demolished the structure; they will not depend upon the entire lower level foundation. Responding to a question he said they will keep the chimney, -inserting a gas fireplace and providing whatever venting is required; because of where it is located they will need to meet fire code. If required they could remove the fireplace, eliminate this intrusion into the setback and make the wall flush, this would be a decision of the property owner. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted her site inspection and attempt to make a finding for exceptional circumstances to support the variance requests, she could find nothing unusual about the property, this lot is overbuilt now. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the application for -the reasons `stated. Motion was seconded by C. Graham with the comment applicant addressed unusual circumstances by stating this is a small lot; this seems the most compelling reason not to overbuild. Another Commissioner spoke in opposition to the motion for denial: he felt the most appealing portion of the existing structure was the entryway and would not be receptive to the proposed change to it, the fireplace should be eliminated which would increase side setback; if considering a single family house he would look at this differently, but in R-2 this project makes some sense, it is not overbuilding in this district; there is a small increase in lot coverage but this is a reasonable request with some modification. Further comment: wall on the north side should be put back to a 3' setback, agree fireplace should be removed, it is out of place on the property line; existing lot coverage is high, could support a proportional increase but not in lot coverage; could support reduced setbacks on the exterior side, not on the north side. This is basically a total rebuild, house was built a number of years ago when the city did not have the restrictions it has today, these restrictions were placed in the code to improve the environment of Burlingame, this project is contrary to the intent of the ordinance, think the house should be replaced. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 12, 1993 Motion to deny the application was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, Cer Galligan dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 340 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted communications received after preparation of the staff report: July 9, 1993 letter from Scott Danielson, applicant, with attached clarifying graphics; letters in support from Bruce and Pamela Bean, 338 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame; Mrs. S. L. Wolfson, 335 Pepper Avenue, Hillsborough; letter in opposition from Rene -and Lucia Tapon, 315 Pepper Avenue, Hillsborough. Letters from the following were received expressing some concern: Mark and Sheila Buran, 305 Pepper Avenue, Hillsborough; Michael D. Bender, 330 Pepper Avenue„ Burlingame. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Scott Danielson, applicant and architect, was present. He presented additional letters in support from Henry and Cynthia Poett, 401 Chapin Lane (directly to the rear who would be most affected visually by the project) and Joseph and Rosalie Brady, 325 Pepper Avenue, Hillsborough. Mr. Danielson commented: site is unique because of the birch trees, oak trees and hedges which front on Pepper; neighbors felt the trees and hedge form a major part of the streetscape; arborist advised the birch trees were worth keeping but it would be necessary to keep the foundation of the :house 6' away from them, with this requirement he came within 4'-6" of the south (side) property line; if they had a 50' wide lot a 4' side setback would be all right, other houses in the block have 4'-6" setbacks widening to 5' in the front; saving the trees pushed the house farther toward the rear; the-Poetts at 401 Chapin Lane have approved the rear setback; they tried to wrap the house around the trees, the living room and garage are in the front, guest wing is 16'-f7' from the property line, it is only the stairs which cut into the front setback, these stairs are needed for access to the guest wing; the garage is 27'-28' from front property line, entrance porch is back about 301. Mr. Danielson continued: some other houses in the area have lesser setbacks and he felt the front setback he proposes is reasonable relative to other buildings on the block; lot coverage is only 36% where 40% is allowed, even with a house of that size they have preserved vegetation, creating an effective screen, the two oak trees form a total screen of the ridge line of the house from the front. Applicant said there were exceptional circumstances with the trees and front hedges and the quality which would result in a unique property. Commission/applicant discussion: applicant commented on view from the street, there is a 16' opening to the house in existing hedges, this face of the house is 25' from property line, it is 28' from property line at the far corner; they will span the creek and. keep the oak tree Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 12, 1993 which is 20" in diameter, 35' high, this oak screens the entire front of the house; arborist advised the birch trees have a life of 60 years and he thought the existing birches would live another 10 years, two birches at the forward edge of the dining room need to be removed. It was pointed out there is a lot of room on the other side of the lot, applicant said if this plan was reversed to use this: the rear corner of the house would be even closer to the rear property line, length of the house is set by the number of rooms in a single story, with such a reverse design they could not access the garage without removing the oak tree; he commented on their need for a third covered parking stall to store their restored Mercedes automobile. 'They will be good neighbors by preserving the hedges and trees; all vegetation at the front is evergreen, they will add new plantings where the bridge is now located. - There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Archie Offield, 310 Pepper Avenue: applicant has done a magnificent job in design, saving the trees and irk salesmanship, but the three variances should not be approved. Shaun McCallion, 334 Pepper Avenue: this property and lot next door are for sale, is applicant's purchase contingent on approval of the variances; there are - four houses in a row 45% behind the creek, this house will go over the creek, doesn't the city have a creek ordinance; concern about proposed guest suite, it could become a rental unit; two of the birch trees at l the street will be removed, 14 in the center courtyard will be for the enjoyment only of the owners; applicant may try to save the hedge but it will not survive during construction; house is too big for this lot, most of the lot has creek on it. Rene Tapon, 315 Pepper Avenue, Hillsborough: he has been a resident for 15 years, he and his wife have reconsidered their original support of the project after looking at the hedge, this street is bordered on that side with wonderful hedges; Mr. Bean (338 Pepper Avenue) has been told he would be able to remove the hedge for -his entrance; pittosporum cannot be transplanted, with the construction of the applicant's big home have a concern that in addition to the opening for the garage other pittosporum will be lost;.there are two story homes set back with little landscaping and loss of this vegetation will give the street an urban look; he was concerned about a separate entrance for a detached suite, this could be rented, the entrance stairs should not be allowed to encroach into the setback, 32' is close enough to the street. Structure will be over the creek, it is quite wide at this point, the natural setting of the creek will disappear and whole appearance of the street will change. In response applicant said the house at 338 Pepper retains the pittosporum for all but the 12'-13' driveway; he will work with the arborist to protect the trees during construction; the guest suite is not detached, it is an integral part of the house, completely connected and will be used strictly for guests; he has talked to the City Engineer, the house will be built over the creek and will not impact Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 12, 1993 the flow of water, the Beans at 338 Pepper have commissioned an hydraulic study. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/ staff discussion/ comment: a creek encroachment permit is not required, construction will ,span the creek, creek• will not be culverted; have considered variances as a means to allow Commission to accommodate a difficult situation, they should be used for additions such as extending a side wall; variances are not appropriate for new construction of this type, a 5,400 SF house; a very nice home could be built on the site without variances; understand the issue of the trees but do not see the need for not meeting code requirements to preserve those trees; the proposed house can be scaled down„ Am a tree person and on additions will lean over backwards to keep trees, but cannot support this request for three variances, a lovely home could be built within code; this is a beautiful design but applicant could get almost what he wants without the variances. C. Jacobs agreed with these statements and could not find there were exceptional circumstances applicable to the property to support the variance request. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the application for the reasons given, seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion: variances are provided in the code for a "need" rather than a "want", this is a nice lot and a beautiful design but there is no "need", it is a "want to be"; it is a high quality design on a beautiful lot but with new construction there shouldn't be a need for any variances; moving the stairs to meet the 15' front setback could be done; regarding rear setback have heard no objection from the neighbor to the rear; regarding side setback these 50 year old birch trees are at the end of their life span; project needs to be moved in; do not believe the proposal is just a "want's, area will be enhanced if some of the natural landscaping can be retained, it has been there for a long time, but applicant is asking for at least two variances too many. Motion to deny the application was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO EXTEND THE FIRST FLOOR AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR AT 1549 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, required findings. Letter in opposition, (July 6, 1993) received after preparation of the staff report from -Gerald and Madeleine Fiori, 1560 Alturas Drive, was noted. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 12, 1993 Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Ren Zhao, Citi Design Associates, representing the applicant, was present. He stated they have met all zoning requirements, roof line will be below the top of the slope on the lot, they will not block anyone's view, there are no windows on the side to impact the neighbors. Mr. ,Zhao responded to Commission questions: there is a flat 18' yard area behind the addition; addition is at the rear of the house; property owner will live here; the Carbons at 3105 Margarita Avenue look.over this site from the rear, they will lose some view if looking down, view to the airport and bay will not be affected. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Marguerite Dugger, 3101 Margarita Avenue: their house faces north and they have a panoramic view to the east, with the proposed construction their view will be severely limited, city has a responsibility to.its citizens to protect them from intrusion and protect property values, her back yard abuts the: property at 1549 Alturas, a number of years ago the property at 1555 Alturas added a second story which cut off some of their view, this proposal is way out of line for the neighborhood, view from her family rpom and dining room will be totally destroyed. Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive: he lives next door above the Carbons at 3105 Margarita and his view is over their yard, he presented photographs taken from his patio and from the fence on the Carbon's property line,. his southern view will be blocked. Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Avenue: she objected strongly to this addition, views of several of her neighbors will be obstructed, she did not want the neighborhood to become pretentious, proposed addition is too large; she presented a booklet of photographs to illustrate her remarks, the existing house is 6' above grade, this addition would not fit the neighborhood, house next door at 1555 Alturas is much shorter, houses directly across the street are modest sized and will be dwarfed by the addition, photos show a house on Martinez which had a very large addition but it was set back and shows consideration for the rest of the area; she had no objection to improvements but was concerned about the impact of this large addition on the character and property values of the neighborhood. The Chair pointed out Commission's consideration of hillside area construction permits must be based on view blockage. Anna Kamienski, 1552 Los Montes Drive: she moved into the neighborhood last October and loves her view, large windows provide a beautiful view, with the addition she will lose her view of the bay and of the canyon, also will lose privacy, her bedroom faces applicant's second floor. Stephen Cheung, 1556 Los Montes Drive, representing his mother and father: they bought this house three months ago because of the view, the -proposed project will block existing distant views from inside and outside'' -their house. Fred Beneake, 1548 Los Montes Drive: with the addition this house will be like a three story house, will certainly block views. CP explained it will not be a three story house, addition will be built over the portion of the house that is one Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 12, 1993 story now with a basement below grade, most of the garage area is below grade. Mr. Zhao commented long distance views away from the property will not be blocked. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis stated he made a site inspection and visited several adjacent homes, there will be blockage of view, he could not support the application. C. Ellis moved for denial of the hillside area construction permit on the basis the proposed addition will block long distance views. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: this addition will block views, as two stories are added in the hillside areas people will build higher and higher to get their views back, there is a way to add onto this house without a 146% increase in size, applicant can redesign with something that is more compatible; in the last three years there have been three denials of hillside area construction permits on Los Mantes Drive and three approvals because the houses did not block views, it can be done. A Commissioner told Mr. Beneake who spoke earlier if he has a question about a three story house he might want to discuss this with staff. Motion to deny the application was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:27 P.M.; reconvene 10:35 P.M. The Chair advised he would be abstaining from Items 18 and 110, noting perhaps 110 could be taken out of order to follow I8, and passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Galligan. 8. FENCE EXCEPTION IN FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS AT 1508 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request and required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A letter and a FAX in support were noted from: Anna and Charles Alexander, 1504 Highway Road; Jeanne and John Berg, 1140 Cambridge Road. Responding to a question CP explained why the pilasters on the side property lines need a fence exception. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. High Mitchell, applicant and property owner, presented another letter in support from Gregory Tancer, 1512 Highway Road. His comments: he lives with his son who has three small children and they need privacy, neighbors have said the fence looks good and have not objected to the pilasters, his intent was to add to the appearance of the neighborhood, the fence will provide privacy and safety for the children. Applicant advised the gate is approximately 14' wide. A Commissioner commented applicant does have a fair amount of back yard, she had a basic concern about high fences in front. Applicant responded there is a bus stop in front of his Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 12, 1993 house on El Camino, fence will help block noise and provide privacy. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham noted Commission had approved another fence exception about a block from this home during the past year, this- is a difficult location, applicant has done a good job with the fence, the pilasters are not objectionable, she has heard no objections from the neighbors this evening. C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the location which fronts on Highway Road adjacent to a bus stop on E1 Camino, this will not create a public hazard, neighbors will not be materially damaged. She then moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the project.shall be built as shown on. the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 28, 1993, Sheet 1 - Site Plan and Sheet 2 - Site Plan and Front Elevation; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis who agreed with the findings made for exceptional circumstances and commented on his site visit, he found he could see over the side fences, most are only 61, some are less than 61. Motion was approved on a 4-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Mink dissenting, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GAZEBO AT 1481 BENITO AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request and required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. David Constantino, representing the property owners, Hans and Helene Hatschek, was present. He distributed a booklet addressing this special permit application. No permits have been received for the improvements, he had two inspections of the property by building inspectors, there were a few minor discrepancies in installation of the water heater and furnace, they have replaced the window on property line with a one hour fire wall, owner states the gazebo will have little effect on adjacent properties, structure is very small and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, it is part of the rear garden environment, many homes have larger accessory structures in their rear yards. Mr. Constantino visited the neighbor at 1485 Benito directly to the north of subject property, this neighbor wrote a letter. (July 12, 1993) which is included in the booklet submitted and states the gazebo has never had an impact on their property, it is screened by a fence and thick shrubbery. Mr. Constantino noted there are photos included in the booklet to illustrate these remarks. The Hatscheks are in the 1 process of selling this property, a condition of purchase is that all Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 12, 1993 inspections and permits be taken care of. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs referred to her site inspection, since the rear yard slopes down and there is a fire wall on property line she found no problem, it is a delightful back yard. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 24, 1993 Sheet 1 - Site Plan, Section, Floor Plan and North Elevation; and (2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 6=0-1 on roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Vice Chairman Galligan returned the gavel to Chairman Deal. 9. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO ADD A SECOND FLOOR AND ALTER THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 2760 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. James Chu, project designer, was present. He commented: they are proposing a second story addition, trying not to block any neighbor's view, there is no addition on the side which will affect the neighbor across the street, view of trees and sky from the breakfast area of the neighbors at 2753 Burlingview will be affected. There were no audience comments in favor. Dan Erwin, 2753 Burlingview Drive, spoke in opposition: he has lived here for seven years, the attraction was the sweeping views, trees and sky, beautiful sunsets, if this permit is granted there will be a structure where his view of the sunset is now. Terry McAloon, 2759 Burlingview Drive (across the street from the site): from the markers it appears the second floor of the addition will be on the right side (east) of the house and will not impact his view. CP confirmed that is correct. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: the redesign has solved one problem across the street and now another neighbor is impacted, it is difficult to satisfy everyone; visited the neighbor at 2753 Burlingview and looked out his window, designer has solved the McAloon's (2759 Burlingview) problem but the Erwin's view will be blocked by this addition, cannot support this application. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 12, 1993 Based on comments this evening, C. Graham moved to deny the hillside area construction permit, seconded by C. Jacobs. Commission reviewed what •its consideration must be with a hillside area construction permit. Motion was approved 7-0 on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GAZEBO OVER A SPA AT 2853 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, '7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comment, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at -the public hearing. Chm.`Deal opened the public hearing. Don Koras, husband of Chrisie Koras, applicant and property owner, was present. He commented: they need the spa for his wife's back problem and his neck problem, a hot tub gives great relief; gazebo is 8-1/2' tall, neighbor above them has a fence 10-1/2' high, there would be no construction except electrical, it is completely fenced on all sides and entrance gate is solid, 6' high with two locks; spa has a cover for insulation purposes, this is locked also; no child could possibly get into the spa. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs commented the only people to lose their view from this proposal will be the two people in the hot tub, it will not affect any neighbor's view. She then moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit and special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the gazebo shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 28, 1993; (2) that the highest point on the gazebo shall not exceed 8-1/2' above adjacent grade; (3) that the requirements of the Chief Building Official's memo (6/28/93) and all requirements• of 'Title 23 (Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs and Spas) of the Burlingame Municipal Code shall be met; and (4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE LOBBY, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD/1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 7/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 12, 1993 Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney representing the applicant and property owner, was present. He noted that Anthony Demattei, architect was also in the audience this evening. Mr. Corey's comments: all suggested conditions are satisfactory to the applicant, the primary reason for this.request to extend the lobby is that there isn't enough room inside the existing building for people who come with the person who rents the car, this expansion will allow room for people renting the cars and their passengers, there will be no new employees, except for the manager's and assistant manager's offices the entire first floor is for customer service. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Corey said Alamo does not expect to pursue street abandonment at this time; they are continuing to look at other markets. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit amendment to extend the lobby, special permit for landscaping and side setback variance based on findings submitted by the applicant, by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 14, 1993 Sheet A.1 Site Plan, Sheet A.2 Floor Plans and Sheet A.3 Elevations; (2) that the conditions of the October 20, 1992 action letter to Norman Tripp from M. Monroe with conditions 11 through 115 with attachments shall apply; (3) that the. conditions of toe City Engineer's June 14, 1993 memo shall be met, including the requirement for a site survey and completing the bike pathway connections to the adjacent Fisherman Restaurant property at 1492 Bayshore Highway; (4) that any change to the number of employees, average number of cars rented from the site each month, use of the two peripheral lots for auto storage, amount of on-site auto storage, addition of services or secondary businesses to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this location.shall require an amendment to this use permit; (5) that the project shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions every three years or upon complaint; and (6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Memo to all City Commissions from City Manager re: Commission Attendance Policy. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its July 7, 1993 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 12, 1993 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary