Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.04.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order Monday, April 10, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli Jules L. Francard Ruth E. Jacobs Everett K. Kindig Charles W. Mink Thomas W. Sine, Secretary Absent: Thomas C. Taylor (necessarily absent) Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer Quorum present; Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman presiding. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held March 27, 1978 were approved with the addition of "general" to page 5, paragraph 3, line 2: hiseg neral_ contractor's license for 5-6 months . ." MINUTES of the April 10, 1978 meeting were approved with the following change in the statement at the end of Item 3, paragraph 3, page 3: "Chairman Jacobs and Commissioner Kindig stated they were not in favor of retail sales in this area." MINUTES of the April 6, 1978 Special Study Meeting were approved with two modifica- tions and expansions. Page 2, paragraph 2, first sentence should read: "Commissioner Mink was inclined to support Plan 2 because he felt the property should be self- supporting, with revenue being no more than 10 percent greater than costs to the City." The last sentence in that same paragraph should read: "She expressed the hope that the City would maximize access and open areas for public use." Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 April 10, 1978 1. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7, 10 AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 2, WITH PORTIONS OF LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 1, DE COULON SUBDIVISION; PROPERTY AT 751 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (APN 029-053-110) AND 741 SAN MATEO AVENUE (APN 029-053-200), BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR OSCAR PERSON City Engineer Kirkup stated the final map is complete and recommended approval, noting the owner has dedicated an easement for public use. City Attorney Coleman requested the record show the City is not taking over the maintenance of the areas dedicated for public use. Commissioner Sine moved the above -noted final parcel map be approved; Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously 6-0. 2. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.62 TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK TO 7' AND ALLOW A SWIMMING POOL TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT 3096 RIVERA DRIVE (APN 025-341-030), ZONED R-1, BY MIRNEZAM SAJADI (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 27, 1978) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting that this is an 80' by 100' lot at the corner of Rivera Drive and Hunt Drive, with an existing house which covers about 15% of the lot. The entrance to this house is from Rivera; however, because the narrow frontage of this lot faces Hunt Drive, Hunt is defined by the Zoning Ordinance to be the front of the property for setback requirements. Within this "front" setback (which is actually to the side and slightly behind the existing house) a new swimming pool is to be constructed. As shown on the site plan, the pool would be only 7' behind the Hunt Drive property line, and would therefore require a variance from the 15' setback required by code. Mr. Yost concluded that staff has no objection to the variance; however, findings are required for approval. The Assistant Planner stated that safety would be insured with a 5' high fence which would enclose the pool area. He emphasized that adequate privacy from the public right-of-way and neighboring properties is provided by the fence, trees and lower elevation of the proposed pool site. He noted the applicant was present. A brief discussion between staff and Commission followed, during which it was noted that a 5' fence around the swimming pool meets code, while a fence exception would be required for a 6' fence. Commissioner Cistulli felt a 5' fence did not provide adequate safety and felt the fence would have to be constructed so that it could not be climbed. Commissioner Sine questioned staff procedure (i.e., when a building permit had been issued for a room addition to the house, and plans showed the future location of the swimming pool, why wasn't the pool location problem dealt with then?). City Engineer Kirkup explained the Building Department had considered a set of plans for the room addition which was what was being requested at that time (not the pool) and the swimming pool had not been included in the plan check although it was included on the plans as a possible future project. Commissioner Sine felt that both the architect and staff were at fault for not checking this out in the beginning, leaving the Commission and the applicant in an awkward position. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing; there being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kindig found that this is an unusual lot in that the front of the house faces the side setback and the proposed pool location is the only logical one given the topography of the site; he moved for approval. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion. Commissioner Cistulli questioned the definition of "hardship" in this case.. Chairman Jacobs stated the property owner cannot utilize his property to the full extent. Commissioner Kindig felt since this is the only logical place for a pool a hardship would result if the applicant were not permitted to build it there. Commissioner Mink noted Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 10, 1978 the applicant came in in good faith and obtained a building permit for an addition to this house; the approved drawings showed a swimming pool and the applicant was not informed at that time this would create a future problem; to install a pool within code would require removal of the addition which is well under way; he felt this was sufficient hardship to proceed with a variance application. Upon roll call the motion for approval carried 4-2, Commissioners Cistulli and Sine casting the negative votes. Commissioner Sine requested staff to review their procedures to avoid this type of mix-up. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL INDUSTRIAL AND:AUTOMOTIVE TOOLS AT' RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; 3,640 SF OF LEASED AREA AT 890 COWAN ROAD.(APN 024-390-220), BY LARRY WINSTEN OF CHARTER FAST FREIGHT (APPLICANT) WITH BRUCE HOSFORD OF CROW/ SPIEKER/HOSFORD (PROPERTY OWNERS) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, including Commission action on the special permit approved February 27, 1978 and previous conditions of approval. He noted the floor area to be leased by Charter Fast Freight had doubled and the amended application proposed to use 1,200 SF for retailsales and office space and 2,400 SF for warehousing. He also noted the written commitment from the property owner to provide 10 parking spaces to Mr. Winsten, the spaces to be reserved and marked for the exclusive use of this business. He further noted the applicant has provided plans, as per Commission's direction, showing a solid stud wall 7' in height dividing the warehouse and sales areas, and a site plan showing where the 10 parking spaces would be located (six in front of the building, four in back for staff and company vans). Larry Winsten was present and stated the only reason he was asking for an amended permit for a larger area was because the property owner would not lease the 1,800 SF area originally proposed. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the hearing was closed. Mr. Yost confirmed the proposed on-site parking met code requirements. Commissioner Mink moved the above item parking spaces be reserved and clearlyi be reviewed in one year. Commissioner and confirmed the special permit would would be nontransferable. Upon roll ci Kindig and Jacobs casting the negative in favor of retail sales in this area. be approved, with the conditions that 10 narked for this business and the special permit Cistulli seconded the motion. It was noted be issued only to Charter Fast Freight and all the motion carried 4-2, Commissioners votes. Chairman Jacobs stated she was not 4. FOUR SIGN EXCEPTIONS TO PERMIT 4 NEW SIGNS WITH 104 SF OF COPY (FACING HOWARD AVENUE) AND 3 NEW SIGNS WITH 126 SF OF COPY (FACING PRIMROSE ROAD) TO BE INSTALLED ON THE BUILDING AT 1351 HOWARD AVENUE (ZONED C-1), BY GENE BARBOUR OF AD -ART, INC. FOR LAURENCE RONSON OF BROTHERS DELI (APPLICANT) WITH JOHN COCKCROFT (PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the proposed seven signs required four exceptions from the Sign Code_. He read the sign exception review criteria from Code Sec. 22.06.110 and then observed the four signs proposed for the Howard Avenue frontage have a total area of 104 SF (49 square feet in excess of code specs) and the three signs proposed on Primrose Road total 126 SF (76 square feet in excess of code specs). In addition, he stated that "Sign C" is to be only 8'3" above the sidewalk, rather than the 10' above sidewalk required by code. It was noted that Gene Barbour of Ad -Art, Inc. was present to address the Commission, as well as Laurence Ronson, the applicant. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1978 Mr. Barbour addressed the Commission, stating there are extenuating circumstances. He presented photographs showing the building is obscured when traveling from the north along El Camino. He felt the size and number of signs are very relevant to the success of the business in this new location. He also noted "Sign C" is proposed to point out the entrance of the building which is obscured by shadows during the day and is hardly visible at night. He referred to a color rendering, noting the proposed colors blend in with the balance of the building and would not appear cluttered. He concluded that Brothers Deli is a well-known business and would be an asset to the community. Commission agreed the business is well-known and has an excellent reputation; however, they agreed the amount of signage proposed is excessive. Commissioner Sine pointed out there is a four-way stop sign at this intersection which would help alleviate some of the visibility problems with this location. Mr. Barbour agreed; however, he emphasized there is still a problem with traffic from the north along E1 Camino. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. Ronson, the applicant, stated that many customers would come from San Francisco and the signage would help them find the new location. There being no further speakers and no correspondence, the public hearing was closed. It was the consensus of Commission that the amount of signing proposed was not necessary and with the excellent reputation of Brothers Deli people would find the deli at its new location. Commission agreed that since the present sign cases on the building, which already exceed sign limitations, could be _properly utilized, the additional new signs would not be necessary. They agreed "Sign C" was completely undesirable (the sign under the canopy at the entrance). Commission further agreed the sign with "Kosher -style food" (Sign E) could be added to -the existing signs on the property (Signs A and B). The applicant was then asked if he would like a continuation on this to consider these comments. Mr. Barbour stated they would reluctantly accept these limitations rather than continue the item. Commissioner Cistulli wished the record to show that he is in the food business, but does not have business contact with Brothers Deli. Commissioner Mink then found that the property is unique in character because it marks the beginning of the downtown commercial district and, based on this finding, he moved the Sign Exception be granted, but limited to Signs A, B and E, as shown on renderings dated April 3, 1978. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Commissioner Mink noted Signs A and B would be in the location shown and that a variation in the location of Sign E would be permitted. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously 6-0. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2-78 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING A PORTION OF 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE FROM R-1 TO R-3 DISTRICT Assistant City Planner Yost stated this resolution was prepared to formally record Commission's approval of the reclassification of 1500 Burlingame Avenue for which a public hearing was held at the last meeting. Commissioner Sine moved for approval of the above -noted resolution. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 5-0, Commissioner Mink abstaining as he was not present during the hearing at the last meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY Page 5 April 10, 1978 6. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH A 17'6" WIDE GARAGE; PROPERTY AT 1608 MARCO POLO WAY (APN 025-202-180), ZONED R-1, BY WEYLAND LUM (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 28, 1977) Mr. Yost briefly reviewed the background of the application, noting the hearing would be renoticed to neighbors. Mrs. Lum was present and, upon a question from the Commission, stated that the tree in her backyard would remain. It was noted that basically the floor plan is much like the one previously submitted; however, the roof lines, window sizes and window positions constitute the major changes. This item was set for hearing April 24, 1978. 7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO WITHIN 12" OF A SIDE PROPERTY LINE; PROPERTY AT 824 ACACIA DRIVE. (APN 029-016-200), ZONED R-1. BY ROBERT BRISBEE This item was briefly reviewed and discussed by Commission. The applicant was present and Commission requested he provide elevations of the new garage for the hearing. This item was scheduled for hearing April 24, 1978.. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A JUDO CLUB IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1342 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-123-080), BY BENJAMIN PALACIO OF KOYUKAN JUDO CLUB (APPLICANT) WITH GORDON HAGSTROM (PROPERTY OWNER) Mr. Yost briefly reviewed this item, noting the applicant was not present although there were several representatives in the audience to answer questions. This item scheduled for hearing April 24, 1978. was 8a. VARIANCE TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO THE HOUSE AT 450 CUMBERLAND ROAD BY FRANK AND SALLY CHAMBERS At the conclusion of Item #8 Chairman Jacobs recognized Frank Chambers from the audience. Mr. Chambers stated he had spoken with staff about a variance application that afternoon and hoped, if Commission found his plans and variance affidavit complete, his application could be heard April 24. Mr. Yost briefly reviewed this item. A five minute recess was called so Commission could review the plans. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 P.M. and this item was set for hearing April 24, 1978., ADVANCE PLANNING 9. HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN - PROGRESS REPORT AND PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM City Planner Swan briefly reviewed information contained in the Commission's packet and handouts provided at the meeting. He highlighted several points, noting draft copies of the Housing Element would be mailed to members of the Housing Committee for advance review and modification May 2, and then copies would be mailed to the Planning Commission for their study meeting May 8. One point brought out during discussion was that 286 additional residential units were authorized for addition to the City during a two year period, 1976-1977. At this rate the R-3 and R-4 property could be privately redeveloped to its potential in seven years. It was noted the 30,000 population holding capacity does not Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1978 include future residential uses on commercial property or any school district property converted to housing. Mr. Swan and Commissioner Kindig updated Commission on Housing Committee activities, noting the goals adopted by that Committee were adopted unanimously. Commissioner Kindig explained the Housing Committee chose not to have another meeting until a draft was available. 10. APARTMENTS AND CONDOMINIUMS: LOCATION, QUANTITY, ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES City Planner Swan updated Commission on this item, noting housing studies prepared for the Housing Element show patterns for condominium conversions and the locations which seem more desirable. It was noted 82% of the 202 occupied condominiums show homeowner tax exemptions. Assistant City Planner Yost noted that even with the increase in dwellings, the population has not increased; this is because the household size of families has decreased. Commissioner Sine pointed out that because of topography, high property costs and custom -home construction costs, development might not occur for a number of years on many of the remaining single family lots. 11. BURLINGAME BAYFRONT PLAN STUDIES City Planner Swan updated Commission on recent meetings.. He referred to the meeting minutes prepared from notes taken at the special meeting held April 6. The consensus achieved by the Planning Commission was to maintain the open space character and provide public access to the shoreline, while recognizing traffic as a major problem with the need for staged access to properties, staged growth and interim uses. The Planning Commission noted it is the City's obligation to provide streets and improvements away from residential land uses. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES Staff had prepared and distributed a set of guidelines, or for Planning Commission review. Staff requested Commission and come back with edification notations and changes to be were taken from other cities but customized for Burlingame. stated that under no circumstance is any Commission member absentee vote. COMMUNICATIONS rules and procedures, consider several points considered. These guidelines City Attorney Coleman permitted to submit an Reference was made to the Regional Planning Committee annual dinner meeting to be held Thursday, April 27, 1978. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary