Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1979.11.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1979 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, November 26, 1979 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Francard, Harvey, Mink, Sine, Taylor, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: John R. Yost, City Planner; Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney MINUTES - The minutes of the November 12, 1979 meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - Approved upon motion by C. Mink. APPLICATIONS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ENLARGE THE EXISTING DINING AREA AND ADD ONE BATHROOM AND DECK TO A NONCONFORMING HOUSE BUILT TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE, IN THE C-2 DISTRICT, BY STIRLING C. MILLS CP Yost reviewed this application to enlarge a nonconforming house, noting pertinent code sections, the history of the property and the difficulties encountered by the applicant. Reference staff report dated 11/19/79; Applicant's Affidavit for Variance with attached letter; plans date stamped November 13, 1979; and photographs of the site. Staff believed the proposed remodeling to be modest in scale and consistent with the policies of the General Plan; approval was recommended. Stirling Mills, the applicant, was present and discussed his plans to upgrade the property, noting the difficulties of bringing this nonconforming house to present code. It was determined that cars must be parked on the street; applicant pointed out that this had been necessary since the 1920's. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Photographs of the site were shown to Commission. Discussion noted: that the improper sideyard and absence of off-street parking had been present since the 1920's; that the property is in the C-2 zone; the character of the neighborhood was reviewed. C. Mink found exceptional circumstances in the actions of another agency which had acquired a 2500 SF portion of this property in the 1920's, and which made it impossible to continue to use the existing garage and that, because of the slope of the lot, there was considerable difficulty in erecting another garage; that the proposed addition was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner; that there would be no change or detriment to the neighborhood; and that this proposal would enhance the General Plan policies of the City by upgrading this older home. C. Mink then moved that this variance be approved. Second C. Taylor and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1979 2. AMENDMENT OF OCTOBER 2, 1978 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUE LEARNING CENTER, INC. TO INCREASE ITS PRESENT ENROLLMENT BY 15 STUDENTS TO A MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT OF 55; PROPERTY AT 801 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, BY LARRY KRUSEMARK CP Yost reviewed this request to allow True Learning Center to increase its enrollment, which will require an additional classroom at Washington School. Reference staff report dated 11/19/79; October 31, 1979 letter from Larry Krusemark, Director of True Learning Center with attached site plan; November 8, 1979 letter from Harry F. McCrea, Principal of Washington School; City Council minutes of October 2, 1978 recording the appeal hearing of the 1978 special permit; and Planning Commission minutes of August 27, 1979 recording P.C. denial of a previous request to increase enrollment. Staff noted no complaints had been received about this school and recommended the 1978 special permit be amended with conditions as noted in the staff report. Larry Krusemark, the applicant, was present and advised that no additional teachers would be required. November 20, 1979 letter from Glenn A. Stewart, Burlingame School District recommending approval was distributed at the meeting. It was determined True Learning Center meets the non-profit requirement of the code. Concerns: On -street parking problems in residential areas and future problems as downtown parking becomes more congested; will the additional 15 students be walkers from the area or be transported to the school?; objection to a commercial use operating in the R-1 District; and a statement of non-support for any increase in private school enrollment on School District property in the City. Proponents noted: the decline of public school enrollment at Washington School, which should alleviate parking problems on adjacent streets; that an empty classroom would be put back into use; no objection in view of the staggered hours in relation to the elementary school and the manner in which True Learning Center has regulated itself thus far. C. Harvey moved that the special permit granted to True Learning Center, Inc. October 2, 1978 be amended as follows: that Condition #2 be increased to a maximum enrollment of 55 students; that Condition #5 be changed to include the additional classroom shown on the new site plans filed with the current application; and that a 7th condition be added: the above two amendments be limited to the current school year with a review and possible amendment or cancellation of the changes at that time (June 15, 1980) if problems are observed. Second C. Francard and approved 4-3 on roll call vote, Cers Mink, Sine and Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. FOUR VARIANCES TO ALLOW A 6 -UNIT ADDITION THAT WILL JOIN TWO SEPARATE, ADJACENT APARTMENT BUILDINGS INTO ONE STRUCTURE; PROPERTY AT 1104/1106 AND 1110/1112 EL CAMINO REAL, IN THE R-3 DISTRICT, BY BARRY L. RAFTER, ARCHITECT FOR JULIAN GIUNTOLI, PROPERTY OWNER CP Yost reviewed this application, detailing the variances required by the project. It was noted the present on-site parking would be raised from 1 space per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit. Reference staff report dated 11/19/79; Project Assessment revised 11/19/79; October 2, 1979 letter from Barry L. Rafter, endorsed by Julian Giuntoli; Applicant's Affidavit for Variance; site drawing received November 9, 1979; aerial photograph of the site; photographs received October 12, 1979 demonstrating typical vehicle occupancy at the site at the end of the day; November 19, 1979 memo from the Director of Public Works; November 12, 1979 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; and November 7, 1979 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector. Staff recommended Variance #2 be denied and suggested the design be amended to allow the northeast corner of the building to be classified as two stories, with regrading of an additional portion of the alley. Approval of Variances #1, #3 and #4 was recommended. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 26, 1979 Barry Rafter, architect representing the applicant, was present and briefly discussed the project. Chm. Jacobs opened. the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. There was considerable discussion among staff, Commission and the applicant's representative regarding the alley at the rear, its status at present and in the future; the telephone poles in the alley; the design of the project; on-site parking; and setbacks. One Commissioner spoke favorably about the addition of rental units to the City's housing stock and noted that the project's nonconformity would not permit conversion to condominiums at a later date. There was a concern expressed about granting four variances to upgrade an existing nonconforming structure which would result in a larger nonconforming structure. Commission reviewed with Mr. Rafter the four legal requirements for approval of variances. Variance One: parking deficiency of 3 spaces. Exceptional circumstances were found in the special qualities of the original open courtyard; that additional parking spaces to bring the project to code would, of necessity, have to be placed in the courtyard; that preservation of the courtyard and its unique character is desirable; that the proposed deficiency of three spaces would not be detrimental to the neighbor- hood nor to the General Plan which encourages apartment units. Variance Two: 5' encroach- ment into the rearyard. The architect agreed to lower the roof line, allowing the addition to be classified as two stories, rather than three. No variance is necessary for a two story design. Variance Three: two parking spaces with substandard backout aisle. Exceptional circumstances were found in the configuration of the proposed parking and the architect's attempt to bring parking closer to code; that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, but would improve it; and that it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. Variance Four: nonconforming setbacks on E1 Camino Real. It was found that the two buildings as built have a single story profile on E1 Camino and thus meet the general intention of the setback requirement; that to remodel the existing buildings and make their living units smaller (to obtain a 20' front setback) would not enhance the project; that it is not detrimental to the neighborhood, as built, and will not change the general zoning plan of the city. C. Taylor then moved for approval of Variances #1, #3 and #4 with the following conditions: (1) that the 6 -unit addition be consistent with the plans date stamped October 18, 1979, this determination to be made by the City Planner in accordance with modifications agreed between Commission and the architect this evening; (2) that the recommendations in the November 7, 1979 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector and November 12, 1979 memo from the Chief Building Inspector be met satisfactorily; (3) that the engineering requirements identified in the November 19, 1979 memo from the Director of Public Works also be met satisfactorily; (4) that a landscape and irrigation plan be approved by the Park Director prior to the issuance of a building permit; (5) that a parcel map be filed and approved to combine the two separate lots; and (6) that the improvements required in the alley be installed to City standards. Second C. Sine and approved 5-2 on roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Harvey dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:05 P.M.; reconvene 9:22 P.M. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO PAINT THREE SIGNS ON AN AWNING AT 1158 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, IN THE C-1 DISTRICT, BY DAVID HINCKLE FOR EARTHBEAM CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR CP Yost reviewed this application to allow installation of a new sign which could be seen from the principal thoroughfare. He noted the location of the shop, pertinent code sections, and detailed the exceptions required. Reference staff report dated 11/19/79; drawings received November 9, 1979; Sign Exception Application received November 9, 1979; and sheet detailing each sign. Staff had no objection to approval of the proposed awning sign. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1979 The applicant, David Hinckle, was present. He advised the proposed awning was requested to allow it to be seen from Broadway and to block out the sun from the store window. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. C. Mink found that the signage proposed does fulfill all intentions of the sign code: logo, name of the business and goods and services offered; that this is an exceptional location for a commercial business; and that the awning is necessary for protection of the goods being offered. C. Mink then moved that this Sign Exception be approved in accordance with the documents and drawings submitted with the application. Second C. Cistulli and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Item #10 was taken at this time to accommodate Robert Ironside of Ironside and Associates, consultants for the Housing Element. STUDY ITFM 10. HOUSING ELEMENT, BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN: NOVEMBER 20, 1979 DRAFT PREPARED BY IRONSIDE AND ASSOCIATES CP Yost detailed the proposed schedule for final adoption of the Housing Element; the State's 90 day extension will expire at the end of December, 1979. Robert Ironside and Jean Iams of his staff were present. Commission reviewed the draft page by page and requested clarifications, revisions, additions and omissions. Consultant to return with the final draft for public hearing by the Planning Commission on December 10, 1979. OTHER BUSINESS 5. ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY UNIT, BURLINGAME HYATT HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CP Yost reviewed November 12, 1979 letter from Glen Mixdorf, Legal and Industry Affairs, American Sign & Indicator Corporation and noted Mr. Mixdorf's request that Commission adopt a four second rule rather than six second rule for this type of sign. He referenced CA Coleman's November 16, 1979 response to the Planning Commission which contended the applicants received their permit within Commission policy and with knowledge of the policy, and if they wished to change, they should bring the sign into conformity and then apply for an exception. Further references: November 2, 1979 letter from John R. Yost to Hyatt Corporation of America with attachment (Planning Commission minutes of June 13, 1977 covering approval of an electronic message center for the Eggplant Restaurant); and November 6, 1979 letter from John Orr, General Manager, Burlingame Hyatt House to American Sign & Indicator Corporation. Staff requested confirmation of Commission policy regarding timing for message unit signs. There was considerable discussion regarding the Hyatt House sign and others, the manner in which sign policy is made, and staff's use of such interpretations by the Planning Commission and City Council in administering the Sign Code. On unanimous voice vote Commission agreed to retain the six second interval timing for electronic message display units. 6. AMENDMENT OF CURRENT REGULATIONS, BURLINGAME AVENUE OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT: CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR COMMISSION REVIEW AND COMMENT (CONTINUED FROM 11/12/79) CP Yost reviewed his memo to Commission dated 11/19/79 detailing recommendations made at the November 12 study meeting, and requested Commission comment. Discussion Burlingame.Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 26, 1979 included parking rates, duration of parking meters in the District, construction credit square footage figures, a suggestion of a sliding scale based on project size to determine developer contribution, and the urgency of increasing downtown parking. Suggestions for changes were agreed upon and staff was requested to transmit Commission's recommendations to City Council. 7. SUGGESTION THAT A 10' SIDEYARD REQUIREMENT BE ESTABLISHED FOR PROPERTIES IN THE M-1 DISTRICT: CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 12, 1979) CP Yost referenced a diagram distributed this evening which indicated two alternative areas where the new sideya rd requirements would apply: one, East Millsdale and Millsdale Industrial Parks only, with a southerly boundary at Mills Creek; the other, to include these areas plus the Burlway Industrial Park and Edwards Industrial Park, with a southerly boundary at Easton Creek. Staff recommended the line be established at Mills Creek. Commission agreed and staff was requested to report back to City Council. 8. REVIEW OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT 860 STANTON ROAD: CONDITION OF NOVEMBER 27, 1978 VARIANCE APPROVED TO CURLEY-BATES COMPANY CP Yost reported that Curley -Bates Company is in compliance with the 1978 variance requirement. Reference November 8, 1979 letter from William R. Benevento, Vice President & Treasurer of Curley -Bates, advising they now have 29 employees. Report unanimously accepted. MIRY TTFMS 9. CHAIRMAN'S REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION CONCERNS 13. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1979 All members of Commission will be in attendance at the breakfast meeting December 1. The majority hoped for discussion of overall general concerns and policies of the City, and guidelines for Commission. The Chair requested staff be advised of any specific items that might be included on the agenda. 11. RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM STANDARDS: PROPOSED EXCLUSION OF ROOF GARDENS FROM A PROJECT'S GENERAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT; POSSIBLE FLOOR AREA STANDARDS PER UNIT CP Yost noted Commission's recent statements regarding roof gardens and commented that many cities have minimum floor area standards per unit. After some discussion staff was requested to draft a resolution stating Commission policy with regard to roof gardens. There was consensus that establishing floor area standards per unit was not desirable. CITY PLANNER REPORT 12. BAYFRONT DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR RESTAURANTS AND HOTELS Staff noted that all materials discussed by City Council on this matter have now been distributed to the Commission. CA Coleman advised these signs are not covered by Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 26, 1979 the Sign Code, they are exempt signs, and it is appropriate for the City Council to be handling the proposal. He stated he assumed the Commission's advice would be sought once a more definite program was presented to the Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary