HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1980.11.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 24, 1980
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Sine on Monday, November 24, 1980 at 7:34 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli (arrived 8:05 P.M.), Graham, Harvey, Jacobs,
Mink, Sine, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner John R. Yost, City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman,
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - Upon motion of C. Jacobs, the minutes of the November 10, 1980 meeting
were unanimously approved and adopted.
AGENDA - Upon motion of C. Mink, second C. Harvey, order of the agenda approved.
Chm. Sine advised of the passing of Jules L. "Boots" Francard, for many years Burlingame
Park Director and former Planning Commissioner. He expressed sympathy to his family and
called for a minute of silent prayer.
APPLICATIONS FOR ACTION
1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW EXCURSIONS IN LEARNING TO -OPERATE A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL; BY KRISTEN SANTIN
CP Yost reviewed this application to operate an after school training and activity
program for handicapped children. Reference staff report dated 11/7/80; Project Applica-
tion & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 10/21/80; site drawing, Roosevelt School; list
of interior dimensions, Roosevelt School; aerial photograph of the site; October 15, 1980
letter from Kristen M. Santin with explanation of the program and sample classroom program;
September 3, 1980 letter from Minna Levenkron, Case Manager, Golden Gate Regional Center;
October 20, 1980 letter from Glenn A. Stewart, Director of Business Services, Burlingame
School District; Guidelines for Leasing Roosevelt School dated 7/1/80; October 29, 1980
memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; and October 31, 1980 memo from the Chief Building
Inspector. CP reviewed staff comments and pertinent code sections. Staff had no
objection to approval with five conditions as listed in the staff report.
Kristen Santin, applicant and director of Excursions in Learning, was present. She
spoke of her hopes to operate this program giving children an opportunity for recreational
and social activity. Commission discussion: the proposed program meets the neighborhood
guidelines for leasing Roosevelt School; a good project with good purpose; will not
impact or detract from the neighborhood; all School Board and City procedures have been
followed; adds a positive approach to the human environment.
C. Mink moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1)
that the permit be approved to Excursions in Learning and be nontransferable; (2) that
the hours and general character of the proposed training programs for handicapped
children be consistent with the materials filed with this application; (3) that all
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
November 24, 1980
staff parking be on -street, adjacent to the kindergarten; (4) that the requirements
identified in the October 29, 1980 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector and October 31,
1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector be met satisfactorily; and (5) that the
conditions of the permit be subject to review and possible modification in one year.
Second C. Taylor; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN 8,100 SF CHURCH IN THE R-3 DISTRICT AT 701 FAIRFIELD
ROAD; BY RECTOR JOHN T. CAHOON OF CHRIST CHURCH
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE ROOF OF THE NEW CHURCH AT 701 FAIRFIELD
ROAD TO BE 47' ABOVE STREET GRADE (WITH A BELL TOWER OF 69')
4. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW CHURCH AT 701 FAIRFIELD ROAD WITHOUT ON-SITE PARKING
(RATHER THAN THE 47 SPACES REQUIRED BY CODE)
CP Yost reviewed these applications, noted permits required and advised it would be
appropriate to hold one combined public hearing. It was the City Attorney's advice
that motions of approval or denial should be made for each item, in reverse order, i.e.,
#4 - the parking variance, #3 - special permit to exceed maximum height, and #2 - special
permit to allow construction of the church in the R-3 district. CP discussed issues
raised by these applications, Commission alternatives, possible findings and staff
comments. If the parking variance and proposed building height are approved, staff
recommended five conditions for approval of the special permit to allow a church at
this location.
Reference staff report dated 11/20/80 with Exhibit A - Burlingame's Churches & Synagogues;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 10/24/80; aerial photograph of
the site; November 3 and November 18, 1980 letters from The Rev. John T. Cahoon, Jr.;
11/18/80 memo from the City Engineer; November 17, 1980 memo from the Fire Inspector;
November 19, 1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 10/29/80 memo from the Park
Director; November 20, 1980 letter from Glenn A. Stewart, Director, Business Services,
Burlingame School District; plans date stamped October 15 and November 6, 1980; and
scale model of the project.
Rev. John T. Cahoon, applicant and Rector of Christ Church, addressed Commission. He
discussed the incorporation of this Anglican church, its present arrangements for
worship in Burlingame and plans for the proposed new church. He also addressed the
four legal requirements in support of the parking variance. H. A. Schick, 434 Fairfax
Avenue, San Mateo, research assistant for the project, discussed parking surveys he
had taken, particularly in the area of the proposed church; their expected parking
needs; hours of services and meetings; the future plans of the church; parking at their
current location and at the proposed location. Ms. Dale Crichton, San Francisco,
architect for the project, discussed the design of this church with the aid of a scale
model. She noted the unusual configuration of the lot, the special needs of the church,
the reasons for this final design and its effect on the area.
Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor: Paul Borg, City of
Burlingame Water Department employee: debris in vacant lot, danger for children,
possibility of fire, several residents of the neighborhood have indicated they would
approve of the church, would improve property values, very difficult lot for an apartment.
Kathie Wanger, 1604 MacDonald Way: member of the congregation, a good addition to
Burlingame. Ron Pimental, builder and general contractor, San Francisco: lot is in my
family, very difficult to develop, feel church as proposed would be welcome addition to
the neighborhood. Dean Kenyon, 2407 Hale Drive: pleased to see an Anglican church on
that site, will add to the beauty of the area. Julie Kruttschnitt, 752 Crossway Road:
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1980
member of the congregation and in favor, can walk to the church. Victor Thompson,
Professor Emeritus (Architecture), Stanford University: exceptional design, believe
the roof design will mitigate impact on the area. There were no further comments in
favor. The following spoke in opposition: James Hamrock, 852 Fairfield Road: heavy
traffic in the area now, several churches with substandard parking, concern that many
people in the area did not know of this application. (Staff advised that notices had
been mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site.) Cristo Daskalakis,
836 Fairfield Road: not opposed to church per se, but concerned about the parking
situation. Leonard Privitera, 831 Fairfield Road: no parking available on Sunday
mornings at present, road narrow and dangerous. Robert Berryman, owner and developer
of condominium project at 735 E1 Camino Real: would welcome the church but think there
would be severe traffic and parking impact on the neighborhood. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed. CP Yost read Chapter 25.54 listing the
four legal requirements for approval of a variance.
Discussion: alternatives to the proposed design; possibility of providing some on-site
parking; seating capacity of the proposed church; number of members of the congregation
and proposed hours for services and other meetings; available parking at other churches
in the City; the potential for growth of this church; status of the bell tower in
relation to the building itself; suggestion that only an 8:30 or 9:00 AM service be
allowed on Sunday morning since peak impact on parking in the area is at 11:00 AM on
Sundays; a better use than many others for this area; the parking impact would be felt
only one day a week. Concerns: traffic congestion and parking; parking on the school
property across the street might be only a temporary solution; too imposing a building
for that location; concern about the future use of this lot should the application be
denied.
There was support for the unique design and location of the church but several
commissioners did not feel that testimony had been presented to prove it would not
be detrimental to the neighborhood. Cers Taylor and Mink found that the four legal
requirements had been met: that testimony presented this evening demonstrated there
were exceptional circumstances relating to the use of this property; that the use was
necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owner; that it was not
detrimental to the neighborhood nor to the community; and that it would not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City.
C. Taylor moved for approval of the variance to construct the new church at 701 Fairfield
Road without on-site parking, with the findings as stated previously. Second C. Cistulli;
motion denied on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Graham, Harvey, Jacobs and Sine dissenting.
C. Taylor then moved for approval of the special permit to allow a portion of the roof
of the new church to be 47' above street grade (with a bell tower of 69'). Second
C. Mink; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote.
C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit to construct an 8,100 SF church in the
R-3 District at 701 Fairfield Road with the following conditions: (1) that the permit
be approved to Christ Church, and be nontransferable; (2) that the character and programs
of the church be consistent with the November 3, 1980 and November 18, 1980 letters
from Rev. John Cahoon; (3) that the final site plan and building design be prepared to
meet all municipal code requirements, unless specifically waived by appropriate City
actions; (4) that the requirements recommended by the City Engineer in his November 18,
1980 memo and Chief Building Inspector in his November 19, 1980 memo be met satisfactorily;
and (5) that a landscape and irrigation plan be approved by the Park Director prior to
the issuance of a building permit, such plan to include street trees adjacent to the
project site on Fairfield Road, the size and number to be approved by the City and
installed at the applicant's expense. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously
on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Recess 9:15 P.M.; reconvene 9:25 P.M.
Page 4
November 24, 1980
5. VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE INTO A FAMILY ROOM AND CONSTRUCT
A NEW 11' X 20' GARAGE; PROPERTY AT 1821 RAY DRIVE, BY JOHN AND LINDA FERNEBORG
CP Yost reviewed this request to convert an attached garage at the front of the existing
house into a family room and construct a new substandard garage. Reference staff report
dated 11/18/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 11/12/80; aerial
photograph of the site; November 4, 1980 letter from John R. Ferneborg; November 17, 1980
memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 11/18/80 memo from the City Engineer; and plans
date stamped November 3, 1980. CP reviewed code requirements and staff comments.
Staff recommended approval with two conditions as listed in the staff report.
John Ferneborg, the applicant, was present. He discussed his family's need for more
space, his consultations with an architect and his belief the proposal was a thoughtful
answer in view of the configuration of the lot and existing floor plan of the house.
He concluded his remarks by addressing the four legal requirements for a variance.
Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. Frank Hatch, 1817 Ray Drive, the next door
neighbor, spoke in favor of this application: proposal would add considerably to the
appearance of the neighborhood, a one car garage would be more of an improvement than
a two car structure. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed.
Discussion: size of the proposed substandard garage; front setback measurements;
the unusual lots in this area; size of the applicant's family and his existing house.
One Commissioner expressed concern about visual impact at the front of the property.
Others noted the large front setback and swimming pool at the rear; there appeared to
be no other place to put the garage and make this house conforming; the addition would
not extend farther forward than the existing house. There was a general consensus
in favor of the application.
C. Jacobs found that this is an unusual key -shaped lot; that the applicant needs more
space and, with the swimming pool in the rear, the front of the property is the logical
place for an addition; that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and that
this lot has a larger setback than most houses in the area; that it would not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of
this variance application with the following conditions: (1) that the garage addition
and family room remodeling be consistent with the plans filed with this application;
and (2) that the requirements specified in the November 17, 1980 memo from the Chief
Building Inspector and November 18, 1980 memo from the City Engineer be met satisfactorily.
Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Cistulli dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 6,000 SF BANK AT 360 PRIMROSE ROAD; BY ROGER NYE OF
PACIFIC UNION BANK
CP Yost reviewed this application to remodel the Super M market at the corner of Primrose
Road and Donnelly Avenue and establish a new bank. Reference staff report dated 11/9/80;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 10/31/80; aerial photograph of
the site; map of the downtown Burlingame shopping area indicating existing banks and
savings and loans; October 17 and November 13, 1980 letters from Roger Nye, president
and chief executive officer, Pacific Union Bank & Trust Company; Pacific Union Bank
Financial Statements - June 30, 1980; November 11, 1980 memo from the Chief Building
Inspector; 11/12/80 memo from the City Engineer; November 18, 1980 memo from the
Fire Inspector; 11/5/80 memo from the Park Director; plans date stamped November 6,
1980; and plans for the temporary banking unit date stamped November 7, 1980.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
November 24, 1980
CP discussed this site in relation to the Burlingame Avenue Off -Street Parking District,
code requirements, vehicle circulation and issues raised by the application. Staff
had no objection to approval with five conditions as listed in the staff report.
Secretary Harvey read letter dated November 21, 1980 from Thomas A. Gallagher, Jr.,
property manager for the Thomas A. Gallagher, Sr. Trust, owner of property at 1348-1350
Burlingame Avenue, cautioning that any approval of this application should be subject
to the applicant providing sufficient off-street parking to accommodate its customers
and employees.
Roger Nye, president and chief executive officer of Pacific Union Bank was present. He
discussed his company's operations; their plans for upgrading this site; parking and
landscaping provisions; market studies of retail sales and banking in Burlingame; and
his hopes to offer an independent banking service to the City. He agreed to change the
plans for a metal roof as requested by the Fire Department. Chm. Sine opened the public
hearing. Frieda Freund, 1230 Donnelly Avenue, expressed concern about traffic congestion
and parking problems, particularly in relation to her business on Donnelly Avenue.
Peter Ebner, 261 Park Road, speaking as a Burlingame businessman, felt the banking
needs of the community were being satisfactorily met at present and that the City was
in need of more retail and service establishments as opposed to banks. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Discussion and concerns: customer and employee parking; Pacific Union Bank's application
to the State Banking Department, and findings in this regard; number of expected
customers; "does the City need another bank?"; "in this location?"; population of
nearby cities and number of banks and savings and loans in each; benefits/disadvantages
of a small independent bank; difficulty in making a judgment on this use at this
location without more specific guidelines; "some other use might be more detrimental
at this location".
Following further discussion, C. Mink found that this is not an objectionable proposal;
that it is in the proper zone for this type of business; that it is providing a great
deal of its own parking and improving the site with landscaping. C. Mink then moved
for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the permit
be approved to the Pacific Union Bank and Trust Company and be nontransferable; (2) that
the operation of this bank be consistent with the October 17 and November 13, 1980
letters from Roger Nye; (3) that the proposed remodeling be done with a Building Permit
and conform to the plans filed with this application; (4) that the temporary banking unit
be consistent with the November 7, 1980 plans filed by Bank Planning Associates, such
unit to be removed by August 31, 1981; and (5) that the conditions recommended by the
City Engineer in his November 12, 1980 memo,by the Chief Building Inspector in his
November 11, 1980 memo, by the Chief Fire Inspector in his November 18, 1980 memo and
by the Park Director in his November 5, 1980 memo all be completed to the satisfaction
of the respective departments. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 5-2 on roll call
vote, Cers Graham and Harvey dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A MEDICAL CLINIC IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 839 HINCKLEY ROAD,
BY TERRY SMITH OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL SERVICES
CP Yost reviewed this application to allow a medical clinic in the M-1 District.
Reference staff report dated 11/18/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted
by staff 10/31/80; aerial photograph of the site; October 13, 1980 letter from Terry
Smith, Executive Director, Industrial Medical Services; brochure describing the
clinic's services; two letters dated November 7, 1980 from Robert L. Christensen,
Administrative Medical Director, Industrial Medical Services; Data Sheet for Parking
Situation dated November 7, 1980; November 12, 1980 letter from Robert L. Christensen;
11/19/80 memo from the City Engineer; and plans date stamped October 14, 1980.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1980
CP reviewed issues raised by this application, possible findings and parking requirements
for medical buildings. Staff believed the medical clinic would provide a needed service
to local firms in the industrial area, but felt the site would be inappropriate for the
size and character of the proposed clinic. Denial was recommended; if approved, six
conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report.
Robert Christensen, administrative medical director of Industrial Medical Services was
present. He discussed issues raised in the staff report, responses his firm had
received about this proposal from the industrial community, and physical limitations
of the site, particularly with regard to parking. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing.
There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion and concerns: license
required for this type of business; the operation of the clinic; number of patients
expected; is this the most appropriate location for such a clinic?; concern about
the lack of adequate parking.
C. Jacobs moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Graham; motion to deny approved
unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR BELLEVUE PLACE, A 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1244 BELLEVUE
AVENUE; BY THEODORE E. FARLEY
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FOUR STORY BELLEVUE PLACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO HAVE
A 36' MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT
CP Yost reviewed this application to construct a 7 unit, four story condominium project.
Reference staff report dated 11/20/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted
by staff 11/4/80; aerial photograph of the site; 11/20/80 memo from the City Engineer;
November 11, 1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; notation from the Park
Director on copy of the plans; October 24, 1980 letter to Ted Farley from Kenneth D.
Meyer, Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.; and plans date stamped November 4 and November 18,
1980. CP reviewed permits required, code regulations and staff comments. Staff
recommended approval of the condominium permit and special permit with three conditions
as listed in the staff report.
Ted Farley, the applicant, was present and discussed his plans for this condominium,
particularly the unusual lot, additional height requested and on-site drainage. He
noted his attempt to retain the City street trees. Chm. Sine opened the public hearing.
Carroll Schmitz, 1237 Bellevue Avenue noted this property was in a key area of
Burlingame and asked that Commission protect the quality of the City by requiring a
high grade project. (Later in the meeting he was advised that the applicant had
exceeded the City's requirements with a fine design for a difficult lot, maintaining
trees and open space.)
Discussion: height of the building along Douglas and Bellevue; code regulations for
underground garages; maintaining and/or protecting street trees; unusual configuration
of the lot. There was consensus the project would enhance the area.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the final working drawings for Bellevue Place be consistent with the plans
filed with this application; (2) that the conditions recommended by the November 11,
1980 memo from the City Engineer be met by the final plans; and (3) that the final
landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the Park Director prior to the issuance
of a building permit. Second C. Harvey; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the special permit to allow this project to have
a 36' maximum roof height. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
November 24, 1980
10. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 7 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1244 BELLEVUE AVENUE
In his 11/20/80 memo City Engineer Erbacher recommended approval of this condominium
subdivision map. C. Jacobs moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of
the tentative subdivision map. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote.
11. REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED MAY 14, 1979 TO ALLOW MUNKDALE BROS., INC.
TO USE 3.4 ACRES UNDER THE PG&E LINES BEHIND 1576-1700 ROLLINS ROAD TO STORE CARS,
RECREATION VEHICLES AND BOATS (AMENDED MARCH 10, 1980 TO STORE AND GROW PLANT
MATERIALS)
CE Erbacher reviewed this item, noting noncompliance with the conditions of the special
permit and Public Works Department concern about the required drainage improvements.
Staff recommended the special permit be revoked unless the applicant establishes in
writing that all improvements will be completed within 30 days. Reference staff memo
dated November 20, 1980 from the City Engineer; March 10, 1980 Planning Commission
minutes; City Planner's staff report for the March 10, 1980 meeting; May 14, 1979
Planning Commission minutes; May 11, 1979 memo to the Commission from the Director of
Public Works; site drawing; November 11, 1980 Revocation Notice from the City Planner
to Steve Munkdale, Munkdale Bros., Inc.; November 3, 1980 letter to Steve Munkdale
from the City Engineer; October 7, 1980 letter from the Director of Public Works to
Munkdale Bros., Inc.; January 11, 1980 letter from the Traffic/Civil Engineer to
Munkdale Bros.; and aerial photograph of 1616 Rollins Road.
Steve Munkdale was present and discussed the as -built drawings requested by Engineering,
drainage conditions at the site and new drawings presently being prepared by Louis Arata.
He noted water problems in the area and felt Munkdale's attempts to relieve these had
been adequate. After further discussion Mr. Munkdale asked for an extension of time to
complete the information requested by the CE. Mr. Erbacher and Commission concurred in
continuing this item to the meeting of December 8, 1980.
APPLICATIONS FOR STUDY
The following applications were set for public hearing December 8, 1980.
12. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6,575 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY WITH 8 ON-SITE
PARKING SPACES (RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 SPACES); BY GARBIS S. BEZDJIAN
13. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 4 UNIT PROJECT AT 1119 CHULA VISTA AVENUE; BY
BARRY G. SMITH OF D. L. WALKER CONSTRUCTION
14. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
15. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 UNIT PROJECT AT 1277 EL CAMINO REAL; BY
WILLIAM HEIJN FOR MANUCHEHR DAI-JAVAD
16. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:18 P.M. in memory of Jules L. "Boots" Francard.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph E. Harvey
Secretary