Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.07.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Vice Chairman Harvey on Monday, July 12, 1982 at 7:31.P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, Leahy Absent: Commissioner Mink (excused) Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 28, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Action item 7 and Study items 8, 9 and 10 were removed from the agenda; order of the agenda then unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 13.8 SF DOUBLE FACED SIGN TO BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING POLE SIGN AT 1601 ADRIAN ROAD, BY AMANA REFRIGERATION WEST COAST CP Monroe reviewed this request for an addition to the existing pole sign which presently exceeds the maximum permitted signage for the site. Reference staff report dated 7/6/82; Sign Permit form filed 6/17/82; Sign Exception form filed 6/18/82; aerial photograph; photo of the existing sign; sign drawings dated 5/26/82; "no comments" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (6/29/82) and City Engineer (6/28/82). CP discussed details of the application, code requirements, applicant's justification for the exception and staff review. If approved, findings as listed in Code Sec. 22. 06.110 must be made. Chm. Harvey opened the public hearing. Phil Rozzi of Amana Refrigeration discussed the parent company's desire to make the public aware of the Raytheon Company name and noted the addition would be below the existing sign on the same pole. It was his belief this addition would be visible to the public on the freeway and that putting the proposed Raytheon name on the face of the present Amana sign would destroy the Amana logo. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Discussion: other signage along Adrian Road which exceeds current standards; the need for identification on such frontage roads to Bayshore Freeway; concern was expressed about allowing such signage to become too large; the proposed addition might destroy the effect of the logo of the original sign; concern that if this additional signage were allowed it would set a precedent in the area. C. Graham moved, in light of the discussion, to deny this Sign Exception application. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1982 2. AMENDMENT TO THE 10/2/78 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUE LEARNING CENTER AT 801 HOWARD AVENUE, BY LARRY KRUSEMARK CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow an afternoon class of up to 30 high school students, Monday through Thursday, at Washington School. Reference staff report dated 7/6/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/15/82; aerial photograph; site drawing; June 15 and June 29, 1982 letters from Larry Krusemark, the applicant; "no requirements/no comments" memos from the Chief Fire Inspector (6/21/82) and Chief Building Inspector (7/1/82); July 6, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; June 15, 1982 letter from James E. Black, Superintendent, Burlingame School District; and June 28, 1982 Planning Commission study session minutes. CP discussed details of this request, staff review, School District's comments, applicant's description of the proposal, answers to questions raised at the study session. Approval was recommended with four conditions as listed in the staff report. Discussion: ages of the new students, contacts with the new Washington School principal and rules of behavior for all students. Chm. Harvey opened the public hearing. Larry Krusemark, the applicant, confirmed ages of the proposed high school students to be 14 to 17 and agreed to limit enrollment to 15. He further confirmed the majority would be coming by bus. The Chair requested audience comments. The following spoke in opposition: Phil Knight, 23 Dwight Road - concern about high school students on the same site with elementary school students; present conflicts on the playground and differing discipline values between True Learning Center students and Washington School students. Marti Knight, 23 Dwight Road presented a petition in opposition signed by 50 neighbors and parents of Washington School and noted opposition by PTA members. It was her understanding the School Board had not yet approved this request. She expressed concern about additional traffic, parking, potential accidents and littering by the older students, and felt it inappropriate to combine the two groups. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern about mixing high school and grade school students, hesitancy to rule on this request if it has not been approved by the School Board, previously established neighborhood criteria and objections of the parents in the neighborhood. C. Giomi moved to deny this amendment to the 10/2/78 special permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 4 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 701 FAIRFIELD ROAD, BY SOM & ASSOCIATES FOR WING L. MOY 4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 UNIT PROJECT AT 701 FAIRFIELD ROAD CP Monroe reviewed this revised project which will have a 5'-0" side setback rather than 8'-6" as required by code. She noted details of the proposed design, a comparison with the previously proposed project, staff review and comments, letters received addressing environmental review, and code requirements for variance consideration. If approved, three conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report. Reference staff report dated 7/2/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/28/82; Negative Declaration ND-317P(b); aerial photograph; "no comments" memo from the Chief Building Inspector (6/21/82); June 8, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; June 22, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; 3/30/82 memo from the Park Director; 5/3/82 memo from the City Attorney; revised garage level plan received July 1, 1982; letters addresssing environmental review from Gene Satrap, San Mateo "in the interest of the Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1982 Russian Church of All Saints", Clarence M. Philpott, Pastor, Burlingame Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Stuart P. Coxhead, Jr., Rector, Saint Paul's Episcopal Church; and June 28, 1982 Planning Commission study session minutes. Further reference: July 7, 1982 letter from Wing L. Moy to all Planning Commissioners discussing his proposed project and justification for the variance; and plans date stamped June 22, 1982. Discussion: height of the building on the Fairfield and E1 Camino frontages; the revised garage level plan. Chm. Harvey opened the public hearing. Helen Som, architect for the project, discussed the requested variance, noting it was not for the whole length of the Fairfield frontage. She also pointed out her attempt to mitigate impact on the Russian Church with this townhouse design. Drew Turner, 149 Occidental Avenue expressed his feeling the project would add to the neighborhood aesthetically and he did not think four units would adversely affect.the traffic situation. There were no further comments in favor. Gene Satrap, 744 E1 Camino Real, representing the Russian Church of All Saints, spoke in opposition: this lot cannot reasonably support the developer's project; believe there are three variances, not one; the design is taking advantage of public open space for the developer's benefit; deficiencies in the parking plan; four unit design is too crowded for this site; oppose any design that does, not meet all the codes of the city. Michael Gentleman, 789 E1 Camino Real, expressed opposition to any construction on this site which would produce a visual degradation to the nearby church. Rev. Pavlenko, Russian Church of All Saints, speaking for all members of his congregation, asked that Commission deny the applica- tion. In rebuttal, Helen Som, architect, pointed out she could design a building much larger and higher, with more units, that would not require a variance and meet all code requirements. She felt her present design was quality housing which would be an addition to Burlingame rather than a detriment. She stressed the many meetings with city staff that had taken place and the developer's efforts to give the city an aesthetically pleasing project for the site. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: the number of units and design possibilities if underground parking were used; it was noted the stairway to the deck out of Unit D extends into the front setback (elimination of that stairway could be a condition of approval); the church has had many years in which to purchase this land itself; the variance request is slight; the architect has done a good job with a difficult lot; two commission members found some difficulty in addressing all the findings necessary for variance approval. C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the configuration of the lot; that the variance was necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owner of the property in allowing him to build an aesthetically pleasing structure; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; and it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Graham moved for approval of the variance. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi-and Harvey dissenting, C. Mink absent. C. Graham then moved for approval of the condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of June 8, 1982, the City Engineer's memo of June 22, 1982 and the Park Director's memo of March 30, 1982 be met; (2) that the final working drawings conform to the plans filed with this application and date stamped June 22, 1982 as amended by the garage plans date stamped July 1, 1982 and with elimination of the stairway to the deck out of Unit D which extends into the front setback; and (3) that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the Park Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Harvey dissenting, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1982 5. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR FOUR CONDOMINIUM UNITS - 701 FAIRFIELD ROAD Reference CE's July 7, 1982 memo. CE Erbacher recommended approval and transmittal to Council. C. Graham moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this Tentative Subdivision Map. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Harvey dissenting, C. Mink absent. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:07 P.M. 6. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT '1244 BELLEVUE AVENUE Reference CE's memo dated July 7, 1982. CE Erbacher advised, as indicated on this map, each unit has been assigned two secured parking spaces; there is available on - street guest parking. The map conforms to the tentative map and may be recommended to Council. C. Graham moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this Final Subdivision Map. Second C. Giomi; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. 7. FINAL CONDOMINIUM AND PARCEL MAPS FOR A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 119 PRIMROSE ROAD Item dropped from the agenda. CE's July 7, 1982 memo advised this final map has not yet been corrected and resubmitted by the owner as agreed. gTIInY TTFMC 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - 21 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT - 1449 BELLEVUE AVENUE 9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 21 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT - 1449 BELLEVUE AVENUE 10. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE Items 8, 9 and 10 removed from the study meeting agenda because plans as submitted were incomplete for plan check. 11. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED HISTORIC INVENTORY FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CP Monroe discussed her staff memo regarding background, preliminary draft inventory, future use of the inventory and Commission review. Attachments to the memo were: list of Historic Inventory Committee members, definitions and criteria for historic site selection, list of sites - First Priority, Second Tier and Recognition. Three members of the committee were present this evening. During discussion CP explained that after Planning Commission and City Council review the Historic Inventory would be incorporated into the Planning review process to make a developer, Commission and Council aware of significant sites. She noted that the inventory does not include any prohibition. Some discussion followed regarding conservation, preservation and rehabilitation of identified significant sites. Item set for public hearing and action by the Planning Commission on July 26, 1982. 12. REVIEW OF OCTOBER, 1971 PERMIT (REPO DEPO), 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Reference study session staff memo dated 7/6/82 detailing complaint about Repo Depo's sale of office supplies in the M-1 district. Staff report included background of previous city actions on this site and recent contacts with Mr. Rosberg of Repo Depo. The matter was set for hearing July 26, 1982. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1982 CITY PLANNER REPORT 13. CP Monroe reported on City Council meeting of July 6, 1982. CP requested staff study of conflict between sign code and building code with respect to height of awnings. 14. Office Use in the M-1 District Item set for study July 26, 1982 when C. Mink would be in attendance. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:08 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary