Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.05.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, May 10, 1982 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the April 26, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved; it was noted Item 6a, Fence Exception at 701 Fairfield Road had been added following agenda finalization. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BEDROOM -BATH ADDITION TO THE HOME AT 1108 DUFFERIN AVENUE, BY MARIO KNAPIC CP Monroe reviewed this request for two variances to allow a second story addition to the existing home. Reference staff report dated 5/4/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 4/15/82; aerial photograph of the site; "no comments/requirements" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (4/28/82), City Engineer (received 4/22/82) and Fire Marshal (4/22/82); April 15, 1982 letter from the applicant and plans date stamped April 16, 1982. CP discussed details of the proposal, staff review and applicant's justification for variance. Approval was recommended. Mario Knapic, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Discussion: Commissioners reported site inspections which indicated the parking variance was justified; concern about the extra foot on the second story addition; privacy of the neighbors. Mario Knapic discussed his request for the extra foot on the second story which would improve the size of the room and noted that the addition would be closest to the wall of the neighbor's garage and would not affect the neighbor's living quarters. There appeared to be consensus that privacy of the neighbors was not a problem; and it was noted the Fire Marshal found no problem with fire access. C. Harvey found that there were extraordinary circumstances in this existing structure which cannot be altered without an extreme and unreasonable amount of work and that the proposal would not create a privacy problem for the neighbors; that due to the size of the family and inability of people to relocate to other homes because of today's economic market, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1982 applicant's property rights; that granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare since no part of the addition intrudes on that area; and that it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city since it is an R-1 use in an R-1 district. C. Harvey then moved to approve the variance; second C. Cistulli. Motion approved on unanimous roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AT 835 LAUREL AVENUE, BY PHIL DIXON (ARCHITECT) FOR JUDD HANNA (APPLICANT AND OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a bathroom addition and remodeling of the kitchen area of the existing single family home which has a nonconforming side yard. Reference staff report dated 5/4/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 4/20/82; aerial photograph of the site; "no comments/requirements" memos from the City Engineer (4/22/82) and the Fire Marshal (4/22/82); 4/28/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; April 20, 1982 letter from the applicant; plans date stamped April 20, 1982. CP discussed this nonconforming structure, staff review, applicant's justification for the variance. Staff recommended approval with one condition as listed in the staff report. Phil Dixon, architect representing the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the Chair declared the public hearing closed. It was determined the applicant was aware of the Chief Building Inspector's requirement that if the second floor ceiling were not high enough it should be identified for storage (reference plan of the existing second story dated 4/29/82 and received after preparation of the staff report). Discussion: the fact that the applicant is attempting to bring the existing house up to code and the need for the variance is caused by the way the structure was placed on the lot originally. Mr. Dixon advised the new fence shown on the plans would replace a previous fence and would be five feet in height. C. Graham found there were extraordinary circumstances in the placement of the existing house on this lot; that the variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. He then moved for approval of this variance with the conditions as stated in the Chief Building Inspector's memo of April 28, 1982. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ERECT A 24 SF WALL SIGN AT 895 STANTON ROAD, FOR BUD'S ICE CREAM OF SAN FRANCISCO CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 24 SF wall sign which would exceed maximum permitted signage on the site by 22 SF. Reference staff report from Helen Towber, Zoning Aide; Sign Exception Application filed 4/14/82; Sign Permit form filed 4/14/82 giving details of all signs; April 26, 1982 memo from Helen Towber noting "no comments" from Fire, Building and Public Works departments; aerial photograph; drawing of proposed sign and site plan showing the location of the two signs. CP discussed the applicant's need for identification of the manufacturing plant as well as the corporate offices on this large corner lot, details of the application, code require- ments. Staff recommended approval. Dennis King, King Ad Display was present representing the applicant. Discussion: proposed illumination, the need for identification of the manufacturing plant. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1982 C. Graham found that approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege to this applicant and that there were special circumstances applicable to this property because of the two frontages on a corner lot. He then moved for approval of this sign exception. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 12 UNIT PROJECT AT 518-524 PRIMROSE ROAD, BY JOE DIODATI CP Monroe reviewed this application for a 12 unit residential condominium. Reference staff report for Item #4; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 3/1/82; aerial photograph of the site; "no comments" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (4/21/82) and the Parks Director (3/31/82); April 26, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; 3/9/82 memo from the City Attorney; May 4, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; and plans date stamped April 15, 1982. CP discussed details of the proposed design, staff review, code requirements. Approval was recommended with three conditions as listed in the staff report. The applicant, Joe Diodati, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harvey noted for the record that the proposed design meets all zoning ordinance requirements and is in compliance with the open space and engineering requirements for condominium development. On that basis C. Harvey moved for approval of this condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the final working drawings for this condominium project be consistent with the plans date stamped April 15, 1982 and filed with this application; (2) that the conditions recommended in the Fire Marshal's memo of April 26, 1982 and the City Engineer's memo of May 4, 1982 be complied with; 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. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A 12 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 518-524 PRIMROSE ROAD Reference City Engineer's memo of May 4, 1982. CE Erbacher recommended approval with one condition as listed in the staff report. C. Leahy moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of the tentative and final parcel map and tentative subdivision map. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. 6. FIVE VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 5 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 701 FAIRFIELD ROAD, BY SOM & ASSOCIATES FOR WING L. MOY 6a. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ALL FENCES ON THE PROJECT TO BE SIX FEET HIGH 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FIVE UNIT PROJECT AT 701 FAIRFIELD ROAD 8. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE CP Monroe reviewed this application for a residential condominium project. Reference staff report dated 5/5/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 3/17/82; aerial photograph of the site; 5/4/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 3/30/82 memo from the Park Director; 5/30/82 memo from the City Attorney; May 4, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; April 29, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; April 26, 1982 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; March 18 and April 28, 1982 letters from Helen Som, architect for the project; letters in opposition from Colleen R. Clarke, Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1982 749 Paloma Avenue and Rev. Stefan Pavlenko, Rector, Church of All Russian Saints, 744 E1 Camino Real; plans date stamped April 21, 1982 and marked "revised". CP discussed details of the proposed design and the lot itself, code requirements, staff comments, applicant's justification for the variances and later request for six foot fences; Planning staff concerns and the need for findings of fact to approve the variances and the fence exception. Staff recommended denial; if approved, four conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report. Helen Som, architect representing the applicant, discussed the proposed design, visitor and curbside parking, the requested fence exception, the trend to compact cars, landscaping provided and contacts with city staff members. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Gene Satrap, 359 Franklin Street, San Mateo, on behalf of the congregation of the Church of All Russian Saints, many of whom were present in the audience. Concerns: impact on adjacent properties, particularly the church and the school; approval of the variances would intrude on the property rights and/or expansion of the church; fire access; aesthetics in relation to the church; parking and traffic impacts; public safety; the six foot fence would be a visual and vehicular hazard; protection of street trees; possible problems if the units were not owner occupied; safety of the public during construction at this difficult site. He circulated a photograph of the church with an overlay indicating how it might be impacted by the proposed development. Rev. Stefan Pavlenko, Rector of the church presented a petition in opposition signed by 187 "parishioners, citizens of Burlingame and supporters of the Church of All Russian Saints." He referred to his May 5, 1982.letter addressing adverse impacts which would arise due to the number and complexity of variances requested, particularly the impact on the architectural beauty of the church. Mark Miller, 801 Fairfield Road also spoke in opposition, noting the parking congestion already present in the area. For the record a letter in opposition from Martha Rosman, 215 Burlingame Avenue was noted. This letter pointed out parking/traffic problems and the adverse effect the proposal would have on the adjacent Church of All Russian Saints. There were no further comments and the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Helen Som compared a development which would meet city code with the proposed development; she contended this design would be much more bulky. She did not believe the six foot fence would be a traffic hazard, discussed guest parking at curb and told of her discussions with the Park Department. Discussion: concern about considering so many variances with no apparent attempt by the applicant to comply with the city's guidelines; issues, including backing into traffic and parking, with regard to the previous application for a church on this site. Concerns: the visual impact of the six foot fence, traffic impact and safety, fire access, bulk of the building, impact on the school across the street on Fairfield. Chm. Mink noted that findings of fact must be made for approval of each variance. Commission action could be denial, denial without prejudice or approval. C. Giomi moved to deny the five variances and the fence exception (Items 6 and 6a) without prejudice. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on unanimous roll call vote. C. Graham then moved to deny the condominium permit and tentative condominium map (Items 7 and 8). Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR STUDY Page 5 May 10, 1982 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MEETING HALL AND CLASSROOMS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROLLINS AND DAVID ROADS Requests: a staff study of similar uses in the M-1 district; if this building were converted in the future to office use, would parking provided be to code requirements?; information on hours of operation for the training program and public meeting uses; will the meeting hall be leased for functions other than union meetings?; will there be exterior lighting?; is there parking in the front setback?; height of retaining wall in parking lot area. Item set for hearing May 24, 1982. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A RETAIL/SERVICE USE IN A PORTION OF A BUILDING IN SUB -AREA D OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT, AT 212 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Set for hearing May 24, 1982. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CLASSES TO BE CONDUCTED AFTER REGULAR WORKING HOURS AT 329 PRIMROSE ROAD IN SUB -AREA A OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT Set for hearing May 24, 1982. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council action at its May 3 and May 5, 1982 meetings. May 3 - Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of variance at 958 Laguna Avenue was continued to the Council's June 21, 1982 meeting at the applicant's request. Council also required the applicant place a ,construction fence around the project and do structural work to make the site seismically safe, all of this to be completed within one week. - Commission's approval of extension of the tentative map for 345 Lorton (office condominiums) stipulated that the building permit be filed prior to May 4, 1982. This has been done and the extension was granted. May 5 - Council continued its hearing on the Marriott Hotel project to May 12. The public hearing has been closed; Council determination and action will occur May 12. At its May 17 meeting Council will consider traffic allocation for the BayBreeze and Legaspi Plaza projects. Chm. Mink asked staff to review status of the permit for the structure adjacent to the BayBreeze project. Guest Parking Policy Reference staff memo with attachments: present Commission policy and survey of parking requirements for 81 cities in Southern and Northern California. Following discussion Commission consensus included an agreement that 20 percent of the required parking for all condominium projects be designated for guest parking. Location of parking within or outside of the security gate was discussed. Staff should prepare a draft policy. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Findings for Fence and Sign Exceptions Page 6 May 10, 1982 Commission acknowledged City Planner's staff memos discussing the code requirements and attaching examples of each type of Exception. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - April 28, 1982 letter to Commission from M. C. Ross, Claymore Investment Co., re: mixed commercial/residential use and his proposed project at 1800 El Camino Real. - May 4, 1982 letter from George L. Sinclair and Robert Y. Sauvageau, Panko/Sinclair Associates Inc., re: mixed use designation and their project at 211 Myrtle Road. Commission discussed Council's denial of the proposed general plan amendment for mixed use land designation and its direction to the Commission to study and recommend changes to the zoning ordinance to clarify inclusive districts. Staff will inventory all C-1 and C-2 districts addressing: intensity of use, expected demand for uses allowed in these districts and the future needs of the city for land so zoned. Following the study Commission would again consider a general plan amendment for mixed use. This process was estimated to take approximately one year. Commission directed staff to respond to the letters from Panko/Sinclair and Claymore Investment Co. an.1ni 1RNMCNT The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary