Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.02.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, February 22, 1982 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Harvey, Jacobs, 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 February 8, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME AT 1145 OXFORD ROAD, BY STEVE RYNERSON FOR MRS. JOHN FANNING CP Monroe reviewed this application to allow an addition which would extend 7 feet into the required 15 foot rear yard and to allow 2 tandem rather than two side by side parking stalls as required by code. Reference staff report dated 2/16/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/8/82; aerial photograph; 1/11 and 2/4/82 memos from the Fire Marshal; 2/4/82 memo from the City Engineer; 2/8/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; January 28, 1982 letter from Stephen M. Rynerson; February 1, 1982 letter in support from Mr. and Mrs. Birch, 1137 Oxford Road; and plans date stamped February 1, 1982. CP discussed code requirements, staff comments, applicant's justifi- cation for the variance. If approved, one condition was recommended as listed in the staff report. Steve Rynerson, architect representing the property owner, was present. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following spoke in opposition: Reba Phillips, 1152 Oxford Road; Margaret Lake, 1148 Oxford Road; Jeanne Berg, 1140 Cambridge Road; Anna Alexander, 1504 Highway Road. Concerns: loss of privacy by adjacent neighbors, possibility of additional on -street parking, preservation of the character and aesthetics of this area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Cistulli could not find a present hardship in that the applicant was asking for a variance for a future use. C. Harvey was concerned about the visual impact of the addition on the existing streetscape and on the neighbors. C. Mink addressed the legal requirements for a variance and found there were exceptional circumstances in the placement of this house on this lot and i.n the original establishment of the front setbacks on the street; that the extra space would preserve a property right of the applicant so that she can continue to live in her home with help in maintaining the property; that the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the city; and that it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 22, 1982 Based on these findings of fact, C. Mink then moved for approval of this variance with the following condition: that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 12, 1982 be met. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Jacobs dissenting, C. Garcia abstaining. (C. Harvey commented on his "yes" vote: that he was not in favor of architectural review and felt C. Mink's findings were a fair presentation.) Appeal procedures were advised. 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE, BY GILCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE ABOVE CONDOMINIUM WHICH DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED REAR AND SIDE YARD DIMENSIONS 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT CP Monroe reviewed this application for an 18 unit, 34 foot high residential condominium. Reference staff report dated 2/16/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/2/81; aerial photograph; 1/22/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; November 24 and December 28, 1981 memos from the Fire Marshal; February 10, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; February 1, 1982 memo from the Director of Parks; and plans date stamped February 3, 1982. CP discussed details of the proposal, staff comments, and code requirements. If the variance were approved, two conditions were recommended in the staff report. Three conditions were suggested for approval of the condominium permit. Commission discussion: the design of the underground parking, topography of this corner lot. Dan Archer, architect, San Francisco discussed the two variances, noting consideration of alternate designs, the ground water problem, the ramp design, open space requirements and open space provided by setbacks. Further discussion: security gate, convenience of guest parking, the Engineer's requirements that the box culvert be relocated by the developer and required water main improvements in E1 Camino Real, required setbacks on Sherman and El Camino, possibility of redesign with fewer units. Mr. Archer confirmed that the basis of the variance was because of the water table and the steepness of the driveway into the parking area. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following spoke: Robert E. Westphal, president of the congregation of Trinity Lutheran Church, 1245 E1 Camino Real: concern about traffic and parking; Bill Baner, 1262 Balboa Avenue: density is too high for this particular lot, concern about additional parking problems in the area; Ario Gregori, 1258 Balboa Avenue: owns property behind the easement, project would be encroaching on existing open space, concern about on -street parking. William F. Carnein, 1265 El Camino Real: inquired about setbacks and impact on his fence and the alley. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion and comments: responsibility for the cost of water main improvements; were the plans for relocating the culvert acceptable; most lots in the city available for multi -family development have a water table problem; concern about mounding and landscaping in the front setback area; concern about allowing this project without the common open space required by the condominium guidelines; think the problems could be solved with redesign. There was a consensus that three of the legal requirements for variance approval had not been met, although the project was located in the correct zoning district of the city. Zev Ben -Simon, the developer, was present and discussed his reasons for the present design: an enclosed, secured garage rather than an open "pit" type would be a benefit to the buyers and aesthetics of the area; landscaping could mitigate the Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 impact on adjacent properties; the water problems could be mitigated by a higher garage. He stated the plans would meet private open space requirements, and did not feel people would use common open space areas on E1 Camino because of the noise and exposure. C. Mink moved to deny the variance (Item #3) for this project which does not maintain required rear and side yard dimensions and does not contain the required common open area. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Mink then moved to deny Item #2, the condominium permit, and Item #4 the tentative and final parcel map and tentative subdivision map. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 9 UNIT PROJECT AT 616 ANSEL AVENUE TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF THE REAR YARD SPA TO THE THIRD FLOOR CP Monroe reviewed this request to relocate the spa to the roof area. Reference staff report dated 2/27/82; February 16, 1982 letter from Edward Ausiello, Environmental Planning & Project Management; original Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 5/28/80; aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped February 16, 1982 with comments by the Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal. CP discussed landscaping and open space provisions of the approved plans; the applicant's present request and staff comments. If approved, two conditions were recommended as listed in the staff report, including the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal as noted on the plans. Commission's past actions in not counting roof top areas as common open space were noted; the applicant's present proposal does not include the spa in common area. Mike Monte, Environmental Planning & Project Management discussed the reasons for the applicant's request: a more useable, private and enjoyable area for the tenants, increased privacy for users since at grade it becomes too visible. He also advised of discussions with the Building Department and work to date upon the advice of a structural engineer. During discussion Commission requested a more complete and detailed application, i.e., specifics regarding ingress/egress and fire escapes; water drainage; steps to prevent deterioration of the roof; plans to deal with the noise impact on the neighborhood; fencing provisions; lighting; delineation of the area to be used; construction details of the spa itself. Item continued to the next meeting if a complete application has been received by staff. STUDY ITEM 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUCKS TO PARK ON UNCLASSIFIED CITY AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC PROPERTY, BY STAR EXCAVATION Commission requests: number and type of vehicles to be parked on the site; how will these vehicles be moved?; at what hours will the trucks enter and leave the premises?; trip ends per day; movements on weekends; what fencing will be used?; how long does Star expect to be using this site?; how will the vehicles enter and leave through this small driveway? Item set for hearing at the next meeting if all information is received by staff. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 CITY PLANNER REPORT 7. CP Monroe advised of City Council hearings on March 1: - Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-56P, 1800 El Camino Real - Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Fence Exception, 1272 Oak Grove Avenue - Allocation of P.M. peak hour traffic in Anza Area 8. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONSIDERATION Reference staff report dated 2/17/82 with attached maps of the two areas under discussion. CP discussed land use in these areas and proposed wording for a new land use designation for the general plan. Commission comments were requested on the desired densities of mixed use, in separate structures or within one structure, and the purpose of the land use designation. Discussion: consider that parking determines the density; with residential and commercial in one structure, consider a sliding scale on total parking; include a clear definition of "transitional" land use (transitional in space, not in time); consider housing for the elderly in this type of zone. Staff will draft a general plan amendment for Commission consideration at a future meeting. 9. REVIEW OF ABAG REGIONAL HOUSING ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY Reference staff memo dated 2/17/82 and CP's previous memo discussing this subject. CP found the methodology and formula developed by ABAG were responsive to the circumstances of Burlingame but that ABAG's vacancy rate figure was not; the State Department of Finance estimate of vacancy rate appears more consistent with the existing trend in the city. CP requested Commission recommend to the City Council use of this alternative vacancy rate figure, and that a resolution be adopted and sent to ABAG to this effect. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT February 13, 1982 letter from Mr. and Mrs. George Nagata, 1426 Capuchino Avenue expressing opposition to the proposed Marriott hotel. AD.1011RNMFNT The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Joseph E. Harvey Secretary