HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.07.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 9, 1984
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, July 9, 1984 at 7:30
P.M.
R M.T. C A T.T.
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs,
Leahy, Schwalm
Absent: Commissioner Taylor (excused)
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F.
Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the June 25, 1984 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW A BEDROOM ADDITION AT 909 ROSE COURT,
ZONED R-1, BY RICHARD AND JUDY JOHNSON
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 396 SF addition to a single
family home which does not provide 2 off-street parking spaces or
maintain a 15' rear yard setback. Reference staff report, 7/9/84;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/11/84; letter from
the applicants, June 11, 1984; "no requirements/comments" memos from
staff: Fire Marshal (6/18/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/18/84) and
City Engineer (6/18/84); aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed
June 29, 1984; and plans date stamped June 11, 1984. CP discussed
details of the request, code requirements, staff reivew, applicants'
justification for variance. One condition was suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants were present.
There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in the placement
of this house on an odd shaped corner lot, that to construct the
addition at any other location would be a hardship upon the
applicants, that it would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare and would not be injurious to the neighbors, it
would improve the housing stock of the city, and that it would not
adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Jacobs
moved for approval of this variance application with the following
condition: (1) that the project as -built be consistent with the plans
submitted and date stamped June 11, 1984. Second C. Schwalm.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
Discussion on the motion: do not find applicants' justification for
the variance adequate, economics or an expected addition to the family
are not acceptable findings; findings must address characteristics of
the property itself, C. Jacobs' findings do so.
Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8' FENCE AT
1457 BELLEVUE AVENUE, UNIT #3, BY DALE MC CLANAHAN
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow an 8' wooden fence, exceeding
the 6' height limit, around the patio area of her condominium unit.
Reference staff report, 7/9/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 5/30/84; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (6/25/84),
City Engineer (6/11/84) and Fire Marshal (6/12/84); applicant's
letter, May 29, 1984; site plan date stamped May 30, 1984; letter from
Philip German, Architectural Control Committee, May 29, 1984; aerial
photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed June 29, 1984; and plans date
stamped May 30, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff
review, applicant's justification for the exception, letter in support
from Philip German. Two conditions were suggested for review at the
public hearing.
Discussion: exact location of the proposed fence; private and common
open area; CBI's requirement that the fence not become a part of the
exterior wall of the building. Chm. Graham opened the public
hearing. Robert Steinwedell, applicant's architect, stated it was a
minor technicality that this is a property line fence, it will be
attached to the existing wrought iron patio railing which marks the
property line of the applicant's unit; it will not interfere with
anyone and is desirable and necessary for the applicant. There were
no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Secy. Giomi noted letter from the applicant dated July 5, 1984
indicating support of her proposal by Mr. and Mrs. Paul S. Francis and
Mrs. Iona Gluck, residents of this condominium. Letter in opposition
dated July 5, 1984 was received from Mrs. Janis Ruth Paslin, 1435
Bellevue Avenue, #108.
C. Jacobs found the applicant's request a reasonable one in that her
property abuts open space and is adjacent to a commercial structure,
that the fence would provide privacy, little opposition has been
received. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this fence exception with
the following conditions: (1) that the fence be built as shown in the
plans submitted and date stamped May 30, 1984; and 1:2) that the fence
be maintained by the property owner in a safe condition.
Comment on the motion: question whether latticework would provide
privacy the applicant is seeking; any structure behind this
condominium would be a problem; the proposal will not impact the
neighborhood; safety might be improved by lighting that area.
Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
3. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF TWO 1 -BEDROOM APARTMENTS
OVER AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 112 ANITA ROAD, BY
MR. AND MRS. NORMAN KARASICK
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a variance from parking
standards and a variance for expanding the floor area of a
nonconforming structure. Reference staff report, 7/9/84; Project
Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/31/84; Negative Declaration
ND -362P posted June 29, 1984; applicant's justification for variance,
May 29, 1984; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (6/18/84), Fire
Marshal (6/12/84), City Engineer (6/11/84); aerial photograph; site
drawing date stamped May 31, 1984; Notice of Hearing mailed June 29,
1984; and plans date stamped June 13, 1984. CP discussed details of
the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's
justification for variance; Planning staff comment. Two conditions
were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission comment: location of existing and proposed parking,
accessibility of the parking stalls, applicant will be required to
bring the existing single family structure up to current UBC
standards.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Norman Karasick, applicant,
commented on his application: 57% of the parking will be covered;
addition would not impact Washington School, residents and their cars
are gone during the workday; this past weekend there were never less
than 10 spaces available on the street in that block, parking also
available on Bayswater and to the south bordering Putnam Buick; do not
feel residents cause traffic congestion or impact parking; addition
would be an architectural improvement to the present structure; will
add required parking for the new units; this is a residential building
in a residential district, it is not a nonconforming use; do not wish
to cover the entire property, would like to leave as much open as
possible, seems more desirable to look down on parked cars than on a
garage roof. Secy. Giomi read letter in opposition dated July 2,
1984 from William and Mabel Watts, owners of the property at 116 and
118 Anita Road. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Discussion: all improvements necessary to bring the structure up to
UBC standards will be made; landscaped area will be less;
nonconforming use has been defined to include parking as a part of the
use on the site; applicant must provide parking for the new units to
current code; purpose of requiring 80% of the off-street parking to be
covered.
C. Leahy commented that parking will be three spaces short whether the
addition is made or not; it would add moderate income housing; the
building in front would be upgraded and brought up -to code; but he
could find no exceptional circumstances to support granting a variance
for the uncovered parking. C. Leahy moved for denial of the variance
to required parking standards. Second C. Schwalm. Motion approved on
a 6-0 roll call vote.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
Further comment: an alternative would be to construct a new building
on the site which meets code; do not have a problem granting a
variance to a nonconforming use if the footprint or square footage do
not change, but do have a concern about creating a new living area by
adding on; can find no hardship in this case.
C. Giomi moved to deny the variance for an addition to the
nonconforming structure; second C. Garcia. Motion approved on a 5-1
roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING
AT 40 EDWARDS COURT AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING,
ZONED M-1, BY NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC.
CP Monroe reviewed this request to add 1,600 SF of office space and to
allow employee parking on a nearby parcel. Reference staff report,
7/9/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/30/84;
National Car Rental letter with attachments dated May 29, 1984; staff
review: Chief Building Inspector (6/11/84), City Engineer (6/11/84)
and Fire Marshal (6/12/84); aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing
mailed June 29, 1984; 1972 and 1977 Special Permit applications with
attachments; and plans date stamped May 30, 1984. CP discussed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, Planning
staff comment. Two conditions were suggested for consideration of the
use permit and one condition for the variance.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Frank Aguon, CSB Construction
(applicant's representative) was present. There were no comments in
favor. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue, representing the owners of
property at 1450 Rollins Road, spoke in opposition to both the special
permit and the parking variance: concern about accidents at Edwards
Court and Rollins Road and dangerous conditions caused by drivers of
National's rental cars. There were no further audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: are there any other lots in the city which
support each other in this manner; find no problem with the proposal
if staff's suggested conditions are included; concern about setting a
precedent if employee parking is allowed on a separate parcel, site
should support its project; possibility of providing all the parking
at 40 Edwards Court should the variance be denied; not concerned about
use of two nearby parcels if they are in the same ownership and action
is adequately conditioned should the 75 Edwards Court parcel be sold;
disposition of the variance if one or both properties were sold.
Applicant's representative advised there would not be much hardship
for all employees to park at 40 Edwards Court, the only hardship would
be relocation of cars and installation of some additional fencing. It
was determined there are presently 33 employees at 40 Edwards Court
with an expectation of four more in two years time.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit to allow a 1,600 SF
office addition at 40 Edwards Court with the following conditions:
(1) that the new addition and remodeling be consistent with the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 30, 1984;
and (2) that 12 parking spaces be provided on the 40 Edwards Court
site for employees and customers and another 24 parking spaces be
provided for employees on the 75 Edwards Court site unless the
75 Edwards Court site is sold, then 24 employee parking spaces,
exclusively designated for employee use, must be provided on the
40 Edwards Court site. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0
roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Jacobs, in collaboration with the City Planner, found there were
exceptional circumstances in this unique situation with use of two
sites near each other but not adjoining; that the two properties can
be related through a legal tie so a nonconforming parking situation
for the office would not be created in the future; that the parcel
with the office is capable of absorbing the parking if the two lots
are severed; that the variance would be necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a property right of the owners in that it would save
them the expense of having to give up some of their existing auto
storage in exchange for employee parking; and that ,since the item is
tied to providing parking on the 40 Edwards Court site there would not
be an impact on the zoning plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for
approval of the parking variance with the following condition:
(1) that should the property at 75 Edwards Court ever be sold,
employee parking to meet current city code requirements for any
development in use on the 40 Edwards Court site must be provided and
designated on the 40 Edwards Court site. Second C. Schwalm; motion
defeated on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giom:i, Leahy and Graham
dissenting, C. Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON STAFF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO LAND
USE ELEMENT TO CLARIFY LAND USE POLICY IMPLEMEN`.PATION IN 14 AREAS,
MAY 1984
CP Monroe reviewed her staff report (7/9/84, Item #15, with
attachments). Commission review and recommendation to City Council
was requested on the 14 areas of the city identified by staff; state
law now requires that the land use designation of the general plan be
consistent with the zoning. Notice of this hearing was placed in a
newspaper of general circulation and all adjacent property owners have
been noticed.
Chm., Graham opened the public hearing. Audience comments were
requested on each of the 14 items. CP advised that action on Item #6
(south side of Carmelita between E1 Camino and Chula Vista) must be
delayed to the meeting of July 23 in order to allow proper noticing
procedures. A resident in the area of Laurel between Park and Oak
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
Grove (Item #8) expressed a desire that this area remain R-2, medium
density residential. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue, referred to the
city's ordinance regulating in-law units; CA advised none of these
changes would affect the second unit prohibition in the R-1 zone.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed. -
Commission discussion: Items 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 were
called out by Commissioners for further discussion this evening.
General comment: City Council and citizens of Burlingame have
encouraged low density in the past, agree with this policy; would be
against recommending most of the items which increase the density but
cannot vote that way in fairness to long time property owners; not all
the items increase the density, would not be encouraging unlimited
growth, just accommodating what is now there.
C. Giomi moved to recommend the following general plan amendment
actions to the City Council: (1.) east side of Skyline between
Trousdale and Frontera, change land use designation to low density
residential; (2.) north side of Sequoia between Trousdale and Clarice,
change land use designation to medium high density residential;
(3.) southeast corner of Capuchino at Lincoln, change land use
designation to medium high density; (8.) east side of Laurel between
Park and Oak Grove, change land use designation to medium density
residential; (9.) Oak Grove frontage between Linden and California,
change land use designation to shopping and service commercial;
(14.) northwest corner of Myrtle and Burlingame Avenue, change land
use designation to medium high density residential. Motion approved
on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Taylor absent. Commission questioned
ability of the streets to handle these changes in land use; staff
advised Public Works Department has said no roads would cease to
function with full buildout at the designed density; the subject areas
have been used to the zoned use and these land use changes are
consistent with the zoning.
(4.) rear of Broadway commercial frontage between California and E1
Camino Real, change land use designation to medium high density
residential.
Staff noted on either side of Broadway in the :rear sites were
designated commercial since it was expected the Broadway commercial
area would expand; these expectations did not materialize due to the
growth of shopping centers; the sites at the rear of Broadway have
been developed in R-3 uses and are zoned R-3. Comment: some of this
area at the rear consists of more than one lot; if this area were
rezoned to C-1, consistent with the land use designation, residential
would be allowed; concern about the sewer system with high density
uses, staff advised there would be no problem; concern about locking
in Broadway if in the future expansion of this commercial area became
desirable. C. Garcia moved to recommend to City Council a change in
the land use designation to medium high density residential. Motion
approved on a 5-1 voice vote, C. Giomi dissenting, C. Taylor absent.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
(5.) frontage on California between Juanita and Rhinette, change land
use designation to service and special sales.
Comment: a good idea; train stops nearby; C-2 uses have worked
well in this area. C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council a
change in the land use designation to service and special sales.
Motion approved on a 4-2 voice vote, Cers Garcia and Schwalm
dissenting, C. Taylor absent.
(7.) Chula Vista frontage between Carmelita and Majilla to property
fronting on Edgehill north side, change land use designation to medium
high density residential.
Comment: counted 15 R-1 and 7 multiple family in this area; would
like more buffer between R-1 and California Drive; would prefer
rezoning to R-2. Motion to recommend to the City Council a change in
the land use designation to medium high density residential was
approved on a 4-2 voice vote, Cers Giomi and Schwalm dissenting, C.
Taylor absent.
(10.) Sanchez between Capuchino and E1 Camino Real, change land use
designation to medium density residential.
Comment: six lots in R-1 use; propose rezone to R-1. Motion to
recommend to City Council a change in the land use designation to
medium density residential was defeated on a 5-1 roll call vote, C.
Leahy dissenting, C. Taylor absent.
(11.) west side of San Mateo Avenue north of Oak Grove, change land
use designation to medium high density residential.
Comment: would like to see the R-3 uses remain and the commercial
uses stay commercial in this area; rezone to match the existing uses
on these properties. C. Giomi moved to recommend to the City Council
that the land use designation be changed to medium high density
residential for the properties in this area currently in multifamily
use but not for those properties currently in commercial use. Second
C. Garcia; motion approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Taylor absent.
(12.) southern half of frontage on Primrose, west side, between
Howard and Bayswater, change land use designation to medium high
density residential.
Comment: city policy has been to keep E1 Camino residential; this
area is near a school and playground, critical intersection used by
school children; possibility of mixed use; feel residential would
alleviate traffic congestion since new condominiums provide parking.
Motion to recommend to the City Council that the land use designation
be changed to medium high density residential was approved on a 6-0
voice vote, C. Taylor absent.
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
(13.) west side of Highland between Howard and Peninsula, change land
use designation to high density residential.
Comment: good area for vertical mixed use; create buffer zone of
quiet commercial; prefer retaining R-4, it is developed residential.
Motion to recommend to City Council a change in the land use -
designation to high density residential was approved 4-2 on voice
vote, Cers Graham and Schwalm dissenting, C. Taylor absent.
(15.) Rollins Road frontage between Bloomfield and Victoria, change
land use designation to medium high density residential.
Comment: would prefer rezone to R-2 in this area, there are many
properties developed in R-2 use and they have been upgraded; would not
like to have high density residential adjacent to R-1; might have more
well constructed, upgraded buildings with an R-3 use. Motion to
recommend to the City Council a change in the land use designation to
medium high density residential was defeated on a 2-4 roll call vote,
Cers Garcia, Giomi, Schwalm and Graham dissenting, C. Taylor absent.
- Land use designation and zoning for the California Drive frontage
from Broadway to Oak Grove.
Commission consensus was to make no recommendation on this item.
- Change land use designation from high density residential to service
and special sales on California Drive frontage between Bellevue and
Floribunda; application by Pierre Derouineau, 421 California Drive.
Comment: would prefer to consider mixed use in this area; feel
California Drive is a C-2 street; at the public hearing for this item
property owners appeared to prefer retaining the same uses allowed by
zoning , C-2 allows auto repair, condominiums are located behind one
portion of the area, would C-2 uses be appropriate, feel area is a
good location for housing.
Motion to recommend to the City Council a change in land use
designation from high density residential to service and special sales
commercial received a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi and
Jacobs dissenting, C. Taylor absent. According to Commission rules a
tie vote is a denial.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
6. PARKING VARIANCE - 1127 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
Requests: clarify drainage; access to the construction area during
construction; a more complete letter from the applicant addressing the
four findings necessary for variance approval. Item set for hearing
July 23, 1984.
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984
7. SIGN EXCEPTION - 198 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Requests: maximum height of other signs on the site; maximum height of
signs on adjacent properties; summary table of existing signage; more
complete letter addressing the items necessary for approval of a sign
exception. Item set for hearing July 23, 1984.
8. SIGN EXCEPTION - 533 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Request: is applicant using signage for advertising or to let people
know where they are located? Item set for hearing July 27, 1984.
9. SIGN EXCEPTION - 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Request: is this sign for advertising purposes or necessary for people
to find GTE Sprint's place of business? Item set for hearing July 23,
1984.
OTHER ITEMS
10. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF THE SECURITY GATE SHOWN ON
APPROVED PLANS FOR THE 18 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE
CP reviewed the developer's request to eliminate the security gate and
Planning Commission/City Council actions denying his previous request
to relocate the gate from the middle to the front of the garage.
There was some Commission concern expressed; staff referred to
Commission policy of providing some parking accessible for guests.
Commission acknowledged that the blue sheet in the Building Department
files by Planning staff, noting that "no security gate be installed
unless at midpoint of the garage", was adequate.
11. REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLAN CHANGES TO A 15 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM AT 30 LORTON AVENUE
CP reviewed the architect's request to redesign the garage level to
conform with the structural walls of the first floor instead of going
to property line. Commission acknowledged the change.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its July 2, 1984 regular
meeting.
It was suggested that the City Planner and City Attorney research
minor modification authority for the Planner.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary