Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.02.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, February 27, 1984 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES The minutes of the February 14, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted with the following correction: Item #7, page 7, third paragraph to read: "C. Taylor moved that this special permit be denied. Second C. Giomi; following roll call, vote was 3-3, Cers Garcia, Leahy and Schwalm dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Application was denied. Appeal procedures were advised." AGENDA Order of the agenda unanimously approved; Item #4, Sign Exception, 1109 Burlingame Avenue withdrawn by the applicant. The Chair recognized in the audience C. Giomi's niece, Nannette Begovich. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE AT 232 STANLEY ROAD, BY PAUL HACKLEMAN AND REBECCA HASELEU CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 1' side yard in order to replace the existing garage and storage shed. Reference staff report dated 2/22/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/27/84; January 24, 1984 letter from the applicants; staff review: City Engineer (2/21/84) and Fire Marshal (2/15/84); aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped January 27, 1984. CP discussed details of the application, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, Planning staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Rebecca Haseleu, applicant, was present. In further justification of her variance she noted there is an oil pit in the old existing garage which she wanted to remove because she felt it was a hazard to the children; the applicants do not wish to relocate the garage to the backyard as they would lose more yard space; there is 3'-10" between the house and garage at present, new garage would be basically in the same location it is now. CE's requirement for a property line survey if the new garage were moved or relocated was discussed. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1984 Commission discussion: lot slopes to the rear, drainage to the street will be required; applicant found staff's suggested conditions acceptable; possibility of moving the garage forward and attaching it to the house, staff advised this approach was unacceptable. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances since the house and garage were sited prior to the present ordinance; that the variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners, would not want to deny them the backyard for use by their children; that it would not be detrimental to the neighbors, this request is merely to replace an existing structure; and it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Schwalm moved to grant this variance application with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of February 21, 1984 and the Fire Marshal's memo of February 15, 1984 be met; (2) that a minimum distance of 4' be maintained between the new garage and the existing residential structure; and (3) that the project as -built be consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped January 27, 1984. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE TOP 3' OF A SUB -GRADE GARAGE STRUCTURE TO EXTEND INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD AREAS AT 1221 OAK GROVE, BY DOMINION-STOPPA FOR SARTI & SARTI, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this request for variance to the side and rear yard setbacks in order to raise the garage floor slab of the previously approved nine unit residential condominium. Reference staff report dated 2/21/84; February 14, 1984 study meeting minutes; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/18/84; Negative Declaration ND -350P posted February 17, 1984; applicant's justification for variance dated January 17, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (1/26/84) and City Engineer (1/23/84); aerial photograph of the site; cross section diagram of approved plan and proposed change; and plans date stamped January 18, 1984. CP discussed details of the proposal, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, code requirements. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: landscaping and common open space provided, staff advised change would not affect the amount of open space and landscaping; would this change affect lot coverage and require a variance? Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Ed Dominion, civil engineer and applicant, discussed the benefits of the proposal and referred to the applicants' letter in support of the variance request (1/17/84); he felt there would be little effect on adjacent property owners. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: can find nothing exceptional in this site, no different from other developments in the area as far as flooding is concerned; concern this might set a precedent of increasing size of underground garages and might facilitate larger number of units, don't see any hardship except for the applicant's desire; if can prove adjoining property not affected to any great extent, difficult to deny the variance; object to this variance request after the plans have been approved by Commission, a sump pump would take care of any problems; height of pedestrian access ramp has been raised from 9.4' to 10.4' thus increasing the slope. C. Giomi found no exceptional circumstances applicable to this property and moved for denial of the variance. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: would prefer this application be continued until more detailed plans are received, what is lot coverage Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 27, 1984 and what is common open space area, feel proposal is not ready for consideration. Following roll call, motion to deny the variance passed on a 4-3 vote, Cers Cistulli, Schwalm and Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AT 1199 BROADWAY, BY GARBIS BEZDJIAN CP Monroe reviewed this request to build a 6,570 SF commercial building with only eight on-site parking spaces rather than 17 as required by code. Reference staff report dated 2/21/84; February 14, 1984 study meeting minutes; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/6/84; Negative Declaration ND -351P posted February 17, 1984; applicant's justification for variance (November 17, 1980 submitted with previous project) date stamped January 13, 1984; staff review: City Engineer (2/2/84) and Fire Marshal (1/26/84); aerial photograph of the site; documents from previous appli- cations for this site in 1983 and 1981; and plans date stamped January 6, 1984. CP discussed details of the application, history of projects proposed for this site and fact that this proposal was the same as the 1981 proposal, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, study meeting questions, code requirements. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussed on -street parking removed by this application and by a previous gas station use, public utility easement, encroachment permit. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, discussed the mixed use project approved in 1981, his inability to proceed with that development, the 7-11 store proposal for the site which was denied by the city in 1983, and his present proposal. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of this application: Albert Kapkin, 110 Park Road; John Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue; Clyde Williams, 110 Park Road; H. A. Clover, 2985 Summit Drive. Their comments: applicant is only asking for what was approved in 1981 prior to the 7-11 store proposal which was denied; the lot is flooded in winter, it is an eyesore, city is losing sales tax money, proposal has potential for providing the types of stores needed on Broadway; applicant should be able to get a return on his investment in this property, believe he would build a good project and keep it well maintained; trade and shop in Burlingame, would like to see improvements made in the community, sorry to see stores leave, this vacant lot is an eyesore, support this proposal. There were no further comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition: Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue; Gene Mitchell, 10 Crystal Terrace. Their comments: think project is a good one, but have concern for pedestrian safety in the alley, suggest if approved a 5' pedestrian walkway along the 1169 Broadway building be required; in opposition because of traffic congestion on Broadway, if the project provided public parking would be in favor; if the city is going to solve the traffic problem, parking regulations should be followed; if this application is granted the city will receive similar requests and the traffic problem will get worse. In rebuttal the applicant stated his proposal provides one-half the required parking; he would not be bringing new people to the Broadway area, customers would be people who come to Broadway regularly. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/concerns: the project will create eight parking stalls but they are not public parking, there is employee parking available within a block of the site; concerned about traffic onto and off this site and opposed to losing two to four public spaces on the street by curb cuts; considering the traffic involved with this proposal and the curb cuts, would rather grant a total variance to the site; Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1984 have difficulty finding exceptional circumstances with this particular property, could set a precedent, a 50% variance is a great deal of parking but the city has a good parking ordinance and Commission should follow it; Burlingame Avenue has parking exception for first floor retail, believe retail uses are entitled to a variance; if trash receptacle is provided, one parking space would be eliminated; regarding setting a precedent, Commission considers each project on its own merit; this lot is substandard in some respects but Commission should balance concerns against the use to which the lot could be put; this site should be developed and feel this is a good proposal; this is not a new proposal, has been approved previously, think a 5' walkway a good idea, Broadway merchants have never shown leadership in starting a parking district, this developer will provide approximately one-half the parking required, in favor of the project; the lot may be an eyesore but Broadway is a complex street, very congested, feel the variance will set a precedent, applicant should develop the lot in a manner that provides the required parking. C. Taylor moved that this application for a parking variance to allow a 6,570 SF commercial structure at 1199 Broadway with eight on-site parking spaces rather than the 17 as required be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the project be built according to the plans submitted and date stamped January 6, 1984; (2) that the project receive an encroachment permit; (3) that the final plans for the project meet all the codes and standards of the City of Burlingame; (4) that an enclosed trash receptacle, accessible to BFI, be provided and maintained on site; (5) that if the parking lot is to be closed off to the public use at a given hour in the evening, the parking lot lights also be turned off at that time to reduce the impact on the adjacent residential use; (6) that a six foot fence or wall be provided on property line between the project site and the adjacent property facing on Laguna; (7) that the final landscape plans be approved by the Parks Department; (8) that a use permit be required from the Planning Commission for all proposed tenants; and (9) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of February 2, 1984 be met. Addressing findings necessary for variance approval, C. Taylor incorporated into the record November 17, 1980 letter from David C. Carr (date stamped January 13, 1984) setting forth exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property, that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and that the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the comprehen- sive zoning plan of the city. Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: would like to see the parking on site be available to the public, employees in these shops to find parking in the long term parking lots nearby. A further comment: opening these spaces to the public with the greater amount of turnover will generate conflict with traffic on Broadway. Following roll call, motion approved on a 4-3 vote, Cers Cistulli, Garcia and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION - AWNING SIGN AT 1109 BURLINGAME AVENUE - FAMOUS AMOS COOKIES Withdrawn by the applicant. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1984 ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. TWO VARIANCES - 1466 BELLEVUE AVENUE - BY ROBISON CONSTRUCTION FOR CAROLYN MEISWINKEL Plans not acceptable to Commission. Request dimensioned plans, detailed parking plan, identification of the rooms in the new units, location of the front entrance. Study item continued until a better set of plans is received. 6. VARIANCE TO CREATE A NEW LOT AT 1133 PALM DRIVE - BY ERICH BREMER 7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP - 1133 PALM DRIVE Requests: size, front setbacks, comparative lot coverage of adjacent lots; could lot be made wider? clarify street name on which the new lot will front. Items set for hearing March 12, 1984. 8. REZONE OF A 3.4 ACRE PARCEL AT 3155 FRONTERA WAY - BY D. PRINGLE FOR SIMBA GROUP 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - 3155 FRONTERA WAY Requests: letter from applicant stating he understands the fire restrictions; will elevator extend to the fourth floor? Items set for hearing March 12, 1984. 10. SIGN EXCEPTION - 321 PRIMROSE ROAD Set for hearing March 12, 1984. PLANNER'S REPORTS 11. SIGNAGE ON AWNINGS AND CANOPIES (CONTINUED FROM 2/14/84) CP Monroe reviewed responses to a questionnaire circulated by the Chamber of Commerce to merchants and property owners in the commercial areas of the city (Burlingame Avenue, Broadway and the Plaza). Karen Key, Executive Director of the Chamber, commented on these responses and noted that many people felt the Sign Code regulations for canopies were restrictive. Following discussion Commission directed staff to draft an amendment to the Sign Ordinance which would allow the following on the primary frontage: 50 SF maximum; a maximum of three signs (these could be located anywhere on site); if signage were put on the front and two ends of a canopy, this would count as three signs; retain the present height limits from grade for signs; no maximum height limit on lettering on awnings or canopies. 12. CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 21, 1984 regular meeting including requirements for attendance at Commission meetings and Commissioners' responsibilities regarding the public. an.ini 1R NMFNT The meeting adjourned at 10:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary