Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.01.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, January 11, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. Pr)T.T. rAT.T. Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Jacobs and Leahy, M i A11L Absent: Commissioner Harvey (excused) Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney; Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works MINUTES - The minutes of the December 14, 1981 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with additions and changes as follows: Under CITY PLANNER REPORT: 3 - Item #10 - Draft EIR and Permit Processing For 1800 E1 Camino Real 44 -Unit Apartment - Item #11 - Review of Recent Council Actions - Item #12 - Field Trip to Review 1981 Planning Projects ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY AT 1825 LOYOLLA DRIVE WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 20% SLOPE PERMITTED BY CODE SEC. 25.70.020-C3 DPW Kirkup reviewed this application to permit a driveway constructed for this new dwelling which maintains a 22%-25% slope rather than the maximum permitted 20%. Reference staff report dated January 6, 1982; Project Assessment and CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 12/23/81; December 24 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; December 23 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; letter date-stamped December 23 from the applicant; aerial photograph of the site,driveway profiles for applicant's site, 1821 Loyolla, and 1829 Loyolla; and plans date-stamped January 5, 1982. DPW discussed code requirements and how slope was determined. Approval was recommended for 22%-23% grade slope. CA Coleman explained that this is not a variance, but requires Planning Commission recommendation. Mark McHone, applicant and property owner, was present. There were no public comments for or against the project; however, questions were raised by two neighbors: Mr. Luther Smith of 1818 Loyolla Drive asked why the driveway at 1829 Loyolla was not removed since it was not in use and asked what the greatest slope was that was considered safe by the r Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 11, 1982 City; Mrs. Louise Knight merely wanted to confirm that drainage was not an issue in this application. Discussion by Commissioners included: why original plans could not be followed; reason why 20% slope is used as a review line. C. Graham moved to allow a 25% maximum slope on this site. Seconded by C. Mink; motion approved by unanimous roll -call vote, C. Harvey absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO A HOME AT 2810 TIBURON WAY WHICH WILL EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 40% LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED BY CODE SEC. 25.66.010. ACP Monroe reviewed this revised application to allow 42.8% lot coverage for a home at 2810 Tiburon Way. Reference staff report dated January 5; Project Application and CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 1/4/82; January 4 memo from the City Engineer; December 30 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; December 30 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; December 28 letter from Dr. and Mrs. Donald Odone; aerial photograph of the site; and plans for the addition date-stamped December 28, 1981. CP Monroe clarified Commission questions regarding specific code requirements for determination of lot coverage, multiple -unit dwellings in the R-1 district and minimum lot size. Dr. Donald Odone was present. There were no public comments in favor of the application. John Armanino, representing Vito Cipolla at 2814 Tiburon Way, expressed his client's concerns regarding view obstruction and debris from a proposed fireplace in the addition. Chm. Jacobs clarified that a gas jet would be installed in the proposed fireplace. Commission discussion included: the variation in grade between 2810 and 2814 Tiburon Way and the common fence between properties; maximum roof height of the addition will be below existing roof height; clarification of the exceptional circumstances for this application; a second story addition would be less accessible from the interior and would create an even greater view obstruction; elimination of the rear -yard decks would permit this addition without a variance but the decking is necessary to create useable area because of steep slope in the rear yard area. C. Graham moved to approve the request based on the findings that there are exceptional circumstances due to the fact that it would be unreason- able to require removal of the rear yard decks since the slope of the lot prevents access to the rear yard area by any other means, that the addition is reasonable for the further enjoyment of the applicant's property, that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties nor would it adversely affect the zoning plan of the City. Second C.'Cistulli; motion approved by unanimous roll -call vote, C. Harvey absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF OFFICE SPACE AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP Monroe reviewed this revised application to allow the expansion of office space at 800 Airport Boulevard, Four Seas Center, by 11,814 SF. Reference staff report dated January 5, 1982; Revised Project Assessment and CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 12/29/81; memo from the City UUI I I II9aII1C f I allll IllyVV111111 I JJ 1 V11 I.11 IIU I,CJ - Ua11Ua1 y 11 17UL rayC J Engineer dated January 4; December 30 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; December 30 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; November 9, 1981 Planning Commission minutes; December 14, 1981 Planning Commission minutes; November 19 memo to the City Council from the City Planner and Director of Public Works; Peak Hour traffic calculations from the Director of Public Works dated 11/19/81; and November 18 letter to the Planning Commissioners by Mrs. A. Erickson. CP reviewed applicable code requirements and dis- cussed the differences between the present plans and those previously re- viewed by the Commission.C.Graham corrected the Project Assessment to show the proposed rear yard dimension as N/A. A Special Permit is required for the additional office use on the site. The present plans meet all other zoning requirements. Mr. Ted DeWolf, representing Stanley Lo, was present. There were no comments against the application. Mr. David Keyston spoke in favor of the application but added that his main concern was that the restaurant not be converted to other uses in the future without further review by the Commission. Commission.discussion included: actual elevation of the parking slab; no parking spaces will be lost by the ramp addition; previous water and drain- age concerns have been resolved; complement to the architect for his re- sponsiveness to Commission concerns and applicant's needs; acknowledgement of earlier letter from A. Erickson regarding view across site. C. Mink moved to approve the Special Permit application with conditions listed in the Fire Marshal's memo since the present use of the site will not be changed. Seconded by C. Cistulli; approved by unanimous roll call vote, C. Harvey absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. PETITION FOR CONTINUATION OF A TEMPORARY BANKING OFFICE AT 360 PRIMROSE ROAD CP Monroe reviewed the request to allow the continued use of the temporary banking facility for Pacific Union Bank at 360 Primrose Road. Reference staff report dated January 5, 1982; December 23 letter from James Q. Hamilton of Pacific Union Bank; December 22 outline of the schedule of the new Pacific Union Bank facility on this site; December 28 letter from James Q. Hamilton; previous staff report dated 9/28/81; memo from the City Engineer dated September 22; 1981; August 24, 1981 minutes from the Planning Commission; September 10, 1981 letter from Lynn Pomeroy; August 26, 1981 letter from Roger Nye; August 11, 1981 letter from Lynn Pomeroy; December 2, 1980 action letter from the city to the applicant; November 24, 1980 Planning Commission Minutes;'September 28, 1981 planning Com- mission minutes; October 6, 1981 letter from CP Monroe to Roger Nye; December 16, 1981 letter from Zoning Aide to Roger Nye; and aerial photo- graph of the site. CP discussed code requirements. There were no comments for or against the project. Commission discussed the effect of the moratorium on this application; if the application can be handled as an amendment to the original permit; possible timing of approval of proposed Downtown Parking Ordinance and processing of the applicant's plans; possible penalties that could be required if Pacific Union Bank does not meet its deadline; reasons for the delay in remodeling; Commission's concern that Pacific Union Bank was not proceding with reason- able speed on the remodeling. C. Graham moved to approve the extension of the permit for the temporary banking facility to June 30, 1982 by which time the bank indicates it will have completed remodeling of the brick structure on this site. All work Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes page 4 January 11, 1982 shall have been completed and the temporary structure removed by this date. Seconded by C. Cistulli; motion approved by unanimous roll -call vote, C. Harvey absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SIX MONTH REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS PLACED ON THE LESSEES' USES AT HOOVER SCHOOL, 220 SUMMIT DRIVE CP Monroe reviewed the history of this site and past conditions by the Planning Commission to allow the Chinese Bible Evangel, Hoover Childrens' Center and Dance Movement to operate classes on this site. Reference January 11 staff report; November 30, 1981 letter from Glenn Stewart; November 23, 1981 Planning Commission'Minutes; December 29, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; December 28, 1981 correspondence from Chinese Bible Evangel; December 29, 1981 letter from Hoover Childrens' Center; December 28, 1981 letter from Dance/Movement Center with Exhibit A, parking plan for the playground attached area; and an aerial photograph of the site. There were no public comments for or against the permit. C. Graham con- firmed that any complaints about parking or traffic would be brought to the attention of the Commission. C. Mink moved to accept the permit with the conditions suggested in the staff report. Seconded and approved by all -aye voice vote. Recess 8:40 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - 1450 ROLLINS ROAD Set for hearing January 25, 1982. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 28 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 211 MYRTLE ROAD 8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE ABOVE 9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE Commission requested that an Environmental Assessment be prepared prior to the public hearing for this project. Commission directed CP to con- tact the applicant on this matter. CITY PLANNER REPORTS 10. DRAFT EIR AND PERMIT PROCESSING FOR 1800 EL CAMINO REAL 44 -UNIT APARTMENT CP discussed the possible timetable and procedures for processing the EIR General Plan amendment and Special Permit application for this project. Procedural order will be EIR, general plan amendment, then project applications. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes page 5 January 11, 1982 11. REVIEW OF PAST COUNCIL ACTIONS CP reviewed recent Council action: the proposed Downtown Parking District Ordinance will be heard on January 18; the former plans reviewed by Commission for 800 Airport Boulevard had been called up for review by Council but the applicant chose to revise the plans and return to the Commission; and BCDC has rescheduled their meeting to review the Bayfront Guidelines to January 21. 12. FIELD TRIP TO REVIEW 1981 PLANNING PROJECTS February 27 was set as the tentative date for a field trip by Commissioners and staff to review a sample of the projects approved over the past two years that are now completed. Commission requested that the City Council and City Manager be invited to participate in the tour. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.