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.