HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.01.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 11, 1988
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, January 11, 1988
at 7:30 P.M.
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi,
H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome
Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City
Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the December 14, 1987 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN INFANT/TODDLER DAY CARE CENTER AT THE
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, 707 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 1/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Employee parking and fire
truck access was discussed.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Mary Ann Cimino,
representing the church, was present. She advised there would be
designated parking spaces at the side of the play yard, there is a
fenced play area for the children, they are in the process of
obtaining their state license which takes approximately three
months, they expect to open in April and feel this is a needed
service. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Stating agreement with the applicant that this is an important
service to the community, C. Harrison moved for approval of the
special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving
Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Inspectors November 30, 1987
memo and the Deputy Fire Marshal's December 2, 1987 memo shall be
met; (2) that the day care center shall serve 1.2 infants and/or
toddlers, five days a week, Monday through Friday, from 7:00 A.M.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
January 11, 1988
to 6:00 P.M.; ( 3 ) that there shall be no more than six employees
of the center on site at one time and that they shall park on the
church site; (4) that this facility shall be licensed for infant
and toddler care by the state and shall maintain that license; and
(5) that this special permit shall be reviewed in one year or upon
complaint. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. DETERMINATION REGARDING WHETHER PROVIDING AN ELEVATOR
TO MEET STATE HANDICAP REQUIREMENTS WILL IMPOSE AN
UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP, AT 852 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 1/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
discussed this appeal of the CBI's decision that an elevator is
required to provide handicapped accessibility to the second floor
commercial area of this mixed use project. She :reviewed physical
aspects of the project development, UBC requirements, criteria for
determining hardship in this case, staff review, applicant's
letters, study meeting questions, project costs reviewed in the
staff report (applicant's cost estimate and ICBO National Building
Valuation Adjusted for the San Francisco Area). It was noted that
hardship, using the UBC, is based on cost; appropriate cost must
be arrived at in order to make a decision.
Discussion/comment: possibility of a project on this site which is
entirely residential or entirely commercial; estimated costs for
the elevator and its installation; have a problem since do not
know what figure is reasonable.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Stanley Panko, architect,
addressed Commission. He stated the cost figures were obtained
from the contractor who is proposing to do the work and discussed
typical construction costs in the area. The proposed elevator
would comply with the UBC; type of retail use for this project is
an open matter; applicant would like to include residential; with
a mixed use he needs parking on the bottom, retail on the second
floor, would like something with more storage on the second floor;
installation of an elevator would take out square footage and
result in a hardship with less leasable space; the residential use
would be apartments, possibly owner occupied; increasing the
garage space for an elevator in the back is not a soils problem,
it is a matter of economics for a 20' retaining wall; the elevator
penthouse would intrude into the residential parking garage and
blank out visual access from the second floor to the street;
applicant is trying to find a way to make the mixed use
financially feasible. Architect confirmed 1,600 SF retail is
gross square footage.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
January 11, 1988
Alice Duff, 1104 Edgehill Drive expressed concern about parking on
Edgehill. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission comment: this building will be here for 60 or more
years, Commission is always trying to upgrade the city, how can we
allow a commercial development without access for everybody;
difficult to determine unreasonable hardship but tend to agree
that with new construction accessibility should be provided;
since on average the ICBO figures are 38% higher than those
submitted by the applicant, the cost of the elevator should have
been inflated by 38%; this is a different type of consideration
before the Planning Commission, hardship based. on dollars and
cents, these costs can be prorated over a period of many years,
would hate to authorize a new building without meeting handicapped
access requirements, this would not preclude the applicant from
coming in for a different use that did not require an elevator.
Responding to Commissioner questions, architect advised the
contractors estimate was a contract price based on preliminary
design, these figures should be within 10% and. were done by a
professional estimator.
With the statement this is a new building, hardship cannot be
found for the cost of the elevator and its installation since
these costs can be prorated over a 50-60 year period, the
developer wishes to build the second level as commercial and the
elevator is a necessity, C. Jacobs moved that Commission uphold
the determination of the Chief Building Inspector. Second C.
Harrison.
Comment on the motion: will vote yes because Commission does not
have exact costs from the builder, ICBO figures cannot be too far
off and elevator cost will not be much more than 12% of total
construction costs; elevator will be a plus for this project and
an incentive to lease, to reach handicapped bathrooms on the
second floor handicapped people will need the elevator, in 60
years it will pay for itself.
Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 6' HIGH BROADBAND AND UHF ANTENNA
ON THE ROOF OF THE HYATT HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY,
ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 1/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
CP reviewed her discussions with the project architect regarding
additional options for placement of the antenna. A Commissioner
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
January 11, 1988
noted these antennas are not thick and the installation would not
be massive looking.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bill Taylor of Simulnet
Corp., applicant, was present. He stated they are not requesting
two antenna masts since they will not be receiving from the South
Bay. His company is not providing the "pay for view" for the
Hyatt hotels, another company will be providing this. With
structural surface area behind the antenna there could be problems
with reception but they will make every effort to accomplish the
placement requested. If they cannot establish a good signal
quality they would like to go with Option B, placement atop the
southern elevator penthouse, in the architect's December 23, 1987
letter. Responding to Commissioner question, Mr. Taylor confirmed
that Option A would be tried first. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with
the following conditions: (1) that the 14' high mast with two
antennas attached shall be placed behind the mansard screen on the
4' wide flat area surrounding the elevator penthouse on the north
side of the building; (2) that after the antennas have been
specifically sited the applicant shall receive a building permit
from the city for installation including, as required by the Chief
Building Inspector, engineering and wind loading calculations; (3)
that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance
of these antennas and, if appropriate in the future, their
removal; and (4) that if not possible to achieve acceptable
picture quality with Option A as described in Condition #1 the
applicant may pursue Option B (on top of the southernmost
penthouse). Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN HEIGHT AND SIZE ON THE SECONDARY
FRONTAGE FOR THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL, 1333 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 1/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
findings for a sign exception, study meeting questions. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Comment: reason sign exception is before Commission now probably
is because they need to get wiring in at this time; parapet sign
letters will be 3' tall, most of the recent hotels have complied
with a 3' letter height on parapets.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
January 11, 1988
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. James Robie, James Robie
Design Associates, applicant, was present. He felt they had
presented a solution which looks better than the original pole
sign and it is considerably less signage than the surrounding
hotels. He displayed a rendering of the proposal. Several
Commissioners complimented the applicant on his clean looking and
well placed signage design. There were no audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
C. H.Graham found the proposed signage is well within the
framework of other existing hotel signage, it is clean looking and
would not be obtrusive or offensive to residents of the city. C.
H.Graham moved for approval of the sign exception with the
following conditions: (1) that the signs as proposed in the sign
permit application request dated December 3, 1987 shall be
installed at the locations as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped December 3, 1987; (2) that
when these approved signs are installed the one remaining sign
from the previous hotel use, the readerboard/arc:h sign, shall be
removed within 30 days; and (3) that these approved signs shall be
maintained in good working order by the property owners.
Second C. Harrison; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
There were no public comments.
Recess - 8:52 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
5. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1150 ROSEDALE AVENUE
Requests: how long have the Shorts lived here; information
concerning police calls, complaints about vagrancy, property
abuse; need applicant's statement addressing the code required
findings for fence exception approval, what is the hardship; why
did applicant go to 7' when he received a building permit for 61;
was there a previous fence, what type. Item set for public
hearing January 25, 1988.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT - PRINTING SERVICE - 214 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Requests: where will they park, is there any designated parking,
review available parking in the area; what businesses are located
in the building now; discuss operation of pickup and delivery
service, now and in future; how will applicant guarantee that
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
January 11, 1988
employees will use public transit. Item set for public hearing
January 25, 1988.
7. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM - 17
Requests: why such a large size for identification signs; will
their be ID signs at the rear of each business for deliveries;
language from the CC&R's regarding signage. Item set for public
hearing January 25, 1988.
8. SSPECIAL PERMIT - LIMOUSINE SERVICE - 370 LANG ROAD
Requests: where will washing and maintenance of: vehicles occur;
number of full time employees on site; will there be any part time
employees; how will employee parking be provided. Item set for
public hearing January 25, 1988 if all Fire and Building
Department concerns have been resolved.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe introduced Bill Reilly, new Assistant: Fire Chief and
Fire Marshal.
Permit Reviews
- Special Permit - 150 California Drive
- Special Permit - Budget Rent-A-Car, 1177 Airport Boulevard
Acknowledament
- Planner's memo, 12/15/87, Replacement of Signage,
2828 Trousdale Drive
- Review of Fence Height Regulations in Other Jurisdictions
(reference CP's agenda memo with attached survey of fence
regulations)
Commissioner Ellis reviewed Council actions at its January 4, 1988
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham
Secretary