Loading...
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