Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1981.12.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1981 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, December 14, 1981 at 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Harvey, Jacobs, Mink Absent: Commissioner Leahy (on vacation, excused) Staff•Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 23, 1981 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. Chm Jacobs introduced newly appointed Commissioner Nannette Giomi who will take office in April, 1982. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING H13ME AT 26 BANCROFT ROAD, BY JOHN TILL (PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) CP Monroe reviewed this application to allow an addition to a home which maintains a 13'-8" front setback rather than 15'-0" as required by code. Reference staff report dated 12/8/81; aerial photograph; Project Application & CEQA Assessment; photographs of the site; December 2, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; December 7, 1981 memo from the Fire Marshal; memo received December 3, 1981 from the Chief Building Inspector; December 4, 1981 letter from the applicant and plans date stamped December 1, 1981. CP discussed details of the proposal, staff comments, applicant's justification for variance and Planning staff's site inspection. If appropriate findings could be made, staff recommended approval. John Till, the applicant, was present. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments. Secy. Harvey noted correspondence in support of the. application from the following: John and Mildred DaDalt, 39 Bancroft Road and Mrs. Eleanor Pelton, executor of the Victor DaDalt Estate. For the record, he advised no correspondence in opposition had been received. The applicant presented a petition signed by eleven adjacent neighbors in support of this variance. Chm. Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was determined the plans had been engineered by a civil engineer, that the addition would be built on top of the existing structure and the existing structure would not be lifted up. C. Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the applicant's need for more space and that the variance was necessary for preservation and enjoyment of his property rights; that it would not be detrimental or injurious to the neighbors and would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Graham then moved for approval of this variance as submitted. Second C. Harvey; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1981 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR A PROPOSED OFFICE EXPANSION AND PARKING DECK ADDITION AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BY EDWARD DE WOLF FOR STANLEY LO 3. THREE VARIANCES TO PERMIT AN OFFICE EXPANSION AND SECOND FLOOR PARKING DECK ADDITION AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BY EDWARD DE WOLF FOR STANLEY LO CP Monroe reviewed this revised application which requires four permits: a special permit to exceed maximum lot coverage and three variances, parking, compact spaces and rear yard setback. Reference staff report dated 12/8/81; November 9, 1981 Planning Commission minutes; Project Application & CEQA Assessment; December 3 and October 22, 1981 memos from the Fire Marshal; December 7, 1981 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; December 7, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; November 30, 1981 letter from Edward de Wolf, architect for the project; October 1 and October 20, 1981 letters from Anne B. Leff, Four Seas Center with attached parking lot survey; copy of Exhibit A, Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development; and plans date stamped December 3, 1981 . CP discussed the four permits required based on the revised plans, staff comments, code requirements including floor area ratio and landscaping, and the findings required for variance approval. If approved, staff recommended one condition as listed in the staff report. Ted de Wolf, architect for the project, presented a parking survey by Richard Hopper, consulting civil engineer, which he believed substantiated the survey made by the property owner. He discussed the proposed plans: the 8'-8" to the top of the deck of the parking structure would not be obtrusive, it could be buil'.t so that during construction the existing parking at ground level would not be disturbed, landscaped area would be increased, an attempt had been made to make the addition as interesting and unobtrusive as possible; he felt the parking deck as seen from the street would not be a large structure. Discussion: concern about the bulk of the existing structure and parking lot; the railing on top of the slab would add 3'-6" to the slab height; possibility of going below grade and problem of cost and providing drainage in this area was brought out; setbacks, exiting and curb cuts were also addressed. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Keyston., Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, spoke in favor of the four permits with one condition that if the top floor of the building were put back into use at lunch time or converted to a use other than restaurant,the property owner be required to return to the Commission for a permit. He discussed his belief the parking proposed exceeds the present needs, did not believe the rear yard setback deficiency was significant, aesthetically or otherwise. Finally he felt the increase in compact cars in recent years would support the variance requested in this respect. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: each parcel should support its own parking, particularly in light of the City's recent review of the BCDC Guidelines; Burlingame's Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development should be adhered to; the proposed structure would destroy the existing view corridor and exceed the bulk (apparent width) of the City's Guidelines. It was also pointed out that the City and a number of State agencies are discussing certain projects in this area and it might be unwise for the City not to uphold the Bayfront Guidelines at this time. C. Harvey moved that the special permit to exceed lot coverage be denied. Second C. Graham; motion approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Cistullli and Garcia dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Based on testimony this evening, C. Mink found that the requirements for variance approval had been met pertaining to the variances for a deficiency of 17 parking spaces and to exceed the percentage of compact spaces; he found unique circumstances in this multiple Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 14, 1981 use building and in the increase of compact car manufacture by the auto industry. C. Mink then moved to approve these two variances. Second C. Graham; motion approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Harvey and Jacobs dissenting, C. Leahy absent. C. Graham then moved to deny the variance to allow a rear yard! of less than 25 feet. Second C. Mink; motion approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Garcia dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO PERMIT FIVE SIGNS ON THE FRONTAGE AT 1877 ROLLINS ROAD, BY GILBERT AMOROSO WITH ROGER WEINER, THE MAGIC PRESS CORPORATION CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow five signs rather than the two permitted by code. Reference staff report dated 12/8/81; Sign Exception application filed 11/13/81; Sign Permit filed 11/13/81; aerial photo; photographs of the site; proposed signage as shown on Exhibits A, B and C; memo received December 1, 1981 from the City Engineer; and December 9, 1981 letter of approval from the property owner, S. J. Amoroso Properties Company. CP discussed present signage and tenants on this property, details of the proposal, code requirements, applicant's justification and staff comments. Staff recommended approval with two conditions as listed in the staff report. It was determined the proposed signage would decrease the total signage now on the site by 40 SF. Roger Weiner of The Magic Press Corporation was present and discussed the need for identification of the tenants on this property, particularly those at the rear which are reached by an easement at the side of the property; he also discussed with Commission visibility and placement of the directory sign. CE: stated his concern with pedestrian/vehicle visibility. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. During further discussion two conditions were suggested which were made a part of the motion. C. Graham moved for approval of this sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the location of the new directory sign be approved by the City Engineer and be no closer than 48" from the sidewalk; (2) that shrubs within eight feet of the sidewalk be trimmed and maintained at a maximum height of three feet. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. (C. Leahy absent) 5. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 11/24/80 AND AMENDED 5/27/81 TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING EXCURSIONS IN LEARNING PROGRAM TO INCLUDE A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR 15 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, BY KRISTEN SANTIN CP Monroe reviewed this request for expansion of the present preschool day care center to allow a training program for 15 handicapped children (the same program approved in December, 1980 but never implemented). Reference staff report dated 12/8/81; Project Application & CEQA Assessment; aerial photograph; December 1, 1981 letter from the applicant, Kristen M. Santin; site drawing; December 8, 1981 letter from the Burlingame School District with attachments; December 2, 1980 letter of action for the original proposal; June 3, 1981 letter of action to Peninsula Early Learning Center approving its program at Roosevelt School; November 25, 1981 letter of action approving Excursions in Learning's existing program without further review until February, 1983; October 15, 1980 letter from Kristen Santin detailing the proposed program for handicapped children; December 7, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; April 20 and December 3, 1981 memos from the Fire Marshal; and Planning Commission minutes of November 24, 1980. CP discussed the history of Excursion in Learning's program at Roosevelt School, details of the current application and staff comments. Approval was recommended with six conditions as listed in the staff report. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1981 Discussion followed: hours of operation, transportation for the children clarifying children would be either picked up by their parents or by bus at the end of the day, location of the programs, elimination of "non -transferable" in Condition #1, a suggested review date of February, 1983 to coincide with review of Excursions in Learning's infant/toddler program. Kristin Santin was present and advised the program would run only until 5:30 P.M. and that transportation for the 15 children was being arranged by bus at that hour. C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit amendment with the following conditions: (1) that the permit be approved to Excursions in Learning; (2) that Excursions in Learning be properly licensed and approved to operate a specialized day care service by all necessary State, County and public agencies; (3) that the hours and general character of the proposed training programs for handicapped children be consistent with the letter and attachments dated October 15, 1980 and filed with this application; (4) that all staff parking be on -street; (5) that the requirements identified in the December 7, 1981 memo of the Chief Building Inspector and the April 20, 1981 and December 3, 1981 memos of the Fire Marshal be met satisfactorily; and (6) that the conditions of the permit be subject to review and possible modification in February, 1983. Second C. Mink; all aye voice vote, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. CITY PLANNER REPORT 6. REVIEW OF THE 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROCESSING PROCEDURE CP Monroe reviewed a suggested procedure for processing Planning Commission applications and requested comments and suggestions. Reference staff report dated 12/10/81 with 1982 Planning Commission Schedule attached. This schedule details staff meetings, study and action meeting dates and would provide the packet to Commission at an earlier time. Following some discussion C. Graham moved to approve the 1982 Planning Commission Schedule as presented by staff. Second C. Harvey; all aye voice vote. 6a. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANZA AREA WHEN THE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CAPACITY IS REACHED CP Monroe discussed this procedure as reviewed and revised by City Council, and forwarded to the Commission for review and recommendation. Reference staff report dated 12/10/81 with attached. Procedure. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, discusses( the traffic generation guidelines, his attempts to enforce these guidelines and his feeling that new projects in the Anza Area are being penalized because of the traffic assigned to the Marriott project. He also stressed the need for a second left turn lane in front of the Ramada Inn. John Bjorner, applicant for Marriott, advised that four alternative plans have been submitted and that the EIR speaks to all of these. He stated that no decision had been made on the final project. Staff and Commission discussion: peak hour traffic levels, the fact that the City has been working in accordance with the Drachman report for several years; City discouraging mixed use in the Anza Area when the mix includes one use which is a greater peak hour traffic generator than the use designated in the SAP for the paroel. One Commissioner stated his feeling the City merely talks about traffic, but does nothing. Staff pointed Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1981 out that the new procedure for processing projects in the Anza Area when it is demonstrated that there is inadequate peak hour capacity is, in fact, implementing the adopted City policy in the SAP of not allowing development to proceed through the approval process when adequate peak hour roadway capacity is not available. CE detailed projects under discussion with State agencies for traffic improvements in the Anza Area. 6b. CP Monroe reported on City Council actions at its December 7 regular meeting and December 9, 1981 study session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Joseph E. Harvey Secretary