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