Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1981.11.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1981 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, November 9, 1981 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Harvey, Jacobs, Leahy, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the October 26, 1981 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. REQUEST BY SHOWKI K. JADALLAH FOR MODIFICATION OF A SUBDIVISION MAP CONDITION, TO EXCEED THE 18' HEIGHT LIMIT AND ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 1, MILLS CANYON COURT CP Monroe reviewed this request by the owner of Lot 1, Mills Canyon Court to exceed the 18' height limit. Reference staff report for this item; City Council staff report for its November 2, 1981 meeting; location map; aerial photograph; 7/23/79 Planning Commission staff report; April 1, 1981 letter from William F. Heijn, AIA; July 23, 1979 Planning Commission minutes; handwritten request for height variance from S. K. Jadallah;letters from the following neighbors: Donald and Marie Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive (dated July 18, 1979) with their May 30, 1979 letter attached; John P. Chaney, 2827 Arguello Drive (dated May 29, 1979); Susan Bournizeau and Virginia J. Stewart, 2739 Martinez Drive (dated July 11, 1979); Figure 1 of a report by Alan Kropp & Associates, Geotechnical Consultants, indicating test pits on the site; and plans submitted April 1, 1981. Further reference: a history of Council action on Lot 1, Mills Canyon Court. CP discussed project history,.the.current project and the Council's action in returning this request to the Commission for review and recommendation. Staff suggested three conditions, as listed in the staff report, should subsequent to a hearing a positive recommendation be made to City Council. City Attorney advised city action could apply to this one lot,. The condition change would be made by resolution for Lot 1; and recorded with the county. At Commission request staff summarized the geotechnical report addressing test pit location and depth (7-9 feet). Paul Kelly, attorney representing the applicant, discussed this unusual lot, contending that the views from homes above on Arguello Drive would not be blocked by the proposed project nor would the stability of the hillside be jeopardized. William Heijn, architect for the project, discussed the height of the proposed building and stability -of the hillside, demonstrattnil with a model his belief Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1981 that the sight lines of the homes above would not be obstructed. Alan Kropp, geotechnical consultant, discussed his findings and concluded that there was no significant data to indicate stability problems which could not be mitigated as proposed in the geotechnical report, or that site development, if done as recommended, would alter the stability. He further stated that the site is not within the State of California Special Studies Geologic Hazard Zone (Alquist-Priolo), but rather in a relatively stable area with no known faults on it. ChM. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor: John Lee, 9 Mills Canyon Court who lives adjacent to the project, had looked at the plans and the model and believed it will fit nicely into the neighborhood; William O'Brien, 1590 Granada Drive urged approval, a beautiful home; Paul Markoff, superintendent, Gilco Construction Company has had.17 years experience with this type of foundation construction in San Francisco, where the same type of foundation system has been used with no problems at all; Bruce Thompson, 1600 Granada Drive thought the project was a reasonable request which limits.the amount of excavation. There were no further comments in.favor. Nick Elchinoff, attorney representing the neighbors on Arguello Drive (numbers 2835, 2831, 2827, 2823 Arguello) spoke in opposition. He contended the height limit was placed in 1968 for the purpose of aesthetics of the entire area, that Mr. Jadallah was aware of the height restriction when he purchased the lot, that Lot 1 could be buildable if the house were moved further east, that the proposed home would block views of the residents above on Arguello Drive. Attorney Kelly, in rebuttal, noted staff had determined several years ago that no views would be blocked and stated the lot was not buildable if Mr. Jadallah were required to stay within the height limit. Ed Minklein, 2815 Arguello Drive expressed concern about the unengineered fill at the top of the siope.which he feared may be made unstable by the project's construction. The soils engineer pointed out that this area would not be directly affected, i.e., no earth would be moved. Commission discussion: the history of city action at the time of the 1968 subdivision; the fact that the subdivision conditions were placed on the lot at the request of the subdivider; the matter of the lot being buildable; obstruction of views; grading of the site with alternate locations of the structure as it relates to soils stability. C. Harvey found that the 18' height limit Was based on the 438.60' curb height which had been established by the developer when Mills Court was graded; that the architect had produced an excellent design in trying to meet the city's requirements; and that a compromise had been reached which would limit the height of the house, provide stability of the building site and protect views of the neighbors. He was in favor of the roof line at 468' (assuming grade level at 450' and adding 18'). On the basis of his findings, C. Harvey moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council thatShowki K. Jadallah be allowed a modification of the height condition to construct his house with the following conditions: (1) that the highest point of the roof line of the new house not exceed an elevation of 468'; (2) that the plans submitted for a building permit be in general conformance with the preliminary plans dated April 1, 1981, as modified by condition #1; and (3) that this ,amendment to the subdivision conditions shall apply only to Lot 1, Mills Estate No. 27. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Jacobs dissenting. Recess 8:40 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 9, 1981 2. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION TO OFFICE SPACE AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP Monroe reviewed this request to add office space within the existing building without providing additional off-street parking. Reference staff report dated 11/5/81; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted as complete 10/22/81; October 29, 1981 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; October 22, 1981 memo from the Fire Marshal; November 2 , 1981 memo from the City Engineer; November 2, 1981 memo from the Zoning Aide; October 1 and 20, 1981 letters from Anne B. Leff, Director of Finance, Four Seas Center with on-site parking survey attached; plans for the conversion prepared by De Wolf and Associates and letter in opposition from George N.. Keyston, Jr., Trustee, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust. CP discussed details of the proposal, staff comments, applicant's justification for variance, parking requirements. If adequate findings are made, staff recommended approval with three conditions as listed in the staff report. Ted De Wolf, architect representing the applicant, Stanley Lo, discussed the decline in restaurant business and plans to close it at lunchtime, and the applicant's desire to convert parking space on the second floor to office use. He contended there would still be sufficient parking for tenants of the building, and advised that the applicant would prefer to have the option of reopening the restaurant for lunch in future should economic conditions warrant. If that should occur, parking would be provided to meet restaurant need. Stanley Lo, the applicant, stated it was unlikely the lunch business would increase in the next few years and that his present tenants were unique in that they travel frequently or have a limited use of automobiles. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: concern that the converted parking spaces would be needed in future; difficulties in adding parking later; problem in justifying a parking deficiency while creating more -office space; valet parking which has been discontinued by the applicant; the variance for compact spaces which had been granted when this project was approved. Commission felt the need for factual, realistic construction plans to show how parking would be provided if the restaurant were reopened and it was needed. Mr. Lo pointed out he owned the lot across the street and parking could be provided there, and employees required to use it. C. Mink pointed out the lot would have to be paved and also that in Burlingame properties should be self-supporting in providing parking. C. Mink moved that this item be continued to the December 14, 1981 meeting in order to allow the applicant time to submit plans which would mitigate this parking variance in the future. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ERECT SIGNS AT 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (DAYS INN CP Monroe reviewed this application to erect signs which exceed the Sign Code limitations for number, height and total square feet. Reference staff report dated 11/3/81; Sign Exception application filed August 27, 1981; September 11, 19811 letter from Arthur Hansen, Director of Construction, Day Realty of California, addressing the requirements for sign exception approval; Sign Permit application filed August 27, 1981; October 19, 1981 memo from the Fire Marshal; October 19, 1981 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; November 2, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; November 3, 1981 letter from Wayne Morse, Project Manager, Day Realty of California; and "Final Revision" of plans. CP discussed the exceptions required, staff comments, applicant's justification, and code requirements. for approval of a sign exception. Staff recommended approval of a modified signage program with three conditions as listed in the staff report. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1981 The following were present representing the applicant: James Hansen, Director of Construction; Max James, Executive Vice President; Wayne Morse, Project Manager; Dan Cutler, architectural and signage expert, Atlanta; and a representative of the sign company, Heath & Company, Miami. Mr. Hansen discussed Days Inn expansion to the West Coast and the importance of its corporate signage program, identifying the project and its location. He enumerated the hardships that would be encountered by a lesser signage program, noted Days Inn's exposure problem, especially for southbound traffic, and the excessive cost of billboards. Days Inn felt the proposed signage program was aesthetically pleasing and essential for the success of its business. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no comments. and the hearing was closed. Staff advised that signage programs for a project are normally heard sometime after the project itself has been approved. Commission expressed an understanding of the applicant's need for identification from the freeway but felt this signage should be no higher or larger than that of other signs in the area, specifically no higher than the roof line of the top floor of the building. C. Harvey then moved for approval of this sign exception application as follows: (1) that the total area of all signs on Airport Boulevard, the primary frontage, be limited to 200 SF, that the three signs as proposed be granted, and that the pylon type sign, Sign B, be limited in size to 9-1/2' high x 6' wide; (2) that the signs on the secondary frontage be granted in general conformance with the plans at a maximum height of 42'-10"; and (3) that directional signs at the entrance to the property be limited to "entrance" and "exit" signs mounted at ground level; two motel registration directional signs may be placed within the site at appropriate locations. Second C. Cistulli. Following the motion C. Mink made findings: that. approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege inasmuch as this exception is similar to other signage approved in the area, and that there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, particularly with the signs facing the freeway, that are necessary for visibility from the freeway. Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 1980 FOR THE INTERTELEPHON OFFICE COMPLEX AT 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 11/5/81; October 23, 1981 letter from Giorgio Norrito, Intertelephon NV; City of Burlingame letter of action dated December 2, 1980; and copy of BCDC Permit No. M80-94 dated July 28, 1981. CP noted the applicant intends to be under construction by the spring of 1982 and recommended approval of this -request. C. Mink moved for a one year extension of this special permit and variance. Second C. Harvey; all aye voice vote. ITEM FOR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - BAR/RESTAURANT FACILITY - 1450 ROLLINS ROAD Set for hearing November 23, 1981 if staff finds the application is complete. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes CITY PLANNER REPORT Page 5 November 9, 1981 6. REVISIONS TO SIGN ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY ILLUMINATION IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Reference staff report dated 10/28/81 with attached draft Ordinance Allowing All Forms of Sign Illumination in Commercial and Manufacturing Districts. There were no Commission comments. This draft ordinance will be transmitted to City Council at its next meeting. CP Monroe reported on actions at the last Council meeting and on status of EIRs in progress. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:23 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Joseph E. Harvey Secretary