Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1981.07.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 1981 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, July 13, 1981 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Harvey, Mink, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Leahy (excused) Staff Present: Acting City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 22, 1981 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. 1. PUBLIC FORUM TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED MARRIOTT HOTEL/OFFICE COMPLEX AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Reference staff memorandum for this item with attached press release. Robert Ironside, Planning Consultant who is assisting in the preparation of the environmental impact report for the proposed Marriott project, was present as well as architects for the project; Thomas Hart, Vice President - Development, Marriott Corporation; and John Bjorner, the property owner. With the aid of sketches, Mr. Ironside discussed the four alternatives proposed by Marriott and requested comments from the public. These issues along with information necessary to address them will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. The following individuals spoke: Don Spencer, Manager, Burlingame Chamber of Commerce; Michael Hogan, President, Earth Metrics Incorporated; Ardith Erickson; Thomas W. Sine; Nannette Giomi; Alan Horn; Dorothy Cusick; Chuck Pappaleri; Frank Pagliaro; David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust. Chm. Jacobs welcomed Councilwoman Barton who was in the audience. The following is a summary of concerns and issues; a more detailed list which will be used by staff in reviewing the DEIR is attached: parking and traffic congestion/circula- tion: trip ends per hour and peak period for each alternative including the effect on the immediate area and subregion, relate discussion to applicable Cal Trans and City of Burlingame traffic studies, including present and future, traffic safety, signalization of Bayshore Highway and air quality; impacts on parking and access to the bay; impacts on transportation and parking for employees; impacts of employment on the area and sub- region including housing; access through the site; number of people to be employed for each plan; housing impacts; airport orientation, compatibility of each of the plans with the airport and other uses in the general area; financial impact (revenue to the city), including the worst case of State legislation limiting the amount of this revenue retained by local jurisdiction; fire and police services required for each alternative; utility impacts including sewage, water, gas, electricity, passive energy; impact on undeveloped land costs; economic impact on the area and subregion; impacts of bulk and shadow; flooding information including impact on other properties in the area; impacts of earthquakes; consider impact on the subregion from Millbrae to Peninsula Avenues. Mr. Ironsides and Chm. Jacobs thanked all present for their input. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1981 Recess 8:25 P.M.; reconvene 8:40 P.M. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO INCREASE AN EXISTING 6' SIDEYARD FENCE BETWEEN 740/744 CROSSWAY ROAD TO A NEW 9' HEIGHT, BY CLIFFORD LINDQUIST (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22, 1981) ACP Monroe reviewed this application to build a 9 foot fence along the side property line between two single family homes. Reference staff report for Item No. 2; 6/5/81 letter from Clifford Lindquist; aerial photo and photographs of the site taken by the applicant; June 9, 1981 letter from the Lindquist family to Darrell Smith, the property owner; June 9 and June 29, 1981 letters from Darrell Smith including notation of his telephone conversation with Helen Towber, Zoning Aide on 7/9/81; site drawings received June 8, 1981; 6/22/81 letter from the applicant requesting a continuance from the 6/22/81 meeting; and petition in opposition received June 18, 1981 with attached photographs. ACP discussed code requirements and issues raised; if approved, one condition was recommended as listed in the staff report. Secy. Harvey read letter received today from the applicant advising he would be unable to attend the meeting. This letter stressed his family's need for privacy and his willingness to consider alternative materials for .the fence. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. Tim Goll, 744 Crossway Road, the next door neighbor, spoke in opposition. He noted his family's long time residence at this address and addressed the Retition submitted by the Golls, the counter petition submitted by the applicant and the nature of this "temporary" fence. He objected to the material currently used because of its possible safety problems and appearance; it was his feeling this proposal would have an adverse effect on the value of his property and on the neighborhood. Secy. Harvey read a letter received this evening from Richard McCallion, the co-owner of Horner-McCallion, 305 Winchester Drive, Burlingame stating that in his opinion, as a builder, such construction was not a suitable material and could become a hazard in bad weather. For the record, Secy. Harvey also noted the pEtition in opposition (with 32 signatures) enclosed with the packet and counter petition (with 32 signatures) received July 10, 1981 from Mr. Lindquist. Mr. Lindquist's cover letter advised that 14 signers of the original pgti-ti,un had signed the counter petition. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: the large number of windows in the next door home overlooking the site were noted; unacceptable fence material and alternative materials; the intent of the fence ordinance; the fact that a fence built of acceptable materials would be too expensive to serve as a temporary screen; the legal requirements for a fence exception. C. Mink found there were exceptional circumstances and a hardship upon the applicant in the need for privacy in his backyard, but that the other legal requirements had not been met, i.e., there may be a possible public hazard and neighborhood properties might be materially damaged. C. Mink then moved that this fence exception be denied. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1981 3. SPECIAL PERMIT. TO CONSTRUCT A 1,637 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR OF THE LOT AT 728-730 LAUREL.AVENUE, BY DONALD E. & GERTRUD B. CORY ACP Monroe reviewed this application to remove an existing two car garage accessory building, convert the existing stmgle car garages in each of the duplex units to living spate and construct a garage/workshop at the rear of the lot. Reference staff report dated 7/6/81; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 6/22/81; aerial photograph; 6/23/81 memo from the City Engineer; June 23, 1981 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 6/24/81 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; letter from the applicants received June 19, 1981; Grant Deed recorded May 15, 1981; and plans date stamped June 19, 1981. ACP discussed code requirements; staff comments/concerns and statements in the applicant's letter. Given concerns about conversion of large garages, fire access and size and height problems, staff recommended denial. If approved two conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report. The applicants were present. Mrs. Cory told Commission of their search for a retirement property and their plans for upgrading this large Laurel Avenue lot. She indicated that the 16'-6" height was necessary to make the building blend with the existing duplex and with neighboring buildings and that the future conversion of the existing garages would require five off-street parking spaces. She added that they were not interested in converting any garage space to living quarters. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor: Richard Sasuly, 724 Laurel Avenue (neighbors to the south) - after looking at the plans and talking with the applicants, thoroughly endorse the proposal. Lucille Sasuly, 724 Laurel Avenue (supported her husband's remarks) and read a letter in support from Tom and Ruth Butler, 732 Laurel Avenue (neighbors to the north) who felt the proposal would improve the area by keeping parked cars off the street. Josie Friel, 740 Laurel Avenue - had no objection whatsoever. Secy. Harvey read letter in support from the former owner of this property, Norma Eklund. There were no further comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Phillip De Rosa, 731 Winchester Drive - lives directly in back of the site; this large accessory building will be only 2' from the rear of my garage; concern: future use of the property and possibility of setting a precedent for more applications of this type in the area; view from the back of his home. James Waldron, 735 Winchester Drive - object to large buildings in the rear of the lots on Laurel; unable to enjoy one's backyard. Secy. Harvey read a letter in opposition from Stanley S. Soult, 739 Winchester Drive who indicated this was no place for a warehouse which.can be converted to commercial use at a later date; he was also concerned about fire access. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion addressed the applicants' plans for the lot, timing of the conversion of the existing garages and cost of same; the fact that the garages presently on the site do not adequately meet the parking needs; utilities proposed for the new structure; fire department requirement for a sprinkler system; details of the proposed accessory structure; concern about future use of the property; and the possibility of designing within code to meet current requirements with potential for expanding to meet future requirements, Further concerns were expressed about allowing construction of the garage without issuing the other permits required for conversion of the existing duplex garages to living area; and the fact that the applicant was not yet resident on the site. C. Graham moved to deny this special permit without prejudice. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 13, 1981 4. FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS AND TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION FOR A 9 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 616 ANSEL AVENUE CE Erbacher recommended approval. Reference his memo of June 25, 1981. C. Mink moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of the final parcel map and approval of a one year extension of the tentative subdivision map. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. 5. EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 119 PRIMROSE ROAD CE Erbacher recommended approval. Reference CE's memo of June 29, 1981. C. Mink moved for approval of a one year extension of this tentative subdivision map. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. APPLICATIONS FOR STUDY The following applications were set for public hearing,July 27, 1981. 6. VARIANCE - AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENT -A -CAR - 1288 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 518 ALMER ROAD Request: clarification of the fence which sits within the front yard setback. 8. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE AB0VE 9. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR SELF DEFENSE - 1214A DONNELLY AVENUE: AMBIGUITY HEARING Request: exact hours of the classes. OTHER BUSINESS 10. AMENDMENT OF CURRENT REGULATIONS, BURLINGAME AVENUE OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT CA Coleman advised the City Council had approved P.C. Res. No. 2-81 in principle. A Public Forum for interested citizens will be held at the July 27 P.C. meeting. 11. REVIEW OF OCTOBER 15, 1978 AMENDMENT GRANTED TRUE LEARNING CENTER AT 801 HOWARD AVENUE TO INCREASE MAXIMUM SCHOOL ENROLLMENT TO 65 STUDENTS ACP Monroe discussed Commission actions on its permit for this school and the amended condition to increase enrollment to 65 students for the 1980-81 school year. No complaints have been received by staff or the School District. Staff recommended the condition allowing a maximum enrollment of 65 students be made permanent. C. Graham moved to amend Condition #2 of True Learning Center's October, 1978 permit to allow a maximum enrollment of 65 students. Second C. Cistulli; approved unanimously on voice vote. CITY PLANNER REPORT ACP Monroe suggested a Public Forum be scheduled at the July 27 meeting for the. proposed 44: unit apartment building at 1800 E1 Camino Real. The Chair so ordered. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Joseph E. Harvey Secretary July 13, 1981 PUBLIC FORUM: LIST OF ITEMS OF CONCERN Traffic, Circulation and Parking Concerns 1. For each alternative, consider trip ends per hour, need for intersection regulation and levels of service at intersections, peak hour demands, directional flow and traffic safety (i.e. accidents). 2. Review all applicable CalTrans and City traffic studies. 3. Consider impacts on regional traffic both from the project and of future development inn the project area. 4. Will there be a highway crossing of the lagoon? How would it benefit the project, would CalTrans allow it, who would pay for it? 5. What is the existing use level of the Broadway overpass, how would the project affect this overpass, what would the necessary mitigations be? 6. Would traffic generated by the project have more than one access route? 7. Diagrams of circulation patterns including proportion of traffic by direction for each alternative. y 8. Can all parking be underground? 9. What level of parking will be available with each alternative, how will it relate to public pedestrian bayfront access? 10. Are mass transit facilities available to the project? Air Quality 1. What will be the air quality impact of each alternative. Economic and Fiscal Concerns 1. What will be the level of employment at the project, seasonally and by time of day? 2. Where will these employees be expected to come from and where will they live? 3. How will these employees arrive at their jobs? 4. How will proposed State legislation affect the revenues which would come to the City from such a project? In the worst case will the City retain enough revenue to support the costs generated by the project? 5. What kinds of City revenues are generated by an office project such as proposed? is Public Forum: List of Items of Concern Page 2 July 13, 1981 6. What will be the effect of the project on adjacent property values? Will an increase in these values affect the expected intensity of use of these properties? If so, in what ways, e.g. larger, bulkier projects? particular uses? 7. Will the project affect land values regionally and/or sub -regionally? 8. What will be the economic impact of the project? 9. How is the project affected by its proximity to the airport and how does the airport affect the project? Does this project represent the use which will take maximum advantage of proximity to the airport? Housing 1. What will be the housing needs of the employees? 2. What housing is available and at what prices within the region? 3. Would the number of employees seeking housing affect rents in the City, sub -region or region? Public Safety, Utilities and Parks 1. What will be required by the Police and Fire Departments to adequately serve this project? (Record should show interviews with the Fire and Police Chiefs) 2. Do the sewage treatment facilities have capacity to treat the volume of wastewater generated? Is the collection system adequate? 3. Does adequate utility capacity exist including water, gas, electricity, etc. for each alternative? 4. What passive solar provisions are included in each alternative? 5. Will the project affect in any way the Bayside Park? or any other parks in the bayfront area? Geotechnical I. What are the seismic safety considerations necessary for this fill site adjacent to the bay? 2. Will the site flood? Will the presence of the project affect the potential for adjacent sites or areas to flood? Planning 1. How will each alternative maintain the view of the bay? Which will provide the maximum view opportunity? 2. What will be the on -and off -shore shadow impacts of each alternative? Page 3 Public Forum: List of Items of Concern July 13, 1981 3. What will be the impacts of all alternatives on horizontal and vertical arc of vision? on- and off -shore? 4. How bulky will each alternative be? How will the bulk affect views on- and off -shore? 5. How will the project affect views from the hills above the City? 6. How does the project comply with the Bayfront Guidelines? 7. How many variances would be required if the project were to proceed? Cumulative Impacts and the EIR in General 1. Are there other alternatives which should be considered? 2. Have the airline pilots and Federal agencies concerned with aviation been contacted? 3. What will the cumulative impacts of additional development between Millbrae and Peninsula Avenues be? How will the project and its alternatives be affected? 4. To what extent will the project encourage growth along the Burlingame bayfront? 5. How will the project affect the suburban image of Burlingame?