Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.10.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, October 25, 1982 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, 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 13, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW DRAFT EIR.-57P FOR THE GRANADA ROYALE HOMETEL PROJECT, 150 ANZA BOULEVARD Reference staff memo dated 10/18/82; letter from David H. Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust dated October 13, 1982; and October 20, 1982 memo from City of Burlingame Engineering Division. CP Monroe introduced Harriet Hill of Environmental Science Associates,.Inc., consultants preparing the environmental impact report. Ms. Hill briefly described the proposed project, a hotel, restaurant and parking structure; provision for public access; adverse, beneficial and cumulative impacts; and the three alternatives to the project proposal identified in the EIR. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Written comments received from David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust and the City of Burlingame's Engineering Division were noted; these will be addressed in the Final EIR. David Keyston was present and requested the FEIR respond to the matter of building setbacks from a private street rather than a public street and the project's compliance with city codes. Commission discussion, concerns and requests: page 7, bottom of page, total gross building area should be 513,000 SF; Figure 12, page 64, should address view corridors to the bay from various directions as was done in the graphic, Figure 13 on page 66; address the possibility and effect of depressing the parking structure; page 26, under Fire Impact, address the need for additional manpower more specifically; address the public use area below the restaurant and availability of all or part of this area in public shore oriented uses such as a bait and tackle shop; ensure the ground floor of the restaurant structure is not flooded; if the deck is considered bayfill, is BCDC in favor of this type of fill?; can the shadows cast on the pier by the buildings be mitigated?; concern with cost of providing water service; are methane gas wells dug in this area a potential, problem?; indicate public access parking would be marked close to the pier and points of public access; is there an alternative for the same project which would require no variances or special permits?; regarding housing stock, are there any mobile homes in Burlingame?; will Airport Boulevard be widened, discuss all improvements in the EIR; address status of the streets, whether they are private driveways or dedicated city streets. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 Chm. Mink declared the public hearing closed. Responses to comments will be prepared by the consultant; it is expected the Final EIR will be included in the November 8, 1982 packet. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS PERMITTED BY CODE FOR THE AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 1007 ROLLINS ROAD, BY MIKE HARVEY 3. SIGN EXCEPTION TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE, NUMBER OF SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT PERMITTED BY CODE FOR THE AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 1025 ROLLINS ROAD, BY MIKE HARVEY CP Monroe reviewed these requests, noted a pole sign on the property for which the Planning Department had no record of permit and advised the applicant had been referred to the City Council with his additional request for a roof sign (a prohibited sign) at 1025 Rollins Road. Reference staff report dated 10/6/82; table comparing existing signage on Auto Row, code standards and requested signage for auto uses on Rollins Road; Sign Permit forms filed September 1, 1982 for 1007 Rollins Road and 1025 Rollins Road; Sign Exception application for both properties filed 9/1.5/82; site plan indicating existing and proposed signs; sign drawings for Sign "B", 1007 Rollins Road, Sign "A", 1007 Rollins Road and Sign "B", 1025 Rollins Road; aerial photograph of the sites; "no objections/no comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (9/13/82) and Chief Building Inspector (9/14/82); photographs of existing signage: West California Drive, East California Drive, Adrian Road, Carolan Avenue; September 27, 1.982 Planning Commission study session minutes; and November 9, 1981 Planning Commission hearing minutes for a sign exception at 777 Airport Boulevard (Days Inn). CP discussed details of the signage request; staff review; comparison of signage allowed in the M-1 district and on Auto Row (C-2); existing signage in the area; questions raised by the application (should Auto Row signage standards be applied, what precedent would approval establish and should the request be approved in toto, in part or not at all?); Sign Code regulations for granting an exception; and a suggested procedure for the public hearing, discussion and action. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing to address both Items #2 and #3. There were no audience comments and the hearing was declared closed. Several Commissioners expressed no objection to applying Auto Row signage standards to this expanded area. There was a concern about allowing auto dealers on Rollins Road the requested sign height when other businesses in the area were not allowed to go as high. The difference between signage for identification purposes and Auto Row signage to attract business to a retail business was noted. Following this discussion the Chair determined that Commission consensus was to allow Auto Row signage criteria at these auto use sites. Mike Harvey, the applicant, was present and discussed his signage requests: the increase in height; the need for visibility; his belief consideration should be taken of the depth of the property as well as the frontage in relation to signage; expansion and relocation of various parts of his business; all departments (mechanical, service, parts operation, new and used car sales) need identification and need to be advertised; the sign on Carolan Avenue will be illuminated sundown to midnight; the sign on Rollins Road will be illuminated from dusk to dawn. Mr. Harvey advised the DeLorean pole sign would be removed. C. Harvey found the signage proposed at 1007 Rollins Road (Item #2) would not constitute a grant of special privilege since Commission agreed to apply Auto Row signage standards and since, as exemplified by the signage survey, the total signage requested is less than other dealers in a similar location; he also found there were special circumstances Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 25, 1982 applicable to the subject property so that strict application of the regulations would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, i.e., this is a retail/service business which is basically oriented to advertising, the location certainly is as advantageous as any other location on Auto Row and the signage that is proposed is within the limits established by the other locations. C. Harvey then moved that the existing signs and the sign exception applications for 1007 Rollins Road and 1008 Carolan Avenue be approved. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll callvote. Commissioners expressed some concern about the overall height of the signage proposed for 1025 Rollins Road. with findings essentially the same as for Item #2, C. Graham moved for approval of the sign exception for 1025 Rollins Road, (Item #3) as submitted. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Harvey and Mink dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A SNACK BAR IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 801 MAHLER ROAD CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a snack bar within a 200 SF portion of an existing warehouse/office building. Reference staff report dated 10/18/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 7/14/82; July 14 and October 17, 1982 letters from Paul Lee, the applicant; photographs of the proposed site; site drawings; 9/23 and 10/4/82 memos from the Fire Marshal; "no comments" memo dated 10/4/82 from the City Engineer; 10/18/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; floor plan dated 9/82; staff summary of snack bars in the M-1 district close to 801 Mahler; and map indicating coffee shops in the M-1 District dated September, 1982. CP discussed details of the application, staff review, applicant's comments, proximity and operation of other snack bars in the area, Planning staff concerns. Staff recommended denial; if approved, one condition was suggested as listed in the staff report. Paul Lee, the applicant, was present. Secy. Graham read a letter in support received this afternoon from Alan A. Alexander, Manager, 1499 Bayshore Office Center. Mr. Lee advised he had run two snack bars previously and felt the need for some tables and chairs for people to use while waiting for food. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor. Mervin Francies, operator of the Burlingame Lunch Company, 833 Mahler Road, spoke in opposition; he felt there were sufficient delis and snack bars in the area at present. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: like the idea of a grill for the area, but have concern about oversaturation of delis and snack bars; concern about the small physical area of this particular operation; purpose of these delis is for the convenience of employees in the area but not to serve each complex. C. Giomi moved to deny this application. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:02 P.M.; reconvene 9:15 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 5. SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT THREE OFFICE 477 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BY GALE, HORNBERGER COMPANY: (A) TO EXCEED 65' MAXIMUM ALLOWED RATIO, (C) TO EXCEED 25% LOT COVERAGE AND Page 4 October 25, 1982 TOWERS AND A PARKING STRUCTURE AT AND WORSTELL FOR OWEN DEVELOPMENT HEIGHT, (B) TO EXCEED 1.0 FLOOR AREA (D) TO ALLOW OFFICE USE IN THE C-4 DISTRICT CP Monroe reviewed this revised proposal with two alternatives, Scheme B and Scheme C, for the Anza/Owen Office Park project. Reference staff report for Item #5; City Council minutes of October 4, 1982; Table I, a comparison of city requirement and Anza/Owen Office Park project (previous proposal, Scheme B and Scheme C); Project Application & CEQA Assessment for the revised project; Exhibit A, Significant Effects, Mitigations and Findings; Exhibit B, Planning Commission's conditions in its previous approval; October 18 and July 19, 1982 memos from the Fire Marshal and May 27, 1982 memo from the Fire Chief (with attachments); October 20, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; October 18, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; October 18, 1982 memo from the Park Director; October 14, 1982 letter from the applicant; project descriptions and quantitative reviews of Schemes B and C; Planning Commission and City Council staff reports and September 13, 1982 minutes of Planning Commission action on the previous project; and correspondence received on the previous project. CP discussed Planning Commission's previous approval; Council review and concerns; details of Scheme B and Scheme C, the two alternatives of the revised project; special permits required. She did not find changes in the revised projects significant enough to alter the conclusions in the Final EIR on this project. CP further discussed conditions of approval; staff review of Schemes B and C; applicant's comments; and suggested procedure for Planning Commission review of this project, keeping in mind Council concerns. If Scheme B or Scheme C were approved, two conditions were recommended as listed in the staff report. Colin Russell, project architect, discussed the two revised plans with the aid of slides, compared them to the previous project and expressed his and the developer's preference for a 3'-6" parapet. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Steven Douglas, Owen Development Company, inquired about the developer's responsibility for funding of traffic improvements. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, spoke in favor of Scheme B and the higher parapet. He noted the reduced height and that this plan provides excessive public access and landscaping. There were no comments in opposition and the Chair declared the public hearing closed. During Commission discussion consideration of a Scheme D was suggested (using Scheme C but reducing the height of the Phase I building to 7 stories while retaining the same footprint). Bob Owen, president of The Owen Companies, advised that the 8 story structure responded to the particular needs of a prospective tenant. Further discussion: clarification that the sunken plaza would be surfaced in Phase II; one Commissioner expressed a preference for variety in the height of the buildings; traffic allocation impacts with Schemes B, C and D; CP explained the basis for recalculation of the lot size. Commission discussion on the schemes appeared to be in favor of Scheme C because of the height reduction and the fact that more of the garage was hidden by the breadth of the buildings; the higher 3'-6" parapet was also favored because it provided a better looking, more finished building �) One Commissioner expressed his preference for Scheme B. Nand would reduce the safety hazard on the roof. C. Harvey moved that the Planning Commission recommend Scheme C to the City Council with four special permits: (1) office use in the C-4 zone, (2) building height in Phase I of 99'-6" as measured to top of parapet and 87'-6" in Phase II as measured to top of parapet, (3) lot coverage not to exceed 26.96%, and (4) a floor area range of .93-1.10, as conditioned by Exhibit A, Exhibit B and the two conditions of the staff report of October 25, 1982. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 25, 1982 6. AMENDMENT OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FIGURES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Reference staff report dated 10/18/82; Exhibit A, Amendment to City of Burlingame Housing Element; Negative Declaration ND -326P posted October 20, 1982; City Council Resolution No. 14-82, Local Government Revision of Housing Needs Determination; ABAG Work Program and Coordination Committee Resolution 1-82, Housing Needs Determinations with attachments; City Council staff report from City Planner, February 23, 1982, Review and Action on ABAG Housing Allocation Methodology with attachment: Planning Commission staff report, 2/22/82, Item #9, Review of ABAG Regional Housing Allocation Methodology. CP discussed the process which resulted in Council approving the revised local share numbers; ABAG's action on the regional share numbers; income category adjustments. CP noted the numbers adopted by ABAG were responsive to Burlingame's local review and revision and recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on amending the Housing Element with the regional need figures as endorsed by ABAG, recommending the amendment (Exhibit A) to City Council. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed. C. Giomi moved the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 7-82 recommending to the City Council approval of Exhibit A, Amendment to City of Burlingame Housing Element of the regional need figures endorsed by ABAG and acceptance of Negative Declaration ND -326P. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1449-57 BELLEVUE AVENUE 8. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE CP reported these revised plans meet all zoning code requirements. It was noted there is no walkway to the street from the entrance of the building nor exterior lighting of the walkway. Set for hearing November 8, 1982. 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CONSIDER THE SUBDIVIDING OF THE EXISTING 20 ACRE HIRAM WALKER SITE AT 1645 ROLLINS ROAD INTO TWO PARCELS Tentative and Final Parcel Map set for hearing November 8, 1982. 10. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED METAL -SIDED PARK SHED, CORP. YARD, WASHINGTON PARK CP Monroe requested guidance from Commission concerning criteria they would consider appropriate for reviewing metal buildings. Commission discussion: why a metal building, what are the advantages?; will it be heated?; buildings of this type should be in zones that are not scenic corridors, i.e., entrances to community facilities; be certain there is proper visual shielding of the structure; provide a better definition of the landscap- ing and mitigation; give specific description of the proposed landscaping including irrigation; submit sample of the siding; aspects of the siding and roofing which should be considered include nonreflective, colored; height of structure should be related to its visibility. Item set for hearing November 8, 1982. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary