Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.09.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, September 13, 1982 at 7:37 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 August 23, 1982 meeting were amended as follows: bottom of page 2, Item 2, following C. Leahy's findings add: "C. Leahy moved for approval of this variance." The minutes were then unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. PUBLIC FORUM 1. PUBLIC FORUM ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SEWER TREATMENT PLANT SECONDARY TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTION ON THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION Reference Secondary Wastewater Treatment Improvements Project Environmental Assessment date stamped August 11, 1982 and IV. Responses to Comments (received 9/13/82). CP Monroe noted this is the third public forum on this project. The purpose of this forum is to review the Environmental Assessment. Following the public hearing staff requested Commission consider recommending the mitigated negative declaration to the City Council. Kim Erickson, George S. Nolte and Associates advised the mitigated negative declaration had been circulated to the State Clearinghouse and to all responsible agencies. Comments had been received from three of these. Jim Waters of George S. Nolte discussed the comments received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board which were mainly technical engineering questions. He advised the Regional Board had agreed to the need for this project and had recognized the need for implementation as soon as possible. He reviewed addition of a mitigation addressing the Board's concern about leachate control. It was his conclusion there were no insurmountable concerns between the city and the Regional Board at the present time. Chm. Mink opened the public forum. CP told the audience this expansion of the secondary treatment facilities was necessary to increase the efficiency of the plant, and that the city wished to apply for a federal grant to facilitate construction. The Chair then declared the public forum closed. C. Garcia moved to recommend the mitigated negative declaration with the addition of the mitigation addressing Regional Board review of leachate control measures to the City Council for their consideration with the condition that the Regional Water Quality Control Board find the responses to their comments adequate. Second C. Giomi. All aye voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 September 13, 1982 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 578 SF TWO BEDROOM -BATH ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH SUBSTANDARD PARKING AT 607 CONCORD WAY CP Monroe reviewed this revised application. The applicant was not in attendance and a motion was unanimously approved to move this item to the end of the agenda. Following the other items for action it was determined neither the applicant nor his representative were present and the Chair continued this application to the meeting of September 27, 1982. 3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 450 SF SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SIX UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1101 PALOMA AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this application to allow an addition above an existing carport to a building with substandard parking. Reference staff report dated 8/26/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/9/82; "no objections/no comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (8/27/82) and City Engineer (8/23/82); 8/23/82 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; August 13, 1982 letter from the applicant; drawing of possible future addition (relocation of the kitchen) by R. Button, designer; and plans date stamped August 9, 1982. CP discussed details of this request, staff review, applicant's justification, code requirements and Planning staff concerns. If approved, one condition was suggested as listed in the staff report. Ralph Button, designer, discussed the present deck which is not used by the tenants, the proposed new deck and the applicant's plans for relocation of the kitchen. He did not believe the added living area was large enough to convert to another unit at a future date and discussed the double driveway and available visitor parking on-site. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. During discussion C. Harvey, speaking from knowledge of this building, noted the area over the carport had never been known to be used for the benefit of the tenants, that there was available curbside parking space and off-street parking for guests without creating congestion, that there would be no additional impact on existing conditions since the number of bedrooms would not be increased, that this addition would be upgrading the city's current rental inventory. C. Harvey found there were exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in the design of this building since the addition can be made without increasing the footprint of the building or the need for additional parking; that the dry rot damage to the carport as it exists will have to be repaired and would lend itself to this remodeling; that the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owner in order to increase usable space without increasing impact; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare since the building is not being increased in size; and this area is zoned for apartments and therefore would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Harvey then moved to approve this variance for a 450 SF second floor addition above an existing carport with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 23, 1982 be complied with; and (2) that the owner be allowed to rough in the hot and cold water lines for the future location of a sink, and that no other work be allowed without an additional building permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1982 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DELICATESSEN RESTAURANT AT 216 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CP Monroe reviewed this application for a deli restaurant in the C-2 zone, Sub -Area D of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Reference staff report dated 9/2/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 7/28/82; "no objections" (8/30/82) from the City Engineer and Building Department; August 9 and August 30, 1982 memos from the Fire Marshal; July 28, 1982 letter from the applicants; 7/27/82 letter from the property owner; and plans date stamped August 27 and 30, 1982. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review. Planning staff found this use consistent with city objectives for the area and recommended two conditions of approval. Steven Ercolini, the applicant, was present. C. Cistulli advised he would abstain from voting since he is acquainted with the applicant. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was declared closed. Discussion: depth of the area proposed for the deli, hallway and access to the restrooms, this use would not preclude an auto use in the area. It was determined notices of hearing had been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. C. Giomi moved to grant this special permit with the following conditions: (1) conformance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memos of August 9 and August 30, 1982; and (2) approval by the Fire Marshal of seating plans for the restaurant area. Second C. Harvey; motion approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Cistulli abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE PARK AT 477 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP Monroe reviewed this request for a 433,524 SF office park with a 176,670 SF parking structure. Reference staff report dated 8/31/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/10/81; Exhibit A, Findings of Council Resolution No. 51-82 certifying EIR- 58P; July 19, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal with May 27, 1982 notation from the Fire Chief; July 22, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; August 3, 1982 memo from the Director of Parks; August 30, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; data on project as submitted for action dated August 23, 1982; data on project as submitted for study dated 6/22/81; 8/9/82 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; City Planner's 3/4/82 letter to the applicant advising P.M. peak hour traffic capacity for Phase I of this project has been allocated by Council; letters in support from Mike D. Schneider, General Manager, Hyatt Burlingame; Mike Gubner, Associate Director, Restaurant & Hotel Owners Associations, San Mateo County; Hank Ecker, CPM, Triton Financial Corporation; and John Carter -Scott, Director of Sales, Holiday Inn, Airport South; plans date stamped August 3, 1982 with revised parking plans date stamped August 27, 1982. CP discussed details of the proposed office park (a correction in the project height was noted; since the penthouse exceeds 10 percent of the total roof area, it must be counted as one story and the total height would be 115'); environmental review (EIR-58P); project phasing; staff review; comparison with city regulations (Table I); Commission study concerns; letters in support. If approved, 12 conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report. Steven Douglas, The Owen Companies, introduced Colin Russell, architect, who discussed the project using slides. His discussion included the limited access to this flat site, elevations, views, the proposed parking structure to be built in Phase II, constraints, setbacks, BCDC jurisdiction, public access areas, view corridors, circulation within the site, design alternatives considered, enclosing the equipment penthouse for a more aesthetic effect, code requirements and special permits requested. Replying to Commission questions, he discussed the existing extension into the lagoon for power Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1982 towers and the fact it would remain; the structures would be cream colored natural sand blasted concrete with solar grey non -reflective glass; the penthouse would be strictly for mechanical equipment. Phase I and II proposals were noted. Steven Douglas commented on Condition #12 in the staff report and stated that Phase I included one building and landscaping in the area of that building only. He felt that one building and the landscaping for the whole project would be an economic hardship. Considerable discussion followed regarding requiring complete landscaping in Phase I as a trade-off to provide a parklike atmosphere to soften the height of the tall building. Peter Callander, Callander Associates, landscape architect, reported on discussions with BCDC's Design Review Board. Commission expressed a concern about Phase I being completed but the balance of the property subdivided. CP confirmed the site is in an area designated for office use by the city. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing and, for the record, noted letters in support as listed above. The following spoke in favor: Ken Majors, Communications Workers of America, 411 Airport Boulevard: the Communications Workers had to build one-half of the road, expect project to build the other half. Ed Godfrey, Southern Pacific Communications, 1 Adrian Court: need office space in Burlingame, looking forward to expansion of SamTrans, would like to see project proceed. Ken Housley, Cushman & Wakefield, Realtors: there is excess office space in other peninsula cities but severe shortage of desirable office space in Burlingame; many companies come to us looking for good office space. There were no comments in opposition and the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Commission discussion continued: there was no objection raised to the proposed office use; there were objections to the height and FAR unless total public access landscaping were provided in Phase I including the BCDC area and public plaza. One commissioner objected to the 115' height regardless of any landscaping trade-offs. Following further discussion the Chair summarized: general agreement with Condition #12 that the landscaping for Phase I be completed, public access be completed including the corner park and that the interior of the site be at a minimal level of landscaping acceptable to the Park Department. Peter Callander commented that some of the work on the inland side of the public access pathway would have to be destroyed during construction of Phase II. It was noted the major cost would be the sunken patio and an interim landscape plan was suggested for this patio area with the rest of the public access area being fully landscaped. Bob Owen of The Owen Companies was present and suggested building Phase I one year with Phase I landscaping,with the hope they would have a traffic allocation for Phase II in another year or two. He stressed the heavy expense of hardscape installation and maintenance. There appeared to be Commission consensus to require completion of all interior landscaping as related directly to Phase I; all BCDC areas to be landscaped, benches placed, irrigation system installed, et cetera, and completion of the plaza area except for the circular paved area. There was general approval of the penthouse covering all roof top equipment but concern about the 14' height of the penthouse and the 20% coverage of the roof. The alternative of lowering the structure one floor was suggested and the height clearance required for the various pieces of equipment was discussed. C. Harvey moved for approval of the special permit for office use in the C-4 district with the following conditions: (1) compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and Fire Chief's memos of May 27 and July 19, 1982; the Chief Building Inspector's memo of July 22, 1982; the Director of Parks' memo of August 3, 1982 and the City Engineer's memo of August 30, 1982; (2) compliance with the mitigations of the Final Environmental Impact Report as certified by the City Council and included in Exhibit A; (3) development Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1982 of a final landscape plan which meets BCDC public access concerns, includes public access pathways designed for safe mixed recreational use and to city standards (Public Works and Parks Departments) to meet city's needs including regular levee maintenance, and which receive approval of the city Parks Director; (4) an on-going maintenance of landscaping and policing of site and public access areas; (5) contribution as required by the city, and depending upon receipt of Federal grants, to 'the improvement of the city's sewage treatment plant, secondary treatment solids improvement; (6) undertake a specific study of the channelization and traffic improvements required along both sides of Airport Boulevard and on the site to facilitate safe traffic flows on and onto Airport Boulevard and pay the cost of independent review of this study if determined by the city to be necessary; (7) during construction of all phases provide erosion control to include limiting construction as determined necessary by the city during the wet season and dust control during the dry season; (8) as a part of Title 24, survey the feasibility of solar energy and other conservation devices and incorporate into project, feasibility to be determined by the city; (9) submit final grading and drainage plans acceptable to the city; (10) receive permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including but not limited to BCDC, the San Francisco Regional Water Control Board and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; (11) complete resubdivision of easement and vacant adjacent land including coordination with the city to redesign access to the existing buildings fronting on Airport Boulevard and the Anza/Owen office park; and (12) all landscaping for Phase I to be completed, all BCDC landscaping to be completed as submitted with paving of the circular plaza to be delayed to Phase II and lawned over in Phase I, all substantial plants to be installed; and all interior land to be used for Phase II to be planted for erosion control and groomed appearance maintained. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. C. Harvey moved for approval of the special permit to exceed the 65' maximum allowable height subject to the following: that the over-all height of the building measured from the ground to the roof line be 101'-6"; that the height of the penthouse be limited to 11' or less except in the area where the elevator shafts protrude at which point the allowable height shall be 14', and that the total area enclosed not exceed 10% of the roof area; and with the 12 conditions as amended. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. C. Harvey then moved that a special permit be granted to exceed 1.0 Floor Area Ratio, total figures as submitted by staff which vary from 1.07 to 1.17 FAR, and with the 12 conditions as amended. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:25 P.M.; reconvene 10:35 P.M. 6. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 10/5/81 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A SIX UNIT PROJECT AT 1008 EL CAMINO REAL Reference City Engineer's August 24, 1982 memo with August 24, 1982 letter from John Brosnan, Tyrone Construction Company requesting a two year extension. CE Erbacher recommended a one year extension. The applicant's daughter was present representing her father. C. Giomi moved for approval of a one year extension of the condominium permit and for approval and recommendation to City Council of a one year extension of the tentative subdivision map. Second C. Garcia; all aye voice vote. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner reported Council actions at its 9/7/82 meeting: - 1669 Bayshore Highway: denied the applicant's appeal and placed the following conditions on the special permit: "Sales be restricted to new and used office furniture and equipment only, no more than 20 percent new." Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 13, 1982 - 1441 Drake Avenue: upheld the applicant's appeal of the Commission's denial and allowed construction of the cabana as submitted. - 1449 Bellevue Avenue: upheld the appeal of the Commission's approval; project denied City's approval. - P.M. peak hour traffic allocation (August): allocated capacity to Ramada Inn for a 160 room addition, with a four month time limitation. - 1450 Rollins Road: revocation hearing of special permit set for Commission's September 27, 1982 meeting. CP also reported on Council's study meeting 9/8/82. Discussion included downtown parking, bayfront development fee, historic inventory. REVISED POLICY FOR THE M-1 ZONE Reference City Planner's memo giving revised policy and suggested code revisions. Discussion: possibility of a traffic study for the area; the limited amount of signage allowed presently in the M-1 zone; suggestion to change the word "tertiary" to "incidental"; percentage criteria for classifying a structure an "office building"; making residential uses in M-1 a conditional use. The Chair directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for Commission's consideration at its next meeting. An.10IIRNMFNT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary