HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.09.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 26, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Monday, September 26, 1983 at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: Commissioner Leahy
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the September 12, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved
and adopted.
AGENDA - Agenda unanimously approved with removal of Item #8 at the request of
the applicants.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 16 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 35-51 EL CAMINO REAL;
BY CARMINO ASSOCIATES
CP Monroe reviewed this application for a 16 unit three story residential condominium.
Reference staff report dated 9/20/83; study meeting minutes of September 12, 1983;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/31/83; August 31, 1983 letter from
the applicant; staff review: Fire Marshal (September 7, 1983), Chief Building Inspector
(September 6, 1983), City Engineer (September 6, 1983 and September 10, 1981); Monroe
letter of action dated September 22, 1981; Planning Commission minutes of September 14,
1981; Planning Commission 9/14/81 staff report, Item No. 5; August 9, 1982 Planning
Commission minutes, Item #2; August 2, 1982 memo from the Director of Public Works;
July 13, 1982 letter from Sheldon C. Ramsay, Carmino Associates; aerial photograph
of the site; and plans date stamped August 31, 1983. CP discussed details of the
proposal, processing of this project which was originally submitted to the city in
July, 1981, staff review of this re-application, applicant's comments, study meeting
request. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing
was closed.
C. Garcia moved to approve this condominium permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the final working drawings for this condominium project be consistent with
the plans filed with this application and date stamped August 31, 1983, and include
the parking and guest parking alternative as shown on the submitted plans; (2) that
the conditions recommended by the Fire Marshal's memo of September 7, 1983, the
Chief Building Inspector's memo of September 6, 1983 and the City Engineer's memo of
September 6, 1983 be met to the satisfaction of each department; and (3) that the
final landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the Park Department prior to
the issuance of a building permit. Second C. Schwalm. C. Giomi commented on the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
September 26, 1983
motion: reluctant to vote for approval, feel two years is sufficient for a project
of this magnitude, object to leaving the site unused and unmaintained for that period
of time. Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 16 UNIT
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, 35-51 EL CAMINO REAL
Reference CE Erbacher's September 21, 1983 memo with attached map. CE amended his memo
to recommend the tentative and final parcel map as well as the tentative condominium
map be referred to Council for approval. C. Taylor moved for approval and recommendation
to City Council of the tentative and final parcel map and tentative condominium map.
Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Leahy absent.
3. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A 12 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE
CP Monroe reviewed this application. Reference staff report dated 9/20/83; September 12,
1983 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 8/17/83; Negative Declaration ND -346P posted September 7, 1983; staff review:
Fire Marshal (August 31, 1983 memo), Chief Building Inspector (September 6, 1983 memo),
City Engineer (September 6 and September 20, 1983 memos), Director of Parks (September 20,
1983 memo); letter from Jerry Deal regarding average front setback dated August 30, 1983;
aerial photograph of the site; 20 September 1983 letter in opposition from C. F. Schmitz,
1237 Bellevue Avenue; and plans date stamped September 20, 1983. CP discussed details
of the application, code requirements, staff review, architect's letter establishing
average front setback, study meeting inquiries, revised plans submitted after the study
session, summary of applicant's request. Four conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Ted Farley, developer of the project, discussed
his request for a 42.5' height and the variance to allow the garage slab 2.4' above
the top of curb in the front setback; the difficulties encountered with this site
which rises 3' from curb to the rear, neighbor's lot would encounter the same difficulty;
he felt the variance was necessary to maintain proper water flow; the balance of the
requested height was for the mansard which he believed would be a better design than
a flat roof; feel a developer would have to have four floors to build economically on_
this lot. There were no audience comments in favor.
Those speaking in opposition: Lannis Lewis, owner of property at 1219 Bellevue Avenue -
proposed project will cast a shadow on 1219 Bellevue, making it colder for the tenants;
this is a convenient location for elderly tenants, a project of this nature should be
pulled out of downtown; believe development should be kept at two stories and to
affordable units; parking is already a problem in the area. Carroll Schmitz,
1237 Bellevue Avenue - design is objectionable, think some ingenuity would solve
the developer's problems, floors do not have to be all one level; height is out of
place in this neighborhood and could set a precedent for other properties in the area;
think character of the street would be much nicer with projects of a relatively common
height. Jeremy Rice, 1215 Bellevue Avenue - object to the height; concern that with
one building breaking up the present height picture of the area all future construction
will rise to this height; the present residential character of the street will be
destroyed. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: applicant has not provided testimony to show exceptional
circumstances exist which would justify granting the variance; there is a slope on
every lot on that side of the block, what makes this property exceptional?; concern
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1983
about the proposed height and no unsecured guest parking, parking is congested in this
area at present. Developer advised economic return on the penthouse makes the entire
project viable, the other units would retail at a lower price; he felt the project
was well designed for this difficult lot. CP explained the reason for the variance
is that it is a structure in the front setback, which is different than a protrusion
on the face of the building; the slab would be bermed over with landscaping. Further
discussion: feasibility of moving the building back and lengthening the driveway;
this is too much project for the lot; a massive building, a big box.
C. Giomi moved to deny the variance for the garage roof slab. Second C. Cistulli.
Comment on the motion: have heard no testimony relating to circumstances which would
justify granting this variance. Motion to deny the variance approved on a 5-1 roll
call vote, C. Garcia dissenting, C. Leahy absent. C. Taylor moved to deny the special
permit for height. Second C. Giomi; motion to deny the special permit approved 6-0
on roll call vote, C. Leahy absent. C. Giomi moved to deny the condominium permit.
Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Taylor
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A 12 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, 1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE
In view of the vote on Item #3 this item was removed from the agenda.
Recess 8:30 P.M.; reconvene 8:37 P.M.
5. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION FENCING REQUIREMENT FOR STAR EXCAVATION TRUCK
STORAGE AT 1645 ROLLINS ROAD
CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated 9/21/83; Planning Commission
minutes of September 12, 1983; Star Excavation letter dated September 19, 1983 with
attached revised proposal for fencing; and Monroe letter to Diana Miley, Star Excavation
dated September 21, 1983 requesting a spokesman for Star and for the property owner,
Hiram Walker & Sons, be present this evening.
CP discussed fencing requirements in Planning Commission action at its September 12, 1983
meeting, property owner's objection to either of the two alternatives and a further
alternative agreed to by Star and the property owner. Commission review of this latest
proposal was requested and an alternative condition suggested in the staff report.
CP suggested there be a gate in the fence, unlocked at all times; purpose of the fence
is visual, not for security. She further advised of a phone call from Mr. Roberts
of Hiram Walker; he was unable to attend this meeting but approved of the latest
alternative if agreeable to the Fire Department.
Discussion: Fire Marshal had agreed to a gate as long as it is not locked; desire of
the Commission to successfully screen this storage area; suggest installation of a
rolling gate, parallel to the fence; desirable height for the fence; believe Commission
should require written direction from the property owner that such a fence is acceptable
before the fence requirement becomes effective.
C. Giomi moved to amend the use permit for truck storage by Star Excavation at 1645 Rollins
Road to enclose the storage area with an 8' chain link fence,designed to be slatted,placed
behind the asphalted area; the fence to be extended from the existing industrial building
to the side property line fence; the fence to include a rolling gate also slatted and
at least wide enough to permit access by Fire Department equipment, this gate to remain
unlocked at all times; access shall be approved by the Fire Department and a building
permit shall be sought and received prior to construction. Second C. Cistulli; motion
approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
ITEMS FOR STUDY
Page 4
September 26, 1983
6. VARIANCES TO ALLOW A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 4 EAST CAROL AVENUE, BY WAYNE
CLAPPER (ARCHITECT) WITH DAVID BEHLING (PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff memo (with attachments). Commission determination regarding yards was
requested for this unusual corner lot. In the discussion the Commissioners pointed
out that the preferable definition was one which had the least impact on the existing
structure. Following discussion, C. Garcia moved that Barroilhet Avenue be considered
as the front yard of this lot and the 63' section as the rear yard. Second C. Taylor;
motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Item
set for hearing October 11, 1983.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 3,800 SF OFFICE -SHOP EXPANSION AT 1657-63 ROLLINS ROAD,
BY RICHARD HANDLEN (ARCHITECT) FOR CLEMCO PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER)
Set for hearing October 11, 1983.
8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 32, 33, 34 (1550 ROLLINS ROAD) AND
A PORTION OF LOT 38 (S.P.R.R. TRACT) IN MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 5
Removed from the agenda at the request of the applicants. When supportive data has
been received applicant will request rescheduling for Commission study.
9. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND -345P, BURLINGAME GROUP PROJECT, 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Reference staff report for Item #9 with attached Environmental Assessment date stamped
August 16, 1983 and Negative Declaration ND -345P posted August 19, 1983 as well as
September 23, 1983 letter from the State Clearinghouse advising the review period
is closed and none of the state agencies had comments.
CP advised there have been some changes in the plans; she believed all of the changes
were covered in the Environmental Assessment and were either addressed in the
mitigated negative declaration or could be conditioned on the project itself.
C. Schwalm moved that Commission approve Negative Declaration ND -345P and recommend
it to City Council for action. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 5-1 on voice vote,_
C. Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Staff will forward to Council.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 300 ROOM HOTEL AND 21,400 SF OF RESTAURANT SPACE
AT 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
10. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 300 ROOM HOTEL AND 21,400 SF OF RESTAURANT SPACE AT
450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD WHICH WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON THE
ADJACENT "BOAT -RESTAURANT" SITE TO LESS THAN THE 58 REQUIRED
Mark Hornberger, Gale Kober Associates, architects for the project, advised revised
dimensioned plans would be delivered to the Planning Department by Wednesday morning.
He then gave a brief presentation, using an overlay on the old plans, to demonstrate
revisions. At study the Commission reviewed the plans and asked that the 25' setback
line from top of bank be shown on the plans submitted. Chm. Graham set Items #9 and
#10 for public hearing on October 11, 1983 providing the revised plans are in the
Planning Department by Wednesday, September 28, 1983 at 8:00 A.M. and providing
there are no objections following review by all departments.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
Page 5
September 26, 1983
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its September 19, 1983 regular meeting.
Acknowledgments
- Planning staff code enforcement letters to: Ervan Zamora, 3916 E1 Camino Real, Palo
Alto; Can't Wait Photos, 1222 Broadway, Burlingame; Yamato Flight Kitchen, 359 Beach
Road, Burlingame.
- Municipal Code Requirements Checklist, now being distributed to all business license
applicants.
Review of Sign Code: Signage on Awnings and Canopies
Reference staff report 8/8/83, continued to 8/22/83 and to 9/26/83. CP Monroe discussed
issues involved and asked for Commission direction.
Discussion: approve of the awning code as it is; would like to see canopies treated
the same as the face of a building; would have no objection to a certain percentage
of total signage being allowed on the end of a canopy; limit canopy signage to a
certain percentage of the allowed square footage; would like to get input from the
merchants; don't think canopies provide the streetscape with understatement or neatness,
would like to see canopies treated differently but not the same as face of a building;
would like further study with a public hearing after Commission reaches a consensus;
suggest Commission determine at its next meeting what percentage of signage should be
allowed on canopies, and then ask for merchants' view on that; feel the distinction
between canopies and awnings is more apparent than real, hesitate to impose more
regulations than can be enforced. It was suggested staff summarize the existing
ordinance and suggestions made this evening, followed by further Commission discussion,
public hearing, and then reach a consensus. Consensus was to discuss the issue of
awnings and canopies at a subsequent meeting before staff taking any action. CP
requested Commission contact her with any comments on alternative approaches.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary