HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.10.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Tuesday, October 11, 1983 at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Giomi, Schwalm, Taylor and Graham
Absent: Commissioners Cistulli and Leahy (excused) and Commissioner Garcia (excused)
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney;
Frank Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the September 26, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and
adopted.
AGENDA - Agenda unanimously approved. Chm. Graham advised all applicants that since
only four members of the Commission were present this evening, they could
continue their hearing to the next meeting on October 24, 1983 if they so
desired. No applications were continued.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. THREE VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY BEDROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 4 EAST CAROL AVENUE
CP Monroe reviewed this request to add a second story bedroom/bath addition to an existing
single family residence which has non -conforming side and rear yards and which does not
provide two off-street parking spaces. Reference staff report dated 10/3/83; Project
Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/31/83; "no comments' memos from the City Engineer
(dated 9/2/83) and the Chief Fire Marshall (.dated 9/6/83); 9/6/83 memo from the Chief
Building Inspector; applicant's letter of explanation received on 9/12/83; location map of
the site taken from the Sanborn Map Book; aerial photograph; and plans date-stamped
9/19/83. CP discussed the proposed addition and the setback violations of the existing
home. It was suggested that one action could cover all three variances. Three conditions
were suggested for consideration.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Dave Behling, was present. Wayne Clapper,
architect for the project, spoke in favor of the application, stating that the addition
will not extend the existing non -conformities of the house, that at one time the property
complied with all setbacks but a garage was subdivided off prior to 1932 which caused the
non -conforming setbacks to be created. There were no comments against the application and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Giomi made a motion to grant the three variances for the addition based on the following
findings: the original placement of the home is the cause for the variance, there is an
unusual amount of street frontage to accommodate a second vehicle, there is no feasible
way to make the addition without excessive expense or the loss of trees, the addition will
not be injurious to adjacent properties and the lot will retain its single family character.
The motion included the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Inspector's memo of September 6, 1983 be met, (2) the Barriolhet frontage shall be defined
as the front yard and the 63' property line opposite shall be defined as the rear yard for
this property; (3) that the addition, as built, be consistent with the plans date-stamped
"revised plan" 9/19/83. Second C. Schwalm. Motion approved on a 4-0 roll call vote, C.
Burlingame
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
October 11, 1983
Cistulli, D. Garcia and C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. FOUR VARIANCES TO ALLOW REMODELING OF THE SECOND FLOOR AREA OF A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 1109 MILLS AVENUE
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow the remodeling of the second floor area of a
home which does not comply with code requirements for side or rear setbacks or for lot
coverage. Reference staff report dated 10/4/83; Project Application and CEQA Assessment
received 9/16/83; "no comments" memos from the Chief Fire Marshall (dated 9/21/83) and the
City Engineer (dated 9/26/83); 9/26/83 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; applicant's
letter of explanation received 9/16/83; aerial photograph; and plans date-stamped 9/19/83.
CP discussed the non -conformities of the existing house. The addition will not extend the
non -conformities. The second floor met building codes when it was originally constructed.
Two conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John Fragomeni, applicant, was present and explained
that the proposed construction will bring the home up to conformance with present building
codes and will not extend the footprint or existing non -conformities of the home. There
were no comments against the application and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: the plans filed with this application are date-stamped 9/19/83;
the use of this property will not change; home will be made more livible; the existing
lot is small.
Based on the findings that the house is located on a sub -standard sized lot and there was
no change in the footprint and that the addition will make the home more livible, bringing
the second floor up to building codes, C. Schwalm moved to approve the three variances
with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's
memo of 9/26/83 be met, and (2) that the project be consistent with the plans submitted
and date-stamped 9/19/83. Second C. Taylor. C.Giomi clarified that no new bedrooms were
being added. Motion approved 4-0 on roll call vote, C. Cistulli, C. Garcia and C. Leahy
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Separate action was taken on the Variance for lot coverage. C. Schwalm moved that the
Variance to exceed 40% lot coverage be approved based on the same findings as for the
setback variances and with the same conditions. Second C. Giomi. Motion approved on
4-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli, C. Garcia and C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
3. REVIEW OF THE 4/12/82 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR D & M TOWING, INC., 1250 ROLLINS ROAD
(CONTINUED FROM JULY 25, 1983).
CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated 10/4/83; Towber memo 9/30/83;
7/25/83 Planning Commission minutes; CP Monroe staff report dated 7/19/83; May 26, 1983
letter to applicant; 4/25/83 Planning Commission minutes; applicant's letter received
7/5/83; letter from City of Burlingame Police Department received 7/8/83; 5/23/83 letter
to the applicant from Levin Metals Corporation; CP Monroe staff report dated 4/19/83.
CP reported that as of this evening, the applicant had already installed a cyclone
fence with wooden slats along the property line facing the Nerli property and that the
applicant was preparing to begin work within two weeks on the other sides of the lot
requiring a fence.
The applicant, Marc Rochette, was not present. Commission discussed the possibility of
continuing this item to give Mr. Rochette time to complete the fence since work has
already started. C. Taylor wanted to make sure the work was completed within a time
certain. Chm. Graham instructed staff to tell Mr. Rochette that all work on the fence
is to be completed within 30 days. This application will appear on the 11/14/83 agenda
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1983
as a revocation hearing; if work has been completed, the item will be dropped from the
)agenda. C. Taylor moved to approve this time -line for the fence completion; second C.
Giomi. All aye voice vote, C. Cistulli, C. Garcia and C. Leahy absent.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 3,800 SF OFFICE -SHOP ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING
AT 1657-63 ROLLINS ROAD
CP Monroe reviewed this application to allow a 3,000 SF office area and 800 SF shop area
addition to an existing office building in the M-1 District. Reference staff report
dated 9/30/83; Project Application and CEQA Assessment received 8/29/83; 9/26/83 Planning
Commission minutes; "no comments" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (dated 9/6/83)
and the City Engineer (dated 9/6/83); 8/31/83 memo from the Fire Marshall; applicant's
letter of explanation received 8/29/83; aerial photograph; and plans date-stamped 9/7/83.
C. Giomi.clarified that the existing building is already sprinklered and that directional
signs will be needed to direct traffic to new clinic entrance. She suggested the following
additional conditions for this application: (1) that the medical clinic parking spaces
shall be marked and (2) directional signage for the clinic be provided.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The architect, Richard Handlen, was present.
There were no comments for or against the application and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: clarification of size of addition; the applicant requests no var-
iances, no change of use and all parking is provided; on -year review of the parking
situation should be an additional condition; original use of the building was for offices
so the proposed addition will not constitute a change of use on this site.
C. Giomi made a motion to approve the Special Permit request with the following conditions:
(1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshall's memo of 8/31/83 be met, (2) that the project
be developed consistent with the plans submitted and date-stamped 9/7/83 (.staff copy
revised), (3).that the medical clinic parking spaces shall be marked, (4) that directional
signage for the medical clinic be provided, and (5) that this permit and on-site parking
be reviewed in one year. Second C. Schwalm. Motion approved 4-0 on roll call vote,
C. Cistulli, C. Garcia and C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 300 -ROOM HOTEL, A 7000 SF RESTAURANT AND A 12000 SF RESTAURANT
FOR THE BURLINGAME GROUP AT 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 10/5/83; Project Appli--
cation and CEQA Assessment received 8/8/83; Page IV -10 from the Specific Design Guide-
lines showing apparent width calculations; letter received 9/2/83 from the BCDC Design
Review Board; letter received 9/23/83 from the BCDC Design Review Board; State Lands
Commission letter dated 5/19/83 to CP Monroe; Fire Marshall's 9/28/83 and 8/25/83 memos;
9/12/83 memo -from the Chief Building Inspector; 9/20/83 memo from the City Engineer;
9/21/83 memo from the Director of Parks; 9/8/83 letter from Anthony Srba to CP Monroe;
9/20/83 letter from Mark Hornberger to CP Monroe; 9/26/83 Planning Commission Minutes;
aerial photograph; and plans date-stamped 8/16/83 with revised site plan date-stamped
9/27/83. CP explained that Robert Sherman, owner of the boat -restaurant has submitted
plans and an application for the parking variance affecting his property. She suggested
that the public hearing include both the Special Permit and the Variance. CA Coleman
advised that this would be acceptable. Action should be taken separately on each permit.
The Special Permit will be filed with 450 Airport Boulevard; the Variance will be filed
with 410 Airport Boulevard.
CP Monroe discussed the history of this site and the present parking situation for the
boat -restaurant; further review required by the State Lands Commission; actions already
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
October 11, 1983
taken by BCDC and Council on this project; remaining staff concerns can be handled at
the final building permit stage; the internal circulation on this lot will now provide
one less driveway entrance and a full intersection opposite where the 477 Airport
Boulevard project connects to Airport Boulevard; easement to the boat -restaurant property
across the Burlingame Group parcel is required; proposed changes to Conditions #5, #6
and #12; method of calculating apparent width; and applicant's justification for violating
apparent width requirements.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Anthony Srba, architect for the applicant, was
present. He discussed the height restrictions on the lot as it affects apparent width
and various ways of looking at apparent width. Dave Keyston discussed the proposed time-
line for this project and suggested that Conition #3 be changed to allow a total of 28
months for completion of the hotel rather than 24 months, and 20 months for completion
of the 7000 SF restaurant rather than 18 months.
CP Monroe suggested that the public hearing should also include discussion of the parking
variance. Mr. Robert Sherman,owner of the boat -restaurant, was present. He acknowleged
that he was giving up his restaurant's direct access to Airport Boulevard and requested
that the proposed conditions shown on the 10/11/83 plans be attached to any approval of
this project.
There were no other comments for or against these applications and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: 25' public easement was already dedicated to the City in 1965,
before the State took title to the Anza area and is shown on all Title Reports; BCDC
will require the 25' easement to be maintained by the applicant or they will forfeit
their permit; Keyston's proposed construction time -line: is staff comfortable with it?;
CE reviewed proposed time -line and feels that requested change is minor, but CP requested
that project be required to get Building Permit within 11 months, rather than 12, so that
there is less chance of the Special Permit expiring before the building permit is issued;
apparent width should be measured from the street, not the bayfront; it is not the City's
fault that there is a height restriction on the site which forces project to violate
apparent width requirement and we should not feel any obligation to accommodate this
site restriction; two restaurants on this site may be excessive; height may be preferrable
to bulk; low profile is desirable; possibility of relocating restaurants to increase
apparent width percentage; applicant separated the three buildings, rather than grouping
them, because management of,the businesses involved prefers to have them that way; hotel
will have a coffee shop but no major restaurant inside; does the proposed parking plan
for the boat -restaurant take advantage of compact spaces; both compact and handicapped
spaces are provided for the boat -restaurant; the Design Guidelines were originally
intended to be only guidelines and allow give-and-take between applicant and City.
C. Schwalm made a motion to approve the Special Permit to a 300 -room hotel and 19000 SF
of restaurant space with the conditions listed in the staff report (Conditions #3, #5,
#6 & #12 as amended) and with the conditions proposed by Robert Sherman in his 10/11/83
application for the parking variance (conditions to be placed on the Special Permit
application since they apply to this site) subject to BCDC approval of Mr. Sherman's
plans and the addition of front setback landscaping and improvements as required by the
City of Burlingame. Motion seconded by C. Taylor. Motion denied 3-1 by roll call vote:
C. Giomi opposed; C. Cistulli, C. Garcia and C. Leahy absent. The appeal of this
decision will be heard by the Council at their Octoberr17th meeting. The conditions are:
1. That the final plans and the construction of the project be consistent with the
plans date-stamped August 16, 1983 except the site plan which is date-stamped
September 27, 1983;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
October 11, 1983
2. That the condition of the Fire Marshall's memo of September 28 and August 25, 1983,
the Chief Building Inspector's memo of September 12, 1983, City Engineer's memo
of September 20, 1983.and the Park Director's memo of September 21, 1983 be met;
3. That the applicant abide by the following construction schedule to begin from the
date of BCDC approval:
STEPS IN CONSTRUCTION
Process
CONSECUTIVE MONTHS
12000 SF Rest. Hotel 7000 SF Rest.
BCDC Approval
0
0
0
Submit Working Drawings
3
10
8
Receive Building Permit
5
11
10
Start Foundation
6
14
12
Foundation Inspection
7.5
17
14
Final Framing 11 22 16
Final Inspection -Occupancy 15 27 20
4. That the design of all parking lot areas meet the required dimensions as established
in Code Section 25.70;
5. That, if required by BCDC, the developer shall participate with the adjacent devel-
oper on the South side of Sanchez Creek in providing a pedestrian bridge within
BCDC jurisdiction across the channel which would connect the 8' shoreline access
pathways on each side or a pedestrian walkway widening on the East side of the
existing bridge roadway across Sanchez Creek;
6. That the developer receive permits if necessary from all regulatory agencies,
including BCDC, FAA, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
7. That no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual or group for more
than 30 days and the rooms and buildings shall not be used for permanent residential
purposes;
8. That a site specific soils investigation be conducted for each structure and,based
on the conclusions,determine settlement for new fill and structural needs of
building loads; plan for post construction settlement and design fill and structures
with settlement in mind; consider differential settlement between structure and
surrounding ground in design of utilities and entrance to buildings; place under-
ground utilities in non-ferrous pipes or coated or encased steel pipes; each foun-
dation system shall be determined by a licensed soil engineer in consultation with
the structural engineer; ground shaking hazards shall also be addressed;
9. That if soils and engineering analysis determine piles to be necessary, pile drivers
shall be equipped with noise shields; piles and other construction work shall take
place only during hours approved by the City; adjacent property owners shall be
notified of pile driving schedule; a solid construction fence shall be provided
during hotel construction to reduce ground level noise transmission;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
October 11, 1983
10. That the bay levee shall be raised to 9' MSL and buildings set back 50' from bay
and channel shorelines to protect for earthquake and tidal wave impact; levees shall
be stabilized by placement of smaller riprap between larger rubble -concrete blocks
and/or placement of concrete slurry; occupied floors of all structures shall be
above 9' MSL;
11. That the developer shall participate in an assessment district to provide transit
link between the Anza Area and mass transit services on the west side of 101;
12. That landscaping shall be designed to control run-off into adjacent water bodies;
landscaping shall be done with plant species suited to the environment and which
require minimal fertilization, irrigation and pest control; a landscape architect
shall establish guidelines for proper fertilization and pest -weed control to mini-
mize application of chemicals; on-going maintenance of all public areas shall be
provided by the developers; the lessee shall maintain all landscaped and public-
access areas;
13. That building shall be designed to comply with Title 24 and shall use building
materials to maximize attenuation of aircraft and traffic noise; interior noise
levels shall not exceed 45 dBA;
14. That the driveway connection from the 12000 SF restaurant to Airport Boulevard
shall be built with two out -bound lanes; this driveway shall also provide access
to the adjacent property fronting on the channel and a connection or connections
shall be provided between the two parking lots; the curb line between the bridge
over the channel and the curb cut for the 12000 SF restaurant/channel frontage
property shall be modified as necessary to maintain a smooth alignment for west-
bound Airport Boulevard traffic.
15. That private security guards shall be provided to patrol the buildings and public
access areas and pathways; public access pathways shall be 8' wide; controlled
access shall be provided to the hotel parking areas; the hotel parking shall be
designed to allow easy police surveillance from Airport Boulevard; public access
areas and pathways shall be designed to connect with those on adjacent properties;
16. That the developer shall pay the required sewer improvement fee based upon proposed
uses; on-site pretreatment facilities shall be provided for all areas where food
is prepared; the project shall include low flow water fixtures;
17. That the hotel shall not exceed 65' from top of curb in height to protect views from
existing structures; landscaping shall be generous in the foreground and within the
parking areas to offset large parking areas; parking for hotel shall be below grade;
at least 83% of the BCDC jurisdiction shall remain open and landscaped; the front
setback shall be landscaped.
18. That the project as built be consistent with the plans date-stamped October 11, 1983
with landscaping extended across the abandoned driveway and as approved by BCDC for
410 Airport Boulevard and with the terms in the letter submitted by Mr. Sherman
dated October 11, 1983.
The following conditions were proposed by Pyr. Sherman, owner of the boat -restaurant, and
were approved as revised by the Planning Commission:
19. That the project as built be consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped
October 11, 1983 and as conditioned by BCDC;
20. That the landscaping extend across the abandoned driveway area and the final land-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
October 11, 1983
scape plans be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building
permit;
21. That the final plans be consistent with all the codes and regulations of the City
of Burlingame;
22. That this variance action be effective commencing upon the approval of a permit by
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
6. VARIANCE FOR A 300 -ROOM HOTEL, A 7000 SF RESTAURANT AND A 12000 SF RESTAURANT FOR
THE BURLINGAME GROUP AT 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 10/5/83; Project Applica-
tion and CEQA Assessment received 10/11/83; applicant's letter of explanation received
10/11/83; and plans date-stamped 10/11/83. At the beginning of the hearing on Agenda
Item #5, CP suggested that the public hearing be considered simultaneously on both the
Special Permit and Variance for this peoposed hotel -restaurant development. The Commis-
sion agreed to do this.
Following the public hearing and Commission discussion on this item, C. Taylor made a
motion to approve the Variance Permit based on the finding that the variance is necessary
as a result of the applicant's need for access to the parking on his site and the devel-
opment on the adjacent site results in the removal of some of the existing parking for
the boat -restaurant; the failure to grant the Variance would result in undue property
loss; and the granting of the Variance will not affect the General Plan or Zoning since
the use cannot be expanded. Seconded by C. Schwalm. C Giomi clarified that the
Commission's motion is to grant the boat -restaurant six less than the required 57
spaces. The following conditions are required: (1) that the project as built be con-
sistent with the plans submitted and date stamped October 11, 1983 and as conditioned
by BCDC; (2) that the landscaping extend across the abandoned driveway area and the
final landscape plans be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building
permit; (3) that the final plans be consistent with all the codes and regulations of the
City of Burlingame; (4) that this variance action be effective commencing upon the
a proval of a permit by toe Bay Con vatton and Development Commission. Motion to approve
t e variance passed on a -0 roll ca vo e, Cers Cistu li, Garcia and Leahy absent;
ITEMS FOR STUDY appeal will be heard by Council 10/17/83.
7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE 1550 ROLLINS ROAD AND A PORTION OF LOT
38 (S.P.R.R. TRACT) IN MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 5
Commissioners.discussed the possible uses of the spur track area depending on whether
or not the spur track is left as an access easement; future rail needs in the M-1
district; the city cannot require the resumption of rail service to the M-1 district
if Southern Pacific decides otherwise; if the applicant is conditioned that the spur
be kept in easement, it would prevent him from building on it.
The application was set for hearing on October 24, 1983.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe discussed Council actions at their 10/3/83 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 P.M.