Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.09.11CI'T'Y OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Tuesday, September 11, 1984 at 7:34 P.M. The Chair announced that Commissioner Schwalm would be absent due to the serious illness of his granddaughter; a minute of silence was observed for Michelle Schwalm. P OT.T. ( A T.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Schwalm (excused) Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the August 27, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FOR PARKING TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE HOME AT 2505 HILLSIDE DRIVE, BY OLINDA AND DAVID NEWSOM CP Monroe reviewed this request for a variance to on-site parking in order to add a two story addition to this three bedroom home. Reference staff report, 9/11/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 7/31/84; applicants' letter, August 8, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (8/15/84), City Engineer (9/4/84), Building Inspector (8/31/84); aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 31, 1984; and plans date stamped July 31, 1984. CP discussed details of the request and staff review. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Phil Hyland, designer representing the applicants, stated this was originally a three bedroom house built prior to the present code requirement for two on-site parking spaces. Commission noted no justification for variance had been included in the packet, need testimony supporting the variance from the applicants' representative this evening. Mr. Hyland stated when the house was built bedrooms were rather small, with their expanding family the applicants need more space, the proposed addition of a family room/master bedroom would give them more privacy and upgrade the house; cannot move the house to provide additional parking unless existing rooms were removed. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1984 Commission discussion: applicants' letter clearly states plans will result in a five bedroom dwelling, one of these five: is designated as a den; den does not have a closet at this time so is not technically considered a bedroom; concern about a four or five bedroom home with only a -one car garage; possibility of extending garage to the rear; applicants' representative advised extending the garage could be financially impossible; presently the lot slopes/drains to the rear, the addition would be required to drain to the street. C. Giomi moved to deny this variance request. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: seems applicant has proposed the addition based on his own needs and not considered possible future use of the site; feel it would be bad planning to allow such a large addition without making an effort to provide adequate off-street parking; could add three more cars parked on the street in future. Motion to deny the application was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 6'-0" FENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 540 OAK GROVE AVENUE, BY CATHERINE AND ROBERT ALVISO CP Monroe reviewed this request for a 6' fence (5' permitted) in the front setback. Reference staff report, 9/11/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment; plans date stamped August 14, 1984; applicants' letter, August 1, 1984; staff review: City Engineer (8/27/84), Building Inspector (8/15/84), Fire Marshal (8/15/84); photographs of the site date stamped 8/14/84; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 31, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter in justification of the request, code requirements for granting an exception. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: the fact that this home is on a corner lot and the method of determining primary frontage. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicants were present. Secy. Giomi noted "no objection" communication received from Ned Benedict, 708 Winchester Drive. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this lot which is bordered by two city streets, that neighboring properties would not be materially damaged and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the applicants. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this fence exception with the following condition: (1) that the fence be built as shown in the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 14, 1984; second C. Leahy. Commission incorporated into the findings the applicants' reasons for the exception contained in their letter of August 1, 1984 and a further finding that the public hazard would be reduced. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. MASTER SIGN PERMIT FOR A PROGRAM OF SIGNS FOR THE ADELINE MARKET SHOPPING CENTER, 1500-1508 ADELINE DRIVE, BY MARMORA TERRELL CP Monroe reviewed this sign exception request for a master signage program for the Adeline Market and retail site at 1500-1508 Adeline Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1984 Drive. Reference staff report, 9/11/84; Sign Permit. Application filed July 18, 1984; Sign Exception Application filed July 18, 1984; Alan B. LaFon letter, July 28, 1984; Marmora Terrell letter, July 16, 1984; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (8/6/84), Fire Marshal (8/8/84), City Engineer (8/6/84); study meeting minutes, August 27, 1984; signage site plan, 9/4/84; table detailing the master sign program, 9/4/84; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed August 31, 1984; plans by Alan B. LaFon Design date stamped. August 7, 1984. CP discussed details of the proposed master sign permit and the need for a sign exception, staff review, letter from the applicant's representative and applicant's letter, the issue of measurement of the Adeline Market sign. Four conditions were suggested. for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: existing sidewalk readerboard sign at the flower shop is not included in this signage request; regulations governing temporary window signs; some of the retail frontages are screened at certain angles from Adeline or E1 Camino by the gas station; off -premise advertising is not allowed and no advertising of these retail shops can be placed on gas station property. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Marmora Terrell, applicant, discussed measurements used for this signage request and her desire to retain the Adeline Market sign for its historic and nostalgic value. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion the applicant stated she would be willing to eliminate the directory sign (Sign F) on El Camino. She felt Sign A (directory sign on Adeline) was necessary for advertising purposes, the gas station on the corner obstructs the view of three of the retail shops; if Sign A could be reoriented to be seen going both ways on Adeline she would be willing to reduce this sign to one face only. Further Commission comment: this has been and will be a neighborhood business area, do not feel such a great amount of signage is necessary. C. Giomi found there were special circumstances applicable to this property in the shape of the site, its size and street frontage to support approval of a sign exception. Considering the Adeline Market sign as one sign, she was not opposed to the total amount of square footage as long as tenants were made aware of the total sign package and that it must not be exceeded. C. Giomi moved for approval of this Master Sign Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of August 6, 1984 be met; (2) that the signage on the 3,316 SF leasable area be considered as one sign; (3) that the master sign permit be based on the signage site plan dated 9/4/84 and the signage table dated 9/4/84 prepared by Planning staff; (4) that the master sign permit be used to establish the future signage placements and maximum signage allowances for this site and any changes to the size of signs or number of signs on this site would require a sign exception and amendment of this master sign permit; and (5) that should the Adeline Market sign be removed/ replaced, the entire master sign permit be automatically reviewed by the Commission. Second C. Leahy. Fuge 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1984 Comment on the motion: feel these circumstances are so unique that the sign exception is needed, these businesses cannot exist solely on neighborhood patronage; because of the unusual shape of this lot and the adjacent lot, approval will not set a precedent for other lots in Burlingame; would prefer removal of the Adeline Market sign and a more aesthetic sign program than what has been presented; additional signage in this particular area will not enhance the economic value of the property, once all shops are established the signage won't be needed and the neighborhoods will shop there. Motion was defeated on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Jacobs and Taylor dissenting, C. Schwalm absent. According to Planning Commission rules of procedure a majority vote is needed to approve. Further comment: Commission has denied this application but applicant may come in with another substantially different application; modification of the Adeline Market sign would reduce the signage program substantially and would not impair the adequacy of the program. Appeal procedures were advised. The Chair recognized in the audience Malcolm Towns, Fire Marshal and Dennis Argyres, City Manager. A short recess was declared at 8:40 P.M., reconvene 8:50 P.M. 4. SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW A HOTEL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AND TO ALLOW THE HOTEL TO EXCEED 35' IN HEIGHT, HYATT REGENCY HOTEL PROJECT, BY HORNBERGER, WORSTELL + ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECT) FOR HYATT CORPORATION ( PROPERTY OWNER) /333 e,4YSA0Kr 11alY, CP Monroe reviewed this application for an 800 room atrium design hotel in the bayfront area. Reference staff report, 9/11/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/18/84; Hyatt Regency Hotel, Project Area Summary date stamped 6/18/84; .Planting Concepts and Plant Selections for Hyatt Regency date stamped 6/18/84; City Council Minutes, 2/7/83, Traffic Allocations, February 1983; City Council Minutes, 11/7/83, November 1983 Traffic Allocation; Planning Commission Resolution No. 2-84, Recommending EIR-61P for a Proposed Hyatt Regency Hotel with attached Exhibit A; staff review: Fire Marshal (6/29, 8/20 and 7/2/84 memos), City Engineer (9/4/84 memo), Director of Parks (8/22 and 6/26/84 memos); Hornberger letter to Monroe, September 5, 1984; Nicolls (Hyatt Hotels Corp.) letter to Monroe, August 6, 1984 with attachment; staff review of the project against the design guidelines for bayfront development, 6/21/84; Hornberger letter to Federal Aviation Administration, May 7, 1984, with attached copy of Notice to the FAA; study meeting minutes, August 27, 1984; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed August 31, 1984; and plans date stamped August 16, 1984. CP discussed details of the proposed project, traffic; allocation, review of the project against the city's design guidelines and zoning. She noted that specific issues of concern have been addressed in the staff report. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 11, 1984 Mark Hornberger, architect, reviewed the project using slides to illustrate his presentation. He discussed location of the site, the 21,000 SF portion being set aside for possible future northbound on-ramp to 101, site plan elements, setbacks, interior areas of the hotel, -typical elevation, height, landscaping and exterior areas. Several slides addressed the proposed hotel in relation to nearby existing/approved structures and the cluster effect which is - encouraged by the city's design guidelines. Discussion: employees will not be charged for on-site parking; suggest valet parking be included in the list of those not to be charged for use of on-site parking without review and permission of the city (Condition #3); add "but not limited to" following line 2 of Condition #4; if signalization is needed in the future, Hyatt would be subject to their share of the cost; the percentage of landscaping would be reduced from 35% to 30% should the 21,000 SF be taken for the relocated freeway on-ramp; concern about the aesthetics of the garage structure as viewed from Bayshore Highway; would be difficult and expensive to put a large portion of the garage underground; in time landscaping will screen part of the parking structure. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue spoke in opposition: hotel in the M-1 (light industrial) zone is not a compatible use; there is a 35' review line and 50' height limit in this zone, would like to see the 50' limitation maintained; believe the 128.15' height will prohibit fire fighter access; concern about flooding; believe moving the on-ramp would create tremendous traffic problems and compound the traffic situation; urge denial of this application. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: access from on-site parking to the coffee shop and to Hugo's restaurant on the second floor; architect explained Hyatt's concern about security if access were available directly from the garage to the second floor, developer will attempt to make parking in the garage and access to the restaurants easily accessible, signed and well lighted; if more parking space is needed in the future the developer will extend the other half of the fourth floor garage deck which would provide space for an additional 100 cars, structure will be designed to accept this additional half deck; employees will be encouraged to car pool; developer's acoustical engineer has said the mass and height of the building will be sufficient to shield the building from ground level noise; there is a concern about noise generation from airplanes or helicopters directly overhead which will be mitigated by low level noise attenuation in the atrium, e.g., water element. Continued discussion: Hyatt has not used excessive signage in their recent developments; color used on the model is similar to that proposed for the project, a variety of textures will be used, there will be berms with specimen trees to add interest as well as hedges to divide space; the 872 parking spaces provided include those at grade. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1984 Further comment: will there be a car rental business on site; concern about use of on-site parking spaces by a car rental agency; any such agency would be required to come to the Planning Commission for a special permit so Commission would have control; concern that the existing car rental use will continue on site during construction and thus its use permit remain in effect. Architect commented that Hyatt has worked closely with city staff and he did not believe Hyatt would object to a condition requiring that any future rental car use and storage of rental cars on site would be on a program reviewed by Hyatt and city staff, and brought to Commission for review prior to introduction of the use on site. Staff advised approval of the Hyatt project will not be final or valid until a "no hazard" determination is received from the FAA. C. Taylor moved for approval of two special permits to allow the Hyatt Regency Hotel project at 1333 Bayshore Highway with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memos of June 29, July 2 and August 20, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of September 4, 1984 and the Director of Parks' memos of June 25 and August 22, 1984 be met; 2. that the project be developed consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped August 16, 1984; 3. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and buildings shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; valet parking, patrons, visitors or employees may not be charged for use of on-site parking without review and permission of the city; the applicant shall design the parking structure so that one-half deck of parking can be added in the future if it is needed to relieve on-site parking demand; 4. that any future rental car use and storage of rental cars on site operate according to a program reviewed by Hyatt and city staff and be brought to Commission for review prior to introduction of the use on site; 5. that the project receive all necessary permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over this site including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration; 6. that in the future, as required, the developer participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east -west transit connection to Southern Pacific, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or other intercity transit opportunities for employees as well as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; provide airport shuttle pickup; 7. prior to construction of the on-ramp install and maintain landscaping on the entire site; Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1984 8. provide on-site security services and patrol; 9. make improvements necessary to fire mains for adequate flow and pressure to meet fire fighting standards, install low flow water fixtures, put all underground utilities in non-ferrous pipes or encase/coat steel pipes; - 10. during construction provide all parking for construction equipment on site and a supervised program for on-site and off-site parking for construction workers approved by the Department of Public Works; 11. design building of concrete with non -reflective window areas, incorporate energy efficient systems to match expected loads, provide natural ventilation in atrium area, incorporate passive and active building, site and mechanical systems; have a PG&E energy audit within 18 months of completion and implement all recommended cost effective conservation measures; 12. soil and foundation investigation by a California licensed engineer to determine foundations, structural protection within area between elevation 5' and 101, provide protection to Easton Creek to a standard acceptable to the City Engineer, recompact and fill site as required by city; 13. conduct an hydraulic engineering study to determine necessary improvements to Easton Creek to accommodate 100 year flood, coordinate creek improvements with site and roadway improvements, minimum floor entry level of site 9' MSL, site should be filled to 10' MSL; protect Easton Creek from silt during construction using measures approved by the City Engineer; 14. drain site away from Route 101 and to Easton Creek, install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas, maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis approved by the city; 15. landscape site with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, follow procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 16. retain an acoustical engineer to determine design and construction measures to reduce noise during construction, place solid wooden fence around construction site as necessary to reduce on-site construction noise, project should comply with Title 25 requirements and interior noise level standards of city, atrium cover design should take into consideration possible need to replace fabric cover with a more noise attenuating covering if city established interior noise levels cannot be! attained after construction; Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ,September 11, 1984 17. to retain traffic allocation the project will be developed on the following time frame: Date Submit final plans September 1985 Pick up building permit January 1986 Final foundation July 1.986 Final framing January 1987 Occupancy September 1987 Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Schwalm absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:08 P.M., reconvene 10:20 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 59 SF BATHROOM ADDITION - 2112 HALE DRIVE Request: that applicant contact an architect or professional designer to determine whether or not the second bathroom could be located inside the house rather than in a detached accessory structure. Item set for hearing September 24, 1984. 6. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1352 BROADWAY Set for hearing September 24, 1984. 7./8./9. SPECIAL PERMIT/CONDOMINIUM PERMIT/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - CORNER OF ANSEL AND OAK GROVE AVENUES Items continued for study. CITY PLANNER REPORT Draft Home Occupation Ordinance CP Monroe reviewed the draft of the proposed ordinance which is fairly restrictive; it is designed to prohibit occupations which have visible or audible impact on residential neighborhoods and an administrative procedure has been added. Some Commissioners found the proposed ordinance too restrictive but all acknowledged the frequency of deliveries, excessive traffic, materials stored in a yard or garage and excessive noise to be a problem in residential neighborhoods. Some revisions were suggested: do not limit deliveries to the U. S. Postal Service, other types of delivery service should be allowed; further clarify the type of equipment/supplies/products allowed, particularly to allow use of home computers for businesses which do not require clients to visit premises. Staff will redraft this ordinance and include it on a future agenda for public hearing. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1984 - CP reviewed Council actions at its September 4, 1984 study and regular meetings. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary