Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.11.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, November 25, 1985 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioners Giomi, Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney; Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the November 12, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #8 was withdrawn. Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN (FEIR-62P) Reference staff report, 11/25/85, with attachments. CP Monroe commented on the public hearing on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR addresses Commission comments and written responses received from state, regional and local agencies. CP confirmed capacity of the wastewater treatment plant would be adequate for build -out of the city in the next 20 years and advised she was satisfied that all concerns had been addressed in the environmental documents. C. Jacobs moved to recommend FEIR-62P to the City Council for certification and for adoption of Commission resolution recommending this action. Second C. Leahy; motion approved unanimously on voice vote (5-0), Cers Giomi and Graham absent. 2. REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR-64P) FOR A 321 ROOM WINDMARK HOTEL AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Reference staff report, 11/25/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this item: details of the proposed project; letters of comment included in the packet which will be addressed in the Final EIR; all public testimony this evening as well as Commission comment will also be addressed in the FEIR. Richard Grassetti, Environmental Science Associates, Inc., consultant preparing the EIR, referred to the initial study prepared by Planning staff giving potential significant effects and detailed significant effects addressed in the DEIR. Following analysis, consultant identified those effects which were minor or could be reduced to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 25, 1985 acceptable levels and those with unavoidable impacts and cumulative effects. Several significant beneficial effects were identified in the document and five potential alternatives to the project were analyzed. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments/requests: is there sufficient landscaping in front of the hotel along Airport Boulevard; more information on southbound traffic on Airport Boulevard, particularly at the congested hour of 5:00 P.M.; status of state leasehold lands in this project; define tolerable levels of service relating to traffic and circulation; under cumulative effects in an Initial Study when will there be a notation indicating significant effect; clarify the statement concerning police service will be reduced by controlling access to the site; will project be built in one phase or two phases; address service entrance access; on page 48, first paragraph, Madison Drive should read Hunt Drive. Consultant will prepare the Final EIR Response to Comments document. 3. REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR- 65P) FOR AN OFFICE/RETAIL PROJECT AT 1800 EL CAMINO REAL Reference staff report, 11/25/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this item: this is a supplemental EIR which addresses the difference between the project of the previous EIR and the present proposed project; in appropriate areas former mitigations will also be required for the present project. Mitigations to reduce significant effects have been identified, some are being considered in a redesign of the project. The Draft EIR should be considered for its adequacy in evaluating the project reviewed in the report. Robert Ironside, Ironside & Associates, consultant preparing the Supplemental EIR, addressed Commission: this document reiterates things which were the same as well as the changes, it is a complete document. He noted the building is too large for city development policies, particularly height, FAR and parking; if the project were reduced in size the mitigations would reduce the impacts to a level which is not significant. Commission comments/requests: if the building were designed to code there would be no impacts and therefore no mitigations (staff commented such a project might require only a negative declaration but that was not the project presented by the applicant, consultant stated one of the conclusions of the EIR is that there were certain deviations from the code); additional information on a moderately reduced scale project, number of employees and other effects; evaluate driveway access to parking and possible relocation of first level parking, concern about noise; evaluate plans for only one floor of medical, consider empty commercial space, area could become mainly medical, address implications of parking requirements; what provisions will Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 25, 1985 be made for parking for construction crew and space for construction equipment. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments in favor. Bill Ojakian, speaking for the owners/operators of the liquor store at 1818 El Camino Real, wished to go on record that the parking situation in this area is very bad at present, the project appears to be short of required parking, he expressed concern that the situation would get worse. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comment/requests: the report alludes to getting a bus stop, there is a stop one-half block south on E1 Camino Real; address number of parking spaces needed if all floors of the structure were medical; there is no loading/service area for the restaurant, how will this and trash be handled. Consultant will prepare the Final EIR Response to Comments document. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE ANTENNA DISH - 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE C. Jacobs stated she had a conflict of interest and would not vote on this item. Since affirmative action requires four votes and there would be only four Commission members participating, the applicant was given the option of a hearing this evening or postponement. Applicant chose to continue the special permit request to the meeting of December 9, 1985. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A TOBACCO SHOP IN A 481 SF AREA OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY Reference staff report, 11/25/85, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, handicapped accessibility requirements for this commercial building. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: a minor change in Condition #2 was suggested; staff explained Building Department permit procedures for the structure itself and for the tenants. Lance McDonald, applicant, discussed his plans for a seven day a week operation, he felt this shop would enhance Broadway since there is no such store there at present; he has operated his tobacco shop on Burlingame Avenue for about two years, there will be only one full time person in the shop at one time, he does not use customer parking space on Burlingame Avenue and will not do so on Broadway. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant advised the bulk of his business is pedestrian/walk-in, he was not aware of the problems associated with completion of the shell of the building. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1985 Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that this use permit shall not become effective and no building permit for tenant improvements shall be issued until the Building Department has notified the Planning Department that a certification of occupancy on the building shell including all requirements of the Building Department and proper address labeling on the front and rear entrances of each business approved by the Engineering Department has been issued; and (2) that the business in this 481 SF location shall operate within the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. seven days a week and have the owner and one part time employee on site operating the business. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ORIENTAL RUG AND ANTIQUE SHOP IN A 1,472 SF PORTION OF THE NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY Reference staff report, 11/25/85, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, status of the shell of the structure. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During discussion one Commissioner commented the applicants are already in business on the site. Staff explained Engineering Department's procedure for assigning addresses, some of the tenants in this building have misaddressed their locations. Applicant was not present. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Staff commented on its options with regard to tenants now in business and their compliance with the conditions of this permit which do not allow occupancy until the certificate of occupancy is issued on the shell of the building. CA advised Commission could act on this special permit tonight, staff will enforce. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that this use permit shall not become effective and no building permit for tenant improvements shall be issued until the Building Department has notified the Planning Department that a certification of occupancy on the building shell including all requirements of the Building Department, proper addressing and labeling of front and rear entrances to each business according to the requirements of the Engineering Department has been issued; and (2) that the business in the 1,472 SF portion of this building shall operate between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and have two employees on site during business hours. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1985 Recess 8:40 P.M.; reconvene 8:48 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. SPECIAL PERMIT - 38 SF DISH ANTENNA - 1723 TOLEDO AVENUE Requests: elevation of the roof; visibility of the antenna to residents in the area; what information could neighbors receive about this installation; height of the house. Item set for hearing December 9, 1985. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA - 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE Item withdrawn. 9. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS - ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 824 FAIRFIELD ROAD Requests: parking requirement for this site; dimensions of the pool house; required fencing; distance between building and side property line; there are no roof gutters, clarify drainage; confirm front setback; clarify building inspector's comments regarding kitchen plumbing; are deck and slab the same elevation; when was carport put in. Item set for hearing December 9, 1985. 10. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 623 ANSEL AVENUE 11. TEN'T'ATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THE ABOVE Requests: address fire exiting; review CE's requirements. Items set for hearing December 9, 1985. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its November 18, 1985 meeting. Signage on Bayfront (Water) for Hotels Reference staff report, 11/25/85, with attachments. CP reviewed her staff memo on water oriented signage for hotels: Council's request that Commission study whether changes in the sign code might be necessary and desirable to allow small amounts of signage for hotels on bay water frontages; current sign code provisions; signage trends in the bayfront area; staff's contacts with other communities with bay frontages and hotels regarding their policies and regulations; bay oriented signage concerns and issues. CP requested Commission consideration of whether or not the city's policy on bay oriented signage should be clearly stated in the sign code (regulation under C-4 and M-1 provisions); suggestions for regulation were listed in the staff memo. Commission comment/discussion: the regulation prohibiting signage over the fourth floor has been adhered to with office buildings but not with hotels; do not see how we can allow signs on the bay; think a minimum Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1985 amount of signage should be allowed on the bayfront for the hotels, it is desirable for their business interests; possibility of averaging sign exceptions approved to date and formulating a regulation from that figure; have difficulty finding there is a need for bayside signage or that it is desirable, in general we have given a lot of freedom to signage in that area, would prefer to examine each application on its own merit rather than change the code. Staff expressed concern about signage on the landward side of Airport Boulevard, consideration should be given to the location of a hotel and where the signage is to be seen from and what is too much signage. Further Commission comment: possibility of allowing only a logo sign on a parapet at any location with a modest amount of square footage; believe the present sign code is sufficient, freeway oriented signage is prohibited; could amend the code to prohibit bay frontage signage; have no interest in whether someone can see a hotel sign from an airplane; travelers have their hotel reservations before they arrive at the airport, bay oriented signs are institutional advertising. CP summarized Commission discussion. Two Commissioners preferred to leave the sign code as it is, two others recommended amending the code to prohibit bay frontage signage and one Commissioner recommended allowing some minimum amount of signage on the bay side which would also be allowed to those hotels that are on the west side of Airport Boulevard facing the bay. CP will forward Commission's comments and recommendations to Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary