Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.05.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, May 12, 1986 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the April 28, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved with the following addition: page 5, item #5, 4th paragraph following the motion, add "second C. Taylor". AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. CONSENT ITEM 1. MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A 9' WIDE CARPORT RATHER THAN 10' AS REQUIRED AT 9 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 C. Schwalm moved for approval of this minor modification. Second C. Graham; motion failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Jacobs, Taylor and Giomi voting no. Staff will bring this item to the Commission at a subsequent meeting for full review as a variance application. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. REVIEW OF FEIR-67P (RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT) FOR THE SEQUOIAS OF BURLINGAME LIFE CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT 1781 EL CAMINO REAL CP Monroe reviewed the purpose of the Final Addendum (Response to Comments document) and EIR as a disclosure document and city procedures for certification of the EIR by City Council. All interested persons were notified of the availability of the Final Addendum. CP noted May 7, 1986 letter from Ronald Wilson, Airports Commission correcting a previous letter erroneously stating the number of flights per year which depart southerly and mandate a left turn over the proposed site and Errata sheet, page 59, indicating the necessary changes in the text. Commission discussion and concerns with the Final EIR document follow. Page 38, item 5.1, addressing airborne dust during construction period and a person being responsible for monitoring a dust control program 24 hours a day, would developer bear the liability and expense of such a Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986 program (staff advised developer would bear the cost of this service); page 39, item 6.2, believe the tower would have more than a negligible effect on TV reception for those neighbors in the shadow of the building; page 42, item 10.2, noise, impact of single event noise from planes warming up has not been addressed (staff commented the document disclosed there is nothing which could be done to mitigate this impact); Exhibit A, item 34, concerning exit at the south end of the site onto El Camino Real during construction period to mitigate combined construction and hospital traffic, staff stated that the traffic consultant suggested this as a temporary solution for the alternative of retaining the main entrance on El Camino. Document dismisses the noise factor from airplanes as relatively unimportant and states it cannot be mitigated, perhaps this is adequate, would prefer to have all aircraft noise impact material integrated into one section of the report, impact of the airport has been minimized, does the EIR truly address the impact of this structure on the surrounding area and on the people who will live in that building (staff commented item 27 in Exhibit A attempts to address the combination of noise events). Page 43, believe single event noise levels are higher than stated; see nothing in the report addressing single event noise levels during stormy weather. A Commissioner asked if the code regulates noise levels; staff commented on the guidelines in the Noise Element of the General Plan and State requirement for sleeping areas, there are impacts which cannot be mitigated and must be accepted in exchange for the overriding benefit of the project to elderly people. Think there is a need for more precise information to determine if the document has dealt adequately with the noise impact; the figures given do not address the factor of flights during winter storms. Further Commission comment: the problem of noise has been addressed in the EIR and a specific statement made that it can't be mitigated, the trade-off is a home for the elderly; think the Draft EIR was well done, that the public and Commission posed pertinent questions at the public hearing and consultant has addressed these comments in the Final Addendum, find the document adequate to recommend to Council for certification. Specific comment: pages 3 and 4 are difficult to read, poor reproduction; page 22, second paragraph, parking for employees and visitors, take exception to the statement that overlap times are no longer than 20 minutes; page 36, indicates during construction period hospital employee parking space would be lost, does this indicate they would have to park on neighboring streets (staff advised they would have to park somewhere else, this concern could be handled with the project conditions); page 44 of the Draft EIR, Figure 17, should show at Marco Polo 24 cars exiting onto Clarice Lane; page 57, Errata, E-9, corrections are unclear; there was a comment by a speaker at the public hearing on sociological concern for developing elderly housing, could a shared housing program be implemented as an alternative to the project, this should be addressed (staff advised this could be addressed in the staff report for the project). Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986 Discussion continued: would have liked to see alternatives which had no problems or less problems than the proposed project, an alternative project that was more in keeping with the neighborhood without a parking variance and lower height; in Exhibit A, 23 of the 36 items state impact could be reduced to acceptable levels, how is an acceptable level arrived at; staff commented an acceptable level is a determination by the City Planner that the impact could be reduced by the mitigations to a level at which the risk, impact or effect could be low enough to be accepted, in the case of item 14 (Exhibit A) the walk signals on Trousdale and E1 Camino Real could be adjusted to extend the walk phase long enough for.pedestrians to get across the street without endangering lives and upsetting automobile traffic. Stating she found the environmental document adequate, C. Jacobs moved to recommend FEIR-67P to City Council for certification and for adoption of Commission Resolution recommending this report with Exhibit A attached. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: have a problem with this report, the consultant has dealt with all impacts but as a complete document the negative impacts are minimized, the report may be adequate but am not satisfied with its accuracy, it tends to minimize negative impacts unduly, they may be more severe than the document suggests; believe as a total document it is not adequate. Find the alternatives insufficient but am more concerned about traffic figures and their accuracy; believe alternatives should have been dealt with to a greater extent; document may be technically and legally sufficient but it gives a different impression than I would wish to give about the adequacy of the report; noise is a big concern, don't think numbers in the report approach what they really are. C. Jacobs withdrew her motion. C. Leahy did not withdraw his second, stating that whether answers were sufficient or numbers correct it can be concluded from the document that noise impact cannot be mitigated. Motion died. C. Schwalm moved that Commission find the environmental document to be adequate and that it be recommended to City Council for certification, and for adoption of Commission Resolution recommending this report with Exhibit A attached. Second C. Leahy; motion failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Graham, Jacobs and Taylor voting no. CP requested clear direction from Commission for further response by the consultant. Commission requests: single noise events are greater than stated, would like actual dBA numbers (staff will ask consultant to check highest dBA over the past year on the receptor at Peninsula Hospital site); enlarge the alternatives, would like to see an alternative within the R-4 guidelines which meets the city's parking requirement; reasons the hospital gave initially to develop on that site, original permit conditions, was hospital required to create open space (CA commented this information would be appropriate at the time the project itself is heard); rationalization for the Trousdale entrance, once the facility is built why isn't an E1 Camino entrance adequate; comment was made in the DEIR that no shortcuts through residential areas would occur on Dufferin and Rosedale, this is an Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 12, 1986 assumption without evidence; backup statistics would be helpful; page 36 of the Addendum, concerned about ambulances on Marco Polo, how do ambulances enter now, if backed up on Trousdale where will they go. There were no further comments. Staff will contact the consultant and bring the requested material to Commission when available. 3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR THE HYATT REGENCY PROJECT, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed history of approvals for this project, reasons for the delay and the present request. Commission action on permit extension precedes Council action on traffic allocation extension. C. Jacobs moved to grant an extension of the use permit approvals for the Hyatt Regency project to October 2, 1986. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. ITEMS FOR ACTION WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE FOR AN 81 SF BATHROOM ADDITION AT 1405 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. She noted the accessory structure at the rear shown on the aerial photo has been removed. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined that lot coverage presently is approximately 42%, when the 81 SF is added it will become 43%. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicants, David and Leeann Myers, were present. Their comments: they purchased this home which needed many improvements two years ago, they have made these gradually; the back porch, stairs and utility room were not built on a foundation and need to be removed regardless of other plans, they would like to add a second bathroom, feel the addition will add to the marketability of the house as well as fill a need for their planned family; they have talked to the immediate neighbors, none objected. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: applicants' statements this evening, market value of the house and children, are not acceptable findings for a variance but there is justification in that the addition will square off that corner of the house and improve its appearance, to reduce the master bedroom would be a hardship; this is a valid application. C. Taylor found that the applicants' letter of April 15, 1986 cites several reasons why the variance should be granted; this could be Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986 incorporated into the record and used to make the necessary findings: that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right; it would not be materially detrimental to the neighbors, photographs reflect there would be no adverse impact; and it is clear the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, it will enhance it. C. Taylor moved for approval of this variance with the following condition: (1) that the addition shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 15, 1986 and that additional lot coverage shall not exceed 81 square feet. Second C. Jacobs. C. Giomi added a finding that it would be upgrading the housing stock of the city; lot coverage is already over 40% and this would be a minor increase. C. Garcia found the variance would add to the property owners' enjoyment of their property. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AT 2300 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, uses on the site, staff review, applicant's comments, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Kenneth Moy, Kaplan/McLaughlin/ Diaz, representing the Sisters of Mercy was present. Commission determined Sign #3 is proposed at the service exit for the premises at Hoover and Columbus, there are no directional signs proposed for this exit since a directional sign would increase the square footage of the application and create a larger exception. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: David Plyer, 1530 Hoover Avenue; Jim Arena, 1540 Hoover Avenue; Terry Fibich, 2339 Adeline Drive; Al Sontag, 2601 Adeline Drive. Their concerns: aesthetics and :maintenance of the sign program, who will monitor this; present signs have deteriorated; if signs are located inside the gate how will people see them at night, it is very dark up there, if not lit up it may not solve the problem; hopefully, the new signs will improve the traffic flow; opposed to signs in that they are only to direct traffic to commercial ventures on the site, noise and frequency of events on site has increased and become annoying. Concerns not related to this sign exception application were also expressed: number of facilities/events on the site, increased impact on sewer system, increased traffic with excessive speeds, large parking lot being constructed which has resulted in damage to the streets from construction vehicles, all homes on Hoover face the complex and the new parking lot, will it be landscaped and lit at night (would expect city to monitor these impacts); think traffic study should be made, Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986 traffic impact at the back gate is extreme and is increasing, concern about safety and volume of traffic. Mr. Moy commented he has been helping with the upgrading of this property, it is zoned R-1 but has been used over the last 50 years, like many educational properties in California, as an educational use which benefits a wide range of community activities. Residents speaking this evening were advised to refer their other concerns to the appropriate city officials and/or the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Schwalm found there were special circumstances in the upgrading of this large site and the need for signage to direct traffic, the old deteriorating signs will be removed and the proposed signage is an inoffensive sign program. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the master sign program with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of the City Engineer's April 14, 1986 memo shall be met and all signs shall be 15' clear of entrances; and (2) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 10, 1986 and as individually described in the Sign Permit application dated April 10, 1986. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: one Commissioner stated she had no problem with 3' signs nor with the number of signs but did not believe a 5' tall sign was needed for identification purposes. C. Taylor commented on the significant increase in use of this site and the need for a revised sign program to mitigate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and proposed an additional condition to include a sign at the service entrance stating "right turn only onto Hoover". CA questioned this condition being made a part of the sign permit application itself since it relates to traffic flow and is not relevant to this proposal. Motion with two conditions was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:17 P.M.; reconvene 9:25 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRINTING SERVICE AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, May 5, 1986 letter from Sir Speedy, Inc. corporate offices which indicated number of employees could increase to 5-6 after a few months in business, staff review, problem of the handicap ramp at this new commercial building, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: during Council review of the parking variance approved for this building there was discussion whether uses should be limited to certain kinds of retail, it was concluded at that time this was Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 12, 1986 difficult to define; a Commissioner requested the May 5, 1986 letter from David Kimmel, leasing agent regarding completion of the railings on the handicap ramp be made a part of the conditions of approval. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Aldorey Mendoza, was present as well as the northwest regional manager of Sir Speedy, Inc. Applicant advised he would be handling direct sales with pickup and delivery which will minimize traffic in the area; the leasing agent has advised him all required modifications to the building will be made prior to Sir Speedy going into their leased space. The northwest regional manager stated they are asking for a maximum of five employees, three full time and two part time. A marketing analyst for the company was also present. Northwest manager stated they are a service industry, there will be no increased walk-in traffic on Broadway, the handicap rail has been replaced and curb will be taken care of tomorrow. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: Council approved this commercial building to encourage retail business, staff has said there is no difference between merchandise sales and service sales, this business will not be a retail operation but will provide pickup and delivery, this seems to be what the city was trying to avoid in that location; agree with this interpretation, have no problem with this type of service but do have a problem at this location on Broadway, would not want to end up with half the building in this use rather than for walk-in trade; applicant states no walk-in customers, how can you call it retail when you have no customers visiting the premises. C. Jacobs moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Leahy. Comment to support the motion: originally this was considered a pedestrian business area, even with no parking problem created by this business believe there are other areas in the city better suited to this type of marketing. Staff clarified such a service business would be appropriate in the C-2 zone and, depending upon how much actual walk-in business there was, it could be appropriate in the M-1 zone, Broadway is zoned C-1. Motion to deny the application was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL A DISH ANTENNA AT GRADE AT THE MARRIOTT HOTEL, 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 5/12/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, BCDC review of this proposal, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Comment: proposed location of the dish; required BCDC access corridor; height of PG&E transformers which are above grade in front of the antenna; because hotel was built to maximum height allowed, placing Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986 the dish on the top roof was not an alternative, it would be visible from rooms adjacent and above if on lower roofs; the transformer is approximately 18' at the back, the maximum height of the dish would be 181. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Keith Martin of Spectradyne, Inc. was present representing the applicant. His comments: this is a larger antenna than many, with this size there is a need to receive information from two satellites simultaneously, the reason for the large antenna is the FCC will not grant a license to antenna under 4.51, this license will protect them from future microwave transmission/reception interference, antenna is located in an area next to a public shoreline walkway, the dish comes in two colors (white and pink beige). Commission/applicant discussion: suggest planting a tree which will grow rapidly for screening; Marriott is prepared to plant several trees whose height would be limited to 20' (preliminary landscape plans were distributed); installation is for TV in the hotel guest rooms, strictly for hotel guests; hotel does not want to pay for cable TV, they chose to sign a contract with Spectradyne to provide them with satellite programs; antenna dish is stationary, could receive 48 channels, hotel chose to take three; with two 5' dishes the FCC will not grant a license from microwave interference; hotel receives regular local channels from a roof antenna at present, this reception will be tied in with the proposed dish; it will not interfere with airplanes or airport, FAA has approved, airlines are on a completely different frequency band; this is a receiving antenna only, does not broadcast. Speaking in favor, Cliff Williams, chief engineer for the hotel: have local reception now, this will only add three channels for guests, hotel will do all possible to screen the antenna with trees, landscaping can be installed between the transformer and the dish and could get up to 20' without interference, the cost for cable TV would be much more expensive for the hotel, this antenna gives the hotel an opportunity for the future for video teleconferences. CA commented that in his research on antenna ordinances it would appear the availability of cable TV is an inappropriate reason for denial of a satellite dish antenna. The district manager for Spectradyne in this area stated this is a service provided to hotel guests, he will be charged with maintaining it once it is installed and will adhere to the landscaping requirements. A Commissioner commented it was his impression the Crowne Plaza provides the same service with a smaller antenna; district manager said Spectradyne does not work with Crowne Plaza. There were no audience comments in opposition 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 the dish antenna shall be installed at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 18, 1986 and in accordance with the May 12, 1986 landscape plan; (2) that the structure installed shall not have a Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986 diameter greater than 14'-10", not rise more than 18' above grade, be painted a pink beige color with nonreflective paint, and be surrounded by a 6' solid board wooden fence; (3) the applicant shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface, fence and screening landscaping or remove the facility; and (4) any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: special permits should be granted for a reason, will vote no because this application has not demonstrated hardship or need, have heard nothing in support other than the fact that they will put in trees, they merely want to sell their services to hotel guests (this may be an application by Spectradyne rather than Marriott), in fact they have demonstrated there are other alternatives to accomplish this goal; feel this is entirely differentfrom a location in a residential district, it is in the waterfront commercial zone, the hotel wants to provide a service to its guests, it is a large building and they will screen the installation, they should be allowed to have this in competition with other hotels in the area; hopefully, this will enhance the renting of hotel rooms and increase the city's hotel tax revenue. C. Garcia requested a change in condition #2, that the structure be a "pink beige" color rather than "dark". C. Jacobs and C. Schwalm accepted this change in the motion. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE LANDSCAPING IN THE FRONT SETBACK OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS CP Monroe reviewed the item: presently there are no regulations for the R-3 and R-4 zones to require landscaping in the front setback for multiple family units which are not built as condominiums; the proposed ordinance establishes regulations for multiple family units to the same standard as required in the open space standards for condominiums. Discussion: would like a study for all properties including R-1 and R-2 rather than just R-3 and R-4; believe there is a difference between R-3 and R-1, in R-1 there is pride of ownership but R-3 is income property, owners are looking for income and would be more inclined to cement the front setback to gain more parking. (Later in the meeting a Commissioner commented he thought it a good idea to require guest parking for apartments also.) Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Taylor moved to recommend Ordinance Establishing Landscaping Requirements for Apartments to the City Council. Second C. Graham. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1986 Comment on the motion: how will this be enforced; think there should be more detail in the proposed ordinance. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Staff will forward to City Council. ITEMS FOR STUDY 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - RELOCATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SF GARAGE - 1524 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: clarification of floor drain/sink shown on the plans; width of garage door on proposed plans; discuss drainage; statement from applicant explaining the need for a garage larger than 500 SF. Item set for hearing May 27, 1986. 10. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: clarify which signs need permits; add logos on Rollins Road to the application; detail on square footage allowed and existing. Item set for hearing May 27, 1986. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - April 29, 1986 letter from Mithoo Benner, Reach Fitness Club, 1208 Donnelly Avenue. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its May 5, 1986 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary