Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.02.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Key on February 10, 1997 at 7: 30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the January 13, 1997 minutes p. 3, para. 7, condition #1 was corrected to read; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped -gib 26,1996 January 6, 1997, Sheet A.1 through A.7, PL-1 and Tl. The minutes of the January 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 2735 SUMMIT, ZONED R-1, (GAIL FRIEDMAN-BECK, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Commissioners asked if a home occupation permit is required since the applicant is storing inventory for his sales business; what utilities are going to be provided within the storage structure; on site the windows look bigger than Tx 3', confirm as built size; why does the storage structure need a 6' door, a 3' door and two windows; will the building be sheet rocked on the inside; there is a small window about 1'x 2' in the wall opposite; the sliding glass door, it looks much like a bathroom window, it does not appear on the plans, explain; what is the reason for the paving on the right side of the house, through the gates to the graveled area. The item was set for action on February 24, 1997, providing the questions can be answered in time. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 2649 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND AL & JUNE BAGGIANI, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: Commissioners asked that the applicant place a temporary stick structure on the site outlining the envelope of the proposed addition. The item was set for action February 24, 1997. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, PARKING AND FRONT SETBACK AT 111 CENTRAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (HOWARD G. PAGE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Commissioners asked for staff to explain how they used the elevations on the plans to determine the declining height envelope point of departure; there are some discrepancies between the plans and the applicant's letter which should be corrected, the size of the garage door, the site size, lot coverage as calculated by staff and applicant; how does the applicant get a car into the present garage since it is so short; address why the garage problem should not be corrected since this project qualifies as new construction; how far is the face of the garage from the front property line. The item was set for hearing at the February 24, 1997 meeting pending answers to the items requested. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO STORAGE AT THE 1200 BLOCK OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE, ZONING UNCLASSIFIED, (RECTOR MOTOR CAR CO.. APPLICANT AND PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD AND CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: Commissioners reviewed the application and asked: provide a list of the addresses of the residential lots which face this project; are there any traffic studies of the Broadway/California intersection as well as Broadway/Carolan and Broadway Rollins that indicate the impact of this proposal; will it be possible to cross the tracks from Star Way to this site; will the planting along California Drive at this location be affected by the project; a chain link fence is provided between the cars and the railroad tracks, why not securing the cars; what is the purpose of the chain link fence on the railroad side of the storage area; will sales people be enticed into crossing the tracks on foot; the location of the chain linked fence should be added to the drawings, beginning and end; why is the area being used to store; cars not proposed to be paved; what lighting is proposed, will it have an impact on the neighbors; area is proposed for storage but may bring customers there, does this open door in future for car sales from this site; adjacent to a pay -for -parking CalTrain parking lot, if these spaces are open what will prevent the public from using them; is opaque fencing a requirement here as It is in M-1 district; will there be a loud speaker on the site to notify sales people that they are wanted. Item was set for public hearing at the February 24, 1997, meeting providing the questions can be addressed in time. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR ACTION February 10, 1997 APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1450 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B AND R-3, (MARGIE VANDERSLOOT, FEDERAL SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND SAFEWAY, INC.,PROPERTY OWNERS). (67 NOTICED) Reference staff report 2.11.97, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the request, staff and planning department comments, study meeting questions, reviewed criteria for findings and the suggested conditions, amending them to include the size (32 SF), operating hours 24 hours a day) and staffing level (not to exceed 40 hours a week) of the proposed banking use within the existing grocery store. It was noted that the banking facility is now in place inside the store. A commissioner asked if this request was mixing uses, office and retail. Staff noted that both uses were allowed, with adequate on -site parking, in the zone. The conditional use permit is required for grocery stores so that such intensification can be reviewed to determine if the effects of adding another use to the business at the location is acceptable. Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Dennis Livengood of Federal Sign Company, 6805 Sierra Court, Dublin, spoke on behalf of both applications. He: noted that the precedent of an ATM in a grocery store had been set previously by Lucky's; they have a Bank of America sign on their building and the sign is bigger than the space occupied by the ATM inside. The proposed signs will be opaque, not gaudy. He did not expect the banking facility to be staffed more than 20 to 30 hours a week. He pointed out that there was already a lot of signage on Safeway so a sign exception could not be helped. A commissioner commented that the staff report said the sign would be a Wells Fargo logo, but the plans show Wells Fargo lettering; the applicant said the sign would be as shown on the plans, gold lettering pushed through a cabinet. The applicant commented that he did not represent Safeway as a sign expert for this application. There were no other comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. In discussing the request the commissioners noted that the signs requested have a greater presence on the site than the use inside the building; it is appropriate to indicate that an ATM is present, but when the sign is on two facades and facing El Camino it commences to look like advertising greater than the service offered; one sign is appropriate on the primary frontage; an ATM serves many different bankers, this proposal would serve only those at Wells Fargo; the staffing presence of more than 20 hours a week is not incidental, it is a banking institution inside a grocery store, any number of other institutional uses could be added such as stock broker, attorney, pharmacy; an office use is not appropriate within a grocery store; signage is the problem it is so big expect to see full bank; the use is not a problem, have seen full service banks operate well from grocery stores in other areas where there is enough parking; did not want ATM before because could get money at check out, not want bank now; this request should be considered in the context of future plans for the site, before make: a decision would like to know Safeway's long term (10 to 15 years) plans; object to the creeping ATM and the longer term implications; there was no one at the hearing to represent the bank, am concerned about -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1997 this use and the destination trips it would generate; present Safeway signage is non -conforming, now they want to add more, should take requested signage out of their present amount of signage; every other supermarket in Burlingame could add a banking service inside, not appropriate; sign should say ATM, use is a customer service because it is safer late at night to get money at the grocery store than at the isolated ATM on the bank premise; one sign should be allowed to identify the ATM. A commissioner suggested a motion of denial for the sign exception and was asked if he would consider a motion of denial without prejudice so that the commission could give the applicant specific direction. Commissioner Galligan then commented Safeway chose to have the sign company represent their interest; the sign is inadequate in explaining services offered and the current signage could be reduced to allow for this new identification; the future master plan for the site will not change this issue, the use proposed is not a grocery related use but an office use and thus an inappropriate intensification of uses on the site; on this basis he moved to deny the special use permit for banking use and the sign exception to add signage for the Wells Fargo bank on site. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. The motion was approved 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent). Appeal procedures to the close of the next Council meeting on February 19, 1997, were noted. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1416 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, (STEPHEN G. COULTHARD, AMCOE SIGN CO., APPLICANTS AND CHAPIN LIMITED LIABILITY INC., PROPERTY OWNERS). (96 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Stephen Coulthard, Amcoe Sign Co., was present. He noted it was unusual for the code to count both sides of a pole sign as 2 signs. The sign requested will be aluminum letters on baked enamel and will appear to be a part of the building. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted the sign program is under the allowed SF, so would not be a grant of special privilege and the size and tenants on site warrants this sign. He then moved approval of this application with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 2, 1997; 2) that the tenant on the second floor shall file the proposed copy for their sign with the Planning Department and that this sign area shall be limited to 35 SF; and 3) that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT TWO SECOND -STORY APARTMENTS TO REAL ESTATE OFFICE USE AT 251 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (BRUCE HERMAN, APPLICANT AND CLAY HERMAN, PROPERTY OWNER). CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 13, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO PLANNING COMMISION MEETING (DATE UNCERTAIN). This application was continued to the February 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting and will be renoticed. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMITS AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A 5-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (WILLIAM WILSON AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). (29 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 2.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions.. Twenty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. The review period for the negative declaration closed February 7, 1997. There were faxes received from CalTrans and BCDC on February 10, 1997 on the negative declaration; no additional conditions appeared to be necessary to address their concerns. Vice -Chairperson Key opened the public hearing. Tom Sullilvan, representing William Wilson Co., 2929 Campus Drive, San Mateo, Mark Hornberger, architect, Peter Callendar, Landscape Designer and Jane Bierstat, Traffic Consultant were present to explain the application. This design eliminates the compact stalls and accomplishes necessary parking in less area with more landscaping. Exhibits were presented to the Commission depicting the front and rear elevations, landscaping and parking. Traffic and parking issues were discussed and the applicants stated they felt confident there would be enough parking. The previously proposed parking structure is no longer part of the project and reduces the coverage from 25% to 8.7%. The height of the structure is reduced from 96' to 78'. Commission asked if they intend a lot split in the future. No map has been filed. If they chose to do a lot split each parcel would conform to code. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve this negative declaration to City Council noting the mitigation measures insure that there is no detrimental effect to the environment. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0-1 (C. Ellis absent) voice vote. C. Deal then commended the applicant on their presentation, noting this application is not detrimental to the area, the unistall alternative allows more landscaping; and does create a better project with adequate parking for office space. He then moved approval of these special permits and parking variance applications, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 21, 1997, A2.1 through A3.2, C1 through C3, and L1.1 through L1.3; 2) that -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1997 the conditions of the City Engineer's January 9, 1997 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's January 6, 1997 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 21, 1996 and December 31, 1996 memos; and the Parks Director's October 23, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the businesses in the office building may be open 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday; 4) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 5) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that the overall height of the building as measured from the top of curb at Airport Boulevard (+/- 8'-0" elevation) shall be 78'-0", which includes the penthouse for mechanical equipment; 7) that the property owner shall execute an agreement in a form mutually approved by the City Attorney and the property owner that indemnifies, defends, and holds harmless the City of Burlingame, its officers, employees, and agents for any claims, suits, damages, or liability related to any pollutants or contaminants of any kind that may be found on the project site if those claims, suits, damages, or liability arise: a) from or because of the City's approval of the project; or b) because the City did not require a Phase I or II soils investigation to be performed in connection with the City's approval of the project before the project was undertaken; 8) that the project sponsor shall implement a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program at the project site to serve the entire complex, shall promote flex time, ride sharing and/or staggered shifts; and shall provide training through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for a TSM coordinator to provide information on alternative transportation methods; 9) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Lands Commission (Land Use and Planning); 10) that seismic -resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site -specific geotechnical investigations (geologic); 11) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer (geologic); 12) that all runoff created during construction, future discharge and storm drain collection from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, and that all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction (geologic, water, utilities and service systems); 13) that project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces, and the office buildings shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation 8 feet (+8.0 feet MSL), or 1.6 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break (geologic, water); 14) that the existing emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be maintained (geologic, water); 15) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material and in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, all utilities and the site shall be repaired (geologic); 16) that a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at time of permit application (water); 17) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction (air quality); 18) that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and a BAAQMD permit shall be obtained before a building permit is issued (air quality); 19) that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share: for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1997 at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection (transportation/circulation); 20) that the site shall share the future cost of any signalization of its driveways on a per leg cost basis (25 % for four legs and 33 % for three legs) for each of its driveways signalized (transportation/circulation); 21) that the developer shall provide a mutually agreed upon construction, maintenance and access easement for the replacement pedestrian and bike bridge and the water main attached (transportation/circulation); 22) that the 46 high turnover parking spaces shall be marked and enforced for visitors only (transportation/circulation); 23) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (noise); 24) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics as defined in the Negative Declaration are discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant, can be implemented; project personnel shall not collect cultural resources; any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similar forms (cultural resources); and 25) that any change in the public access area shall be approved by BCDC as documented in an amended BCDC permit (recreation). The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and was approved 6-0-1 (C,. Ellis absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council meeting of February 3, 1997. - Commission discussed CP report on how the commission. wished to address the Council's request for them to review the "neighborhood compatibility" issue. After some discussion the Commissioners decided that they would begin by looking first at "neighborhood compatibility" in the R-1 zone. They scheduled a study session at 6 p.m. before the next Planning Commission meeting on February 24, 1997. After having looked over the work done on the issue by Council so far, the Commissioners thought that they should concentrate initially on: establishing why the city was addressing "neighborhood compatibility"; discussing what features or characteristics of "neighborhood" the legislation should include; and identifying an appropriate review line for the R-1 district. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. MWUTES2.10 -7- Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary