Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.07.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, July 25, 1983 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor (excused at 9:15 P.M., following Item #4) Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the July 11, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Agenda approved with the following change: Item #3 (B) to read "Special Permit required to exceed six of the Design Guidelines ." ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. REVIEW OF 4/12/82 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR D&M TOWING, 1250 ROLLINS ROAD (CONTINUED FROM 4/25/83) CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated 7/19/83; Towber letter to Marc Rochette, D&M Towing dated May 26, 1983; Planning Commission minutes of April 25, 1983; July 1, 1983 letter from Marc Rochette; July 7, 1983 letter from Sgt. Parkin, Burlingame Police Department. CP discussed staff's review in April; Commission's continuation for 90 days; applicant's letter explaining his inability to meet the condition requiring enclosure of the storage area within this 90 day period, as well as Police Department's confirmation of the applicant's disposal problem. Staff recommended a continuation for another 60 day period until Commission's September 26, 1983 meeting. CP also noted phone call received today from Cyrus McMillan, attorney representing William Nerli, an adjacent property owner, accepting this 60 day continuance but no further time for the applicant to comply with the conditions of the use permit. It was explained the applicant needed the extra time to clear his lot in order to level the area and build the required fence. C. Taylor moved for a 60 day continuance. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 2. REVIEW OF 7/19/82 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW SEMI-ANNUAL RETAIL SALES IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1745 ADRIAN ROAD, BY F.D.O. INC. CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated 7/19/83; July 21, 1982 Monroe letter of action to the applicant; Planner's July 8, 1983 report of site inspection. CP discussed staff's contact with the applicant, Mr. Moser; he had not exercised his use permit and expected to relocate his business outside the City of Burlingame. No further action by staff or Commission is necessary. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 25, 1983 3. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A 115 ROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RAMADA INN AT 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT, BY ROBINSON MILLS & WILLIAMS (ARCHITECTS) FOR RAMADA INNS, INC. (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 4. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ABOVE ADDITION CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 115 room addition to the existing 152 room motel. Reference staff report dated 7/19/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/7/83; sheet indicating Planning staff's review of the revised plans (May 31, 1983) and their conformance with the Design Guidelines; building section indicating height to top of floor slab of the highest occupied floor; staff memos: Chief Building Inspector (4/15/83, 6/10/83, 1/14/83), City Engineer (6/20/83, 7/18/83), Fire Marshal (6/16/83, 7/20/83) and Director of Parks (4/21/83, 6/6/83); letters from Glenn Bauer, Robinson Mills & Williams (architects) dated May 31 and July 5, 1983; June 29, 1983 letter to George Langdon, Robinson Mills & Williams from Garth Casaday, Environmental Science Associates, Inc.; July 1, 1983 letter to Glenn Bauer, Robinson Mills & Williams from Rick Mitchell, TJKM Transportation Consultants; aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped May 31, 1983. CP discussed details of the special permit and variance requests, code requirements, Design Guidelines requirements, traffic allocation, environmental review, staff review, applicant's letters, issues which developed during city review and Commission study (discussed in the staff report): Easton Creek, BCDC review, landscaping versus parking, 25' setback from top of bank, height of building for fire fighting, parking phasing during construction, number of employees, enclosure of the service area, summary of the request. CP noted findings must be made to grant a variance; forty-one conditions were suggested for consideration in the staff report and several minor revisions were suggested by the CP during her discussion. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. David C. Carr, attorney representing Ramada Inns, Inc., referred to the processing of the project to date: traffic allocation, environmental review, BCDC review; discussed the circumstances of the special permit requests and justification for the parking variance: retaining more of the front landscaping, property was developed prior to the Design Guidelines and prior to the existence of BCDC; it is a small, awkward shaped lot; purchasing adjacent property not economically feasible; need to upgrade the property aesthetically and economically, using the existing building and incorporating BCDC requirements; slight modification of parking spaces provided would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and the project would not in any way adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. He contended the new building, while exceeding apparent width, actually reduces the existing apparent width by removing the restaurant which does not meet side yard requirements; with removal of the restaurant and addition of the new building, side yard requirements would be met and the taller, narrower.building would improve the site visually; because the existing motel building covers 24% of the lot, to make the project viable it was necessary to increase lot coverage; the new building seeks to modernize and bring up to Burlingame visual standards a presently substandard building; there will be an increase in income to the city with this addition and Easton Creek improvements will be paid for by the developer. Mr. Carr then introduced Glenn Bauer, Robinson Mills & Williams, architects. His comments: dealing with an existing site and existing building prevented meeting all the Design Guidelines; present building inefficient in terms of the way it uses the site; new building has been layered in terms of use (public rooms, parking, hotel rooms) because of the small area available, believe it is within heights the city has previously approved; have intruded on the 25' shoreline setback at only one location where the access Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1983 driveway was required; after review by BCDC's Design Review Board the size of the hotel tower was substantially reduced. Addressing the request for variance, Mr. Bauer discussed the traffic analysis completed by TJKM, number of guests arriving by automobile or by shuttle from the airport, parking for restaurant patrons and users of the meeting rooms, construction parking. He noted their request that the parking variance be conditioned: if in the future the city determines the spaces in the front setback are required, Ramada will install them at its own expense. Mr. Bauer also discussed the Design Guidelines which have been improved as a result of redesign: side yard setback, apparent width, landscaping, particularly within the shoreline band; and he discussed major contributions of the project to the goals and policies of the Specific Area Plan: high revenue to cost ratio, maximizing, to the extent possible, public access to the shoreline; upgrading the property with a visually attractive development, blending the old and the new. Attorney Carr spoke to the proposed banquet rooms: Ramada does not intend to market the meeting room/banquet facility to people who are not staying at the hotel, it will be a minor inside amenity primarily for conferencing by telecommunications with other locations for people staying at the Ramada. Those speaking in opposition: Charles Mink, 1541 Los Montes Drive - would agree there is room for improvement on that site, the existing development is one of the reasons BCDC and the city developed their guidelines for the area; costs of water, sewer, etc. are not a gift to the city, should have been done sometime ago but developers left as is; codes are interlocking, is this too large a development for this small site? Js the hardship one created by the developer when the original building was constructed?; asked Commission to consider these requests on their merits, not on how the project has been revised, the present request still greatly exceeds the guidelines; why has staff suggested such a large number of conditions?; think the addition is too large, bulk is too great; would be in favor of a parking variance. Ron Broberg, California Trucking Association, 1240 Bayshore Highway - our property will be on the market shortly, it could be acquired, price is consistent with the appraisals; concern about nature of the plantings, maturity of plants; concern about current traffic access problems and with hotel guests using their parking on weekends. In rebuttal Glenn Bauer discussed shadow studies made of the proposed addition at the time of environmental review and plans to.install fast maturing plants in the landscaping. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commission discussion: concern about use of the meeting rooms by outside patrons which would impact traffic and parking; architect advised meeting room users and restaurant patrons will be hotel guests. William Birdsall, Ramada Inns, Inc., advised the meeting rooms, because of the airport location, were designed for regional marketing meetings, not banquet facilities or game rooms. It was asked: could the guidelines have been met if the whole site were cleared for a new project? Architect advised this alternative was considered but was found to be economically infeasible; applicant did an extensive rate of return and yield analysis on demolition;'this left two viable alternatives, either sell the site as is or upgrade the present Ramada Inn. He discussed BCDC concerns on original plans: too much asphalt, not enough landscaping, maximum feasible public access was not provided; and advised the existing registration room would be an -extension of the new lobby. Bulk of the project was a major Commission concern, view corridor in that area considered important. Further comment: applicant appeared to have met BCDC guidelines but then designed a project which took away from the Design Guidelines of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 25, 1983 Burlingame. It seems the only hardship is the applicant's attempt to retain the existing structure which is forcing him to exceed many of the guidelines. There was concern that this project would set a precedent for future projects; it would be better to eliminate the existing building and replace it with a structure more consistent with the guidelines. Every request made by the applicant relates to a project which is too large for the site. Agree project is a little bulky but the lot coverage is not that great; possibility of redesign to shrink the building by 10-15 rooms. C. Garcia found that many of the special permits did not greatly exceed the guidelines requirements and that the project does follow the spirit of the guidel'ines. C. Garcia moved to grant the request for the special permits, Agenda Items 3 (A) and (B), with the 41 conditions listed in the staff report as revised by the City Planner this evening, and with a further condition: #42 - that the general contractor supply the city with a plan for parking and for the storage area during construction. Second C. Cistulli. Comments on the motion: C. Giomi - this would set a precedent and exceeds the guidelines excessively; Attorney Carr - would like to add to the conditions mentioning cash bond, "or equivalent assurances to the city that satisfy the City Attorney". CA advised it was his recommendation that cash bond be in the conditions as stated. Motion to grant the special permits was defeated on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Leahy, Taylor and Graham dissenting. C. Taylor then moved that the two special permits be denied. Second C. Leahy; motion to deny the special permits was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli, Garcia and Schwalm dissenting. C. Taylor found elimination of the 13 parking spaces in the front setback to allow more landscaping a good proposal, that there were no special reasons the applicant could not operate with 254 spaces as opposed to 267. With the understanding that the special permits have been rejected and the project will not be as proposed, and in anticipation of Ramada's total proposal, C. Taylor moved that the application for variance be approved subject to the condition that the three parking spaces placed in the 25' strip be eliminated and no other parking be placed in that strip. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: C. Giomi - findings of fact do not exist with no project; C. Taylor - parking is not the problem, would request Attorney Carr's remarks be incorporated into.the record for findings; C. Cistulli - why vote on something which has no project? C. Taylor then withdrew his motion. C. Leahy withdrew his second. C. Taylor moved that the parking variance be denied. Second C. Giomi; motion to deny the variance was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli, Garcia and Schwalm dissenting. The Chair stressed to the applicant that the major Commission concern was bulk (apparent width and lack of view corridors). Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:15 P.M.; reconvene 9:30 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 345 LORTON AVENUE Requests: what do the dotted lines on the plans indicate? graphic clearly showing which walls are being changed; Fire Department requirements; arrangements for parking. Item set for hearing August 8, 1983. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 25, 1983 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE MARKET AT 1199 BROADWAY Requests: what type of alcoholic beverages will be sold? number of other businesses on Broadway which operate 24 hours a day and sell alcoholic beverages; revised plans with dimensions; is there a 6' fence behind the building, would like clarification; Police Department figures on 24 hour operations; height of adjacent buildings on Broadway; clarify use of the air conditioning unit on the roof. Item set for hearing August 8, 1983. 7. AND 8. SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES, CIF OFFICE BUILDING, 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 9. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ND -341P, CIF OFFICE BUILDING, 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY There was some discussion of the mitigated negative declaration. An analysis was requested of how the CIF proposal differs from a recent warehouse/office conversion on Mahler Road which the City Council had rejected upon appeal. It was pointed out that the CIF project had received a traffic allocation from Council, that an office building is a conditional use in the M-1 zone, and that the traffic issue had been addressed in the environmental assessment. CA explained that a negative declaration is a factual document; Commission should determine if the facts developed in the mitigated negative declaration are true. Traffic allocation procedure was explained; there was some concern expressed about allowing this use which might generate more traffic than a warehouse. Items #7 and #8 set for hearing August 8, 1983. C. Schwalm moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of Negative Declaration ND -341P. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Taylor absent. 10. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT AND TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM, 1114 PALOMA AVENUE 11. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR THE ABOVE Revised plans were received this morning (7/25/83). CP withdrew these study items; following staff review they will again be scheduled for study. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its July 13, 1983 study meeting and July 18, 1983 regular meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - Towber information memo - permit review, In Fine Print, 214 California Drive. - Towber information memo - permit review, Pulsar Electronic Systems, 833 Mahler Road. - Burlingame Beautification Commission minutes, July 7, 1983. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary