HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.08.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 26, 1985
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, August 26, 1985 at
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs,
Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney
Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the August 12, 1985 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
CP Monroe discussed the environmental document which adresses
environmental impacts of the Master Plan and of the first two phases
(immediate and short term 5-10 years) of construction projects required
to implement the Plan. She noted potential problems and mitigations
identified in the document. Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works,
was present to respond to Commission questions.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments
and the hearing was closed.
Discussion: how is the possible future odor problem being addressed at
this stage? DPW stated city is currently receiving proposals for the
design which will take odor control into consideration. Page 29, under
suggested mitigation measures, use of space on top of the equalization
basin would raise cost of the facilities for covers, has that been
included in the overall cost, how many square feet, what would be the
total additional cost? DPW advised this is not included in the
immediate plans. H.3, suggested mitigation measures, page 29, is the
cost of a qualified landscape architect to design perimeter landscaping
included in the cost estimate. DPW advised it was included in the
plan. Are costs in 1985 dollars? DPW stated costs included
projections for the next 5-10 years.
Reference Department of Transportation letter, rehabilitation of
deteriorated facilities, forced main in the area of a triple box
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
culvert, who will maintain, is the city involved? Is the plan
sufficient to satisfy the current general plan and discharge
requirements? Is the city polluting the bay now? Do costs include
inflation rate, and what is it? DPW stated they do for the immediate
projects, about 9% a year. Does the city still have sludge beds? DPW
advised only four for emergency use. Is there any change in handling
of sludge? Mr. Kirkup stated a dewatering facility was installed
several years ago. Have federal funds been reduced? Funds have been
reduced, city is not currently funded beyond 1988, we do have a grant
for the next fiscal year, 1986-87. Will cost be on the user? The best
case is to finance from the general fund and federal grants; if user
costs are necessary, heavier industrial users may pay more. Have all
environmental effects of the initial study been incorporated into this
draft? DPW stated most have been addressed and all are subject to
mitigation so they are not impacts which will harm the environment.
Staff will forward Commission comments to the consultant for
preparation of the Final EIR, Response to Comments document.
PUBLIC FORUM
2. PUBLIC FORUM TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL LIFE CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY OPERATED BY
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN HOMES, AT 1781 EL CAMINO REAL
CP Monroe discussed the environmental review process and project review
procedure including details of the proposed facility. Commission
requested staff research tax exempt status of the project and how it
might affect tax revenue.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Marie Teixeira, 1601 Granada
Drive addressed Commission: she felt the project would have a
disastrous effect on residents of Ray Park and Mills Estate, impact on
Trousdale Drive, all residents must use this street; intersections at
El Camino/Trousdale and Magnolia/Trousdale are impacted presently,
relocating the hospital entrance will increase the problem; proposed
height would be completely out of character in this area; California
Drive is another arterial which would be affected, report should
address what might occur in future on the Southern Pacific
right-of-way; what will happen to the heliport which is important for
emergency access. In addition to residential impact Mrs. Teixeira had
concern about the city controlling the makeup of the city's population,
she felt there will be more families in the future and to dedicate the
proposed site to older, wealthy families (many not Burlingame
residents) would not be a responsible action. In conclusion she stated
her concern about the airport, the train, possibility of BART being
extended down the Peninsula, the industrial section on the other side
of the tracks and the layout, height and density of the proposed
facility. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
Commission requests/concerns/discussion: how will the project affect
Hillhaven Convalescent Home, 1609 Trousdale? where will the displaced
parking spaces for the office building and convalescent home be
relocated? are there any other institutions in town which are allowed
off -premise parking? who is eligible to live at this facility, what is
the monthly cost, what services are provided? number of residents who
would drive cars and where will they be parked? impact of this -
facility versus its social advantages. Address loss of open space
around the hospital site, explore safety impact from airplanes taking
off over the site during stormy weather conditions; impact on amount of
light in residential areas, on views; will air movement be changed?
Traffic should be extensively studied.
Address fiscal impact on the city, pluses and minuses; evaluate
alternative projects, preferably one of lesser density and one of
lesser building bulk; include plans with setbacks; information on
flight paths and wind shears. Will project require a parking variance?
Will the developer give placement priority to Burlingame residents?
How will this facility affect hospital usage, what is the advantage to
having it near the hospital? view corridors from patients' rooms in
the hospital. Address circulation and signalization around the Plaza
area including El Camino and Magnolia, circulation on the hospital
site, how will it affect the present layout of the hospital? why is
this located next to the hospital, hospitals are running 50% below
capacity, what is the relationship? If the hospital is leasing this
land to the developer, what impact will there be on hospital cost to
patients? In view of the project's density would like to know the
costs for sewer and physical facilities of the city.
Staff will forward Commission's comments/requests to the consultant for
inclusion in the Draft EIR.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
3. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, PROPERTY AT 1469 BENITO AVENUE
(CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 1985)
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the item: details of the revised plans, CE's comments, Planning issues
and concerns. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing. CA determined C. Taylor who was absent at the August
12, 1985 meeting was eligible to act on the application this evening
since he had read the minutes and staff report and had seen the plans.
Commission discussion: carport is 9' wide at the entrance but then
widens to 101; 16' curb cut is acceptable, two curb cuts are not
allowed on this size lot because of impact on on -street parking;
dimensions of garage. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There
were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Randy Gibbs, applicant, presented a letter in support from the
following neighbors: Richard Trudell, 1452 Benito Avenue; Paul
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
August 26, 1985
Sciabica, 1480 Benito Avenue; Ernest and Bernadean Weiss, 1465 Benito
Avenue; George E. Paul, 2627 Hale Drive.
Further Commission discussion: a 10' x 20' garage will accommodate one
car; possibility of providing space for two cars under the house, this
would affect the front stairs and be expensive. One Commissioner
commented that many other sites in this neighborhood have 3' side
yards, this proposal would allow the applicant area in the rear for his
chldren to play, the neighbors have not objected and considering all
factors involved he did not feel it would be out of line to allow the
applicant to improve his property and allow his family to enjoy it.
Another commented that from a site inspection it appeared this
oversized lot has a large rear yard, approval of the variance would set
a precedent for others, she was concerned about a double curb cut,
on -street parking is limited, there is poor visibility and it would be
a dangerous situation. Further comment: the variance procedure is
included in the code to overcome a problem when there are no
alternatives, in this case there are two alternatives; do not find any
exceptional circumstances that could not be remedied by hiring an
architect to draw up alternative plans.
With findings that this proposal does not meet the variance
requirements of the City of Burlingame and that there are alternatives
to the project, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variance seconded by
C. Graham. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Schwalm and
Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT FIVE TWO-BEDROOM UNITS
AT 137 ANITA ROAD, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Five
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Jim Valenti, Dunlap Design,
was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Discussion: Commission policy regarding security gates; staff confirmed
that basically this project meets all requirements; concern about the
density of the proposal, with one less unit security gate could be
included and covered parking provided; Commission has allowed guest
parking that is not uncovered on some other projects, difficult to
penalize this one developer; perhaps Commission should review and study
the present condominium ordinance; Burlingame does not have
architectural review, these projects are reviewed under the zoning code
and condominium guidelines; project does not provide adequate security
and only a minimum of private open space.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this condominium permit and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with
the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
Marshal's memo of July 9, 1985, the City Engineer's memo of August 20,
1985 and the Director of Parks' July 10, 1985 memo shall be met; (2)
that the project shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the
Planning Department (except as amended to meet the exiting requirements
of the Fire Department) and date stamped August 16, 1985; (3) that the
landscape plan shall be consistent with the plan date stamped June 26,
1985 except as revised to allow the realignment of the front driveway
and stairway; (4) that the garage area will not be secured by a gate
without amendment of the condominium permit; and (5) that the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this building be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of ,the foundation
permit for this project. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-2
roll call vote, Cers Taylor and Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures
were advised.
5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FIVE UNITS AT 137 ANITA ROAD
(LOT 9, BLOCK 20, MAP NO. 1 OF TOWN OF BURLINGAME)
CE Erbacher advised this map is complete. C. Giomi moved to recommend
the map to City Council for approval. Second C. Graham; motion
approved on unanimous voice vote.
6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR TWO TWO-BEDROOM AND THREE ONE-BEDROOM/DEN
UNITS AT 1444 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Two
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: slope of the lot; it was suggested a condition be added to
limit height of any fence placed on top of the retaining wall to 6'
from existing grade on the adjacent property; staff will require
utilities be undergrounded.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, was
present. The following spoke in opposition: Paul McDonnell, 1447
Capuchino Avenue and Jack Losee, 1412 Mills Avenue. They were
concerned about surface drainage and on -street parking congestion in
the nearby single family district. Rachel Sanchez, owner of 1448 E1
Camino Real noted she, too, has water problems and gave staff a copy of
a recorded easement between her property and the project site which was
not shown on the tentative map. Jerry Deal advised the surface
drainage problems on adjacent property will be alleviated by staff's
rquirements for this project. There were no further audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
During discussion CE explained that water does tend to flow from E1
Camino to Capuchino, this condition exists because there was no
requirement for pumping into the street or it wasn't enforced in the
past. Further Commission comment: can understand the neighbors'
concern about congested on -street parking but this application meets
code requirements; E1 Camino has been zoned for multiple family use
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
for many years. CE assured Commission Engineering's requirements
addressed the water problem, they will require that the roof area of
this project not drain into the pump system.
C. Giomi moved for approval of this condominium permit and for adoption
of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's
July 17, 1985 memo, the Director of Parks' August 6, 1985 memo and the
City Engineer's August 20, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the project
shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped August 1, 1985; (3) that any fence placed on top of
the retaining wall at property line measure no higher than 6' from
existing grade on the adjacent property; and (4) that this approval be
subject to any limitations of the easement agreement with the adjacent
property owner. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call
vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FIVE UNITS AT 1444 EL CAMINO REAL
(LOT 12, BLOCK 5, BURLINGAME GROVE)
CE Erbacher recommended approval of this map with any revisions
required by the recorded easement agreement received this evening.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend the map to City Council for approval.
Second C. Giomi; motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
Recess 9:17 P.M.; reconvene 9:30 P.M.
8. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THREE LOTS
OF A PROPOSED FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 2720 MARIPOSA DRIVE
9. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE (RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL
31, BOOK 7, PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 50; FORMERLY LOT 29, BLOCK 38,
MILLS ESTATE NO. 13)
Reference Planning staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments and
Engineering staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the variance request, setbacks, Planning staff
comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing. CP distributed diagrams addressing view sheds.
CE Erbacher referenced his staff memo which addresses previous
concerns, lot sizes, utilities, soils report, seismic setbacks,
traffic, building heights. Six conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Discussion: seismic setback lines, i.e., fracture lines; allowable
fence height and location on these lots; a rear yard fence on the
private street would require a 5' clearance of PUE; addresses to be
used; private road will be posted as a fire lane.
Chairman Garcia opened the public hearing. Don Bennett, applicant,
advised all the properties will front on the private street. Driveways
could be brought in either way. There were no audience comments in
favor.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
The following spoke in opposition: Max Drimmer, 2812 Las Piedras Drive;
Mrs. Yamagushi, 2808 Las Piedras Drive (former Turner lot) and Earle
Erickson, 2805 Las Piedras Drive. Their comments: concern about
obstruction of views, paid a premium for the view and the area, concern
about fire access, two story homes with flat roofs are not compatible
in this area, a 4,800 SF house seems excessive for a 7,000 SF lot and
it would be considerably higher than the existing church, request
height restrictions be placed on the new homes based on the height of
the existing church. Mr. Erickson read into the record his letter of
May 30, 1985 to the City Planner requesting approval of height
limitations to be set forth in the subdivision map.
In rebuttal Mike Monte, developer/contractor, noted a height limitation
of 30' from the top of curb has been established by the city in R-1
districts. Prior to planning this project the developers hired a
surveyor to take floor elevations of the Erickson and Yamagushi houses
in order to keep the roofs of the new houses to a point at or below
their window sills. The fault trace caused building pads for two of
the sites to be smaller and thus a two story structure was proposed
for these. Three of the homes will be one story; the site of the
church will have one story structures. The church structure now
obstructs a view which will be in the cul-de-sac and will be a totally
unobstructed view corridor from the Yamagushi and Erickson sites with
the proposed subdivision. Mr. Monte had commented that the house next
to the Ericksons is a two story structure; Mrs. Erickson advised it is
only one story. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
CP discussed staff's drawings based on the engineer's elevations
distributed this evening indicating where the finished structures would
be in relation to the Erickson, Yamagushi and Lorenzi sites. It
appeared the distant panorama would not be affected, the near view
would be.
From testimony this evening, detail of the plans and Planning staff's
diagrams, C. Giomi found that the developer has taken pains to protect
view corridors; that there are exceptional circumstances because of the
seismic setbacks which are required for development of this property;
that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
property right of the owner, he is entitled to develop his property
consistent with the zoning assigned; that it has been demonstrated this
evening by the seismic setback and discussion of views that it will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to
other property owners; and that it will not adversely affect the
comprehensive zoning plan of the city, the property will remain R-1 and
will add to the housing stock of the city.
C. Giomi then moved for approval of this variance and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions:
(1) that the lots shall be created as shown on the subdivision map
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 21, 1985;
(2) that the minimum front setback for each of the five lots created
shall be 20' from the edge of the curb closest to the structure; and
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
August 26, 1985
(3) that to protect view sheds the maximum height of any structure(s)
on Lot 3 shall be 21' from top of curb; on Lot 2 shall be 23' from top
of curb; on Lot 1 shall be 21' from top of curb; on Lot 4 shall be 21'
from top of curb; and on Lot 5 shall be 17' from top of curb. Second
C. Graham.
C. Taylor suggested an additional condition, (4) that Lots 4 and 5 be
required to show the front entrance on Mariposa Drive and a fence
setback of 5' from the PUE. C. Giomi amended her motion to include
condition #4, C. Graham amended his second. Motion approved on a 7-0
roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Graham moved to accept and recommend to City Council for approval
the tentative subdivision map with the following conditions: (1) that
the lots, setbacks, roof heights and development be as shown on the
tentative subdivision map as date stamped August 21, 1985; (2) that the
developmental conditions of the City Engineer's memo of August 7, 1985,
the Fire Marshal's memo of May 8, 1985 and the City Planner's memo on
the variance (as amended by the Planning Commission) shall apply to
this development; (3) that the developer shall replace any damaged
curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site and repair and overlay the
adjacent streets to center line as may be approved by the City
Engineer; (4) that street trees, 15 gal. minimum, be installed, one on
each lot frontage facing both the private roadway and the public
streets, as may be approved by the Parks Department, with all street
trees in the private roadway areas to be maintained by the homeowners
to the satisfaction of the Parks Department; (5) that the sight line at
the private roadway be defined on the final map as approved by the City
Engineer; and (6) that the Homeowners Association shall be responsible
for maintenance of all utilities, street lights, except for the sewer
and water mains and services to meters and cleanouts. Second C. Giomi;
motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AFTERSCHOOL CHILDCARE PROGRAM FOR
ELEMENTARY AGED CHILDREN AT HOOVER SCHOOL, 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE,
BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, code requirements, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's letter, letters in support, study meeting
questions, traffic generation. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Mark Zuckerman, 1233 Laguna
Avenue, spoke in support and introduced a number of concerned parents
who were in the audience. He stressed the need for this type of
program since in most families both parents work. The program at
Lincoln School is overcrowded and there will be 25 parents with no
program for their children when school begins if this application is
not granted. Liz Weiss, applicant, requested an adjustment in
operating hours; in addition to the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
they would like to operate from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. in order to
accommodate those parents who commute to work.
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
Letters in support were received after preparation of the staff report
from the following: Michael Beltran, 1132 Cabrillo Avenue (8/21/85);
Betty Wolff (8/17/85) and Mark Zuckerman, 1233 Laguna Avenue (received
8/26/85). There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: concern about maximum usage of the site, -is
parking more intense now than it was in 1980; staff advised the dance
classes approved in 1980 are no longer tenants on the site and staff
has received no complaints, the hearing was duly noticed and no
complaints were received from the neighbors.
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 conditions of the Fire Marshal's July 19, 1985
memo and the City Engineer's August 8, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that
the daycare facility shall be operated from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. and
from 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, September through
June to serve a maximum of 30 children with a staff of three adults;
(3) that the majority of the children shall arrive at the site by bus,
and carpooling shall be actively encouraged by the YMCA for homebound
trips; (4) that the joint use of the playground and bathroom facilities
shall be satisfactorily worked out with the other tenants on the site
and the playground facilities will continue to be available to the
residents of the adjacent area; and (5) that this use permit shall be
reviewed for compliance with all conditions and review of any
complaints received in June, 1986. Second C. Taylor; motion approved
on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were
advised.
11. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AT THE ADELINE MARKET
CENTER, 1500-1508 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED C-1
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Marmora Terrell, applicant and
property owner, was present. There were no audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
One Commissioner expressed his objection to Sign A-1, the directory
sign on El Camino Real: El Camino is zoned residential and the city has
discouraged commercial uses on this street.
C. Jacobs found approval of this signage would not be a grant of
special privilege and that there were special circumstances applicable
to the subject property, there are few shopping areas in the city, this
proposal is in good taste and does not exceed code requirements
excessively. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the sign exception
and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving the Master Sign
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
Program with the following conditions: (1) that all existing signs on
this property shall be removed porior to issuing any permits for new
signage on this site or within 45 days of affirmative action on this
master sign permit; and (2) that any signage in addition to the signs
identified in this master signage permit shall require an amendment to
this permit including window signs.
Comment on the motion: all tenants should be made aware of the sign
program so that there will be no further abuses; not in favor of Sign
A-1, those driving by won't read it and those walking in the area are
aware of the center. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C.
Schwalm dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
12. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED ON-SITE
PARKING SPACES FOR THE AMFAC HOTEL, 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
this request to reduce the required on-site parking spaces from 402 to
329, the number of rooms in the existing hotel. She discussed details
of the request, history of permits on the site, staff review, Planning
staff comment, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised it was not clear
what standards were used to arrive at 402 required spaces in the 1968
use permit.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Joseph Kent, Raiser
Architectural Group, discussed his research of all documentation and
his interpretation of it: in 1968 a 338 unit hotel was approved with a
parking garage behind it, 402 spaces were required which exceeded code
requirements; in early 1969 the parking structure was deleted and an
adjacent lot on Burlway Road was approved for parking for the hotel.
He contended that 358 spaces were approved in January, 1969 although
the record did not indicate the number of spaces and that the original
application was approved with 358 spaces. Mr. Kent noted that Amfac
has improved the parking lot and spent over $250,000 for shoreline
development. Applicants are willing to leave the 365 spaces on site
but request the parking space requirement be lowered to 329 to impose
the same parking standard on Amfac as on other hotels in the city.
Responding to Commission question, Mr. Kent stated the applicants feel
present on-site parking exceeds the present code requirement of one
space for one sleeping room. He further stated it is in the hotel's
interest to keep the existing spaces to be used when needed but they
would request the same standard be applied to Amfac as to other hotels
in terms of parking requirements.
Commission comment: can agree with requiring 365 spaces but do not see
why it should be reduced to 329, especially since the original permit
required 402; hotel is nonconforming in landscaping, the present
parking is using space which should be landscaped; heavy usage of this
hotel for community events points up the need for all 365 spaces.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Page 11
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
C. Jacobs moved to amend the 1968 use permit and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following
conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 7,
1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the parking requirement for the hotel
use be'revised to 365 parking spaces no more than 20% of which are
compact stalls, laid out as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped July 17, 1985; (3) that all
landscaping installed within the parking area be maintained including
installing and maintaining landscaping on the island between the main
parking lot and the parking lot fronting on Burlway Road; and (4) that
because its conditions were not met the February 11, 1985 use permit is
no longer valid. Second C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: think the applicant's request is reasonable, why
should Amfac provide more spaces than the code requirement; if the
parking requirement were lowered to 329 would like to see the hotel
meet other requirements in which it is nonconforming; there are parking
problems on this site now, would prefer to keep the requirement at 365.
Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal
procedures were advised.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN INSURANCE REPLACEMENT AUTO RENTAL
AGENCY TO OPERATE FROM THE OFFICE BUILDING AT 851 BURLWAY ROAD
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to
Commission question, staff advised a parking count of floor area in
this building had not been made.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Applicants were not present.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission requested more information: fleet size; existing floor
area/employees in this building. Chm. Garcia continued the item to the
meeting of September 10., 1985; Commissioners agreed on unanimous
voice vote. Staff will contact the applicants and request they be
present for the September 10 meeting.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRY CLEANING SERVICE IN A PORTION OF
THE BUILDING AT 327-329 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
the item: details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment
on issues, American Pacific Equipment Co. letter, study meeting
questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing. Fire Marshal confirmed ingress/egress as shown on the
plans was adequate.
Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Paul Zieman, representing the
applicants, noted the blueprints provided do not show existing
Page 12
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
bathrooms, final plans will be complete; chemicals will not be
discharged into the sewer sytem, this is regulated by the state; he
felt individual delivery/pickup time for a dry cleaning service would
be no more than five minutes and that there is sufficient public
parking in the area; applicants will satisfy all requirements of the
city when applying for a building permit following approval of this
use; they do not plan to operate delivery vans, will do no wholesale
work; may possibly have once a day shirt laundry service trucks. Fred
Guerrero, American Pacific Equipment Co., spoke in favor: can see no
problem with provision of bathrooms, will use existing ones which were
sized for the previous nightclub use; have spoken with the property
owners' attorney, they will be doing all the improvements; once the
permit is approved complete building plans will be prepared. There
were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: concern about parking in this impacted area; not
a good location for this business with its intensive parking demand;
Commission does not know what uses might go into the rest of this
building but cannot deny because of that; what use is there which won't
generate parking, do not believe this would be any worse than on
Broadway or Burlingame Avenue.
C. Jacobs moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Graham; motion
approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Leahy and Garcia dissenting.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 11:50 P.M.; reconvene 12:00 midnight.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 50 SF SATELLITE ANTENNA DISH
TO REMAIN ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT - 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE
Requests: statement from applicant regarding alternative locations
which would be less visible; statement from staff regarding
undergrounding of utilities on California Drive; height of dish from
grade. Item set for hearing September 10, 1985.
16. SPECIAL PERMIT - MOBILE RADIO -TELEPHONE SYSTEM STATION -
1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Requests: will equipment room take required parking? will lights be
required on top of the antennae by the FAA? cross section of how this
will look on the building; how are the transmitting antennae attached?
Item set for hearing September 10, 1985.
17. SPECIAL PERMIT - COURIER OPERATION - 1722 GILBRETH ROAD
Requests: will they use the whole site? how will enclosed area of
parking be used? how many employees on site at one time? Item set for
hearing September 10, 1985.
Page 13
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985
18. & 19. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING
WAREHOUSE TO AN AUTO SALES CENTER AT 1070 BROADWAY
Requests: breakdown of parking; what offices would be moved to this
site from other sites; address circulation problems; recommendation on
median strip; possible future second access from parking structure;
address landscaping along the railroad tracks to soften the parking
structure. Items set for hearing September 10, 1985.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- Towber letter to Snappy Car Rental (new facilities at 1328 Marsten
Road), August 7, 1985.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its August 19, 1985 meeting.
- City Planner memo, 8/26/85, Planning Department Workload.
Following a brief discussion Commission agreed to limit agenda
action items to eight; time of day and date will be noted on each
application received and applications placed on agendas in order of
receipt.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy
Secretary