HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.09.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 26, 1988
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, September 26,
1988 at 7:31 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, S. Graham, Harrison,
Jacobs
Absent: Commissioners Giomi, H. Graham
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ed
Williams, Deputy Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the September 12, 1988 meeting were
approved with the following correction: page 3,
item #4, two variances, 1365 De Soto Avenue, third
paragraph, 4th line, motion for denial of
variances made by Commissioner Harrison.
AGENDA - Item # 4 withdrawn at the request of the
applicant. Order of the agenda was approved.
The Chair advised applicants for action items that the rules of
procedure of the Planning Commission require four affirmative
votes for approval. With only five members present this evening
they may wish to request a continuance to the meeting of October
11, 1988. None of the applicants wished to continue. Staff
clarified that without four affirmative votes, an application
would be assumed denied, but could be appealed.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. TWO VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONTSRUCTION OF A
SECOND STORY AT 777 WILLBOROUGH ROAD, ZONED R-1
Requests: letter addressing variance findings; does existing lot
coverage exceed 40%. Item set for public hearing October 11,
1988.
2. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GARAGE - 134/136 BLOOMFIELD,
ZONED R-1
Requests: when was garage built; where do the tenants of the
duplex park since the garage is being used to store a boat; is
the owner of the recreational vehicle a resident of this
property; will the cost of the proposed remodelling exceed 50% of
the assessed value of the structure. Item set for public
hearing October 11, 1988.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1988
Page 2
3. TWO VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF
AN EXISTING GARAGE - 825 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: what utilities will be located in the garage; clarify
number of bedrooms in the house; what type of storage will be
kept in the garage; will there be a sprinkler system in the
garage; will garage be lengthened to 401. Item set for public
hearing October 11, 1988.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF TRUE LEARNING
CENTER - 2109 BROADWAY AVENUE, ZONED R=1
Project withdrawn by applicant.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE OPERATION - 1151 VANCOUVER
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: clarify the City Engineer's comments; will applicant
be licensed by the State; where will the school bus stop to pick
up the children; where will the bus be located when not in use;
how many trips will be made by the school bus; clarify which
existing uses on the site will overlap with this new use. Item
set for public hearing October 11, 1988.
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - 1801 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: show footprint of potential development on lots;
indicate developable area in terms of land area outside the creek
and creek area; will there be any chanellization; indicate which
trees will be removed; how will declining height ordinance apply
to these lots; clarify size of lot across the street, is the
24,000 SF shown the area of one lot or three lots. C.A.
explained that the buildable area on the lot is considered to be
both the creek and land area, and applicants can cover up to 40%
of the total lot area; identify the buildable area without
encroaching on the creek. Item set for public hearing October
11, 1988.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE COMPANY - 1440
CHAPIN AVENUE ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B-1
Requests: clarify the parking designation for this use; how will
parking be assigned; clarify number of employees, do numbers
represent an increase in number of agents; explain why only 8
customers per day. Item set for public hearing October 11, 1988.
8. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1
Requests: sign K is noted as exempt, what does this mean; why are
there signs needed both on the windows and on the awnings; why
not combine some of the signs. Item set for public hearing
October 11, 1988.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
September 26, 1988
ITEMS FOR ACTION
9. PARKING VARIANCE TO PROVIDE ONE COVERED OFF-STREET PARKING
SPACE WHERE TWO ARE REQUIRED AT 457 BLOOMFIELD RD, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report 9/26/88 with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, planning staff
comments, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: CP Monroe clarified that the deck at the rear of the
property is about 2' off the ground and only the portion of this
deck with a roof above it has been calculated into lot coverage.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Ralph Button, project
designer, was present representing the application. He explained
that he had designed the garage to be 10' wide by 40'-4" deep,
however staff review indicated the garage to be 9'-7" wide by 38'
deep. CP Monroe advised that a condition could be attached to
this project requiring that the interior dimensions of the garage
be 10' x 40' minimum. The applicant noted that such a condition
would be acceptable. He explained that there is only 8' between
this house and the house next door; there is no way to add two
side by side parking spaces without the garage extending over to
the middle of the living room. There were no further audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
With the statement that a 20' X 20' garage would be impossible to
provide on this property, C. Harrison moved for approval of the
parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the
addition shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped August 29, 1988; (2)
that the existing garage shall be enlarged to provide for a
usable parking area of 10' x 40' (interior dimensions) and this
area shall never be used for living area or separate residential
purposes; (3) that the water heater set on a wood shelf in the
garage shall meet all structural and seismic requirements
specified by the building code, and a 7' minimum vertical
clearance shall be maintained from the bottom of the shelf
holding the water heater to the floor below; and (4) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's September 12, 1988
memo shall be met.
Motion was seconded by C. S. Graham. Comment on the motion: have
a problem with the water heater being placed on a shelf; maker of
the motion and C. Ellis noted that as long as the water heater
met all building code requirements, he was not concerned about
its location. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers.
Giomi and H. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
September 26, 1988
10. TWO VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 728 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 9/26/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's comments. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Tom Paine, applicant, was
present and addressed commission. He noted that most of their
neighbors have submitted letters in support of the project. They
need a larger house, more amenable to their growing family; this
property provides substantially more parking on-site than any
other property in the area. Regarding the second story 4"
projection into the side yard, graphics were presented to
Commission to illustrate the applicants' concerns. The
applicant noted that if the proposed second story was built with
a 5' side setback as allowed by code, they would create a
disjointed side line of the addition; without the extra 4"
projection, the proposed second story bedroom would be extremely
small; as is, this proposed bedroom would be only 9' wide. In
response to a commissioner's comment, the applicant noted that
they plan on relocating the laundry facilities into the garage.
CP Monroe responded to Commission question, noting that the
laundry facilities would reduce the width of the garage to about
9' and because of the allignment of the walls of the segments of
the garage, would make it more difficult to park a vehicle.
Susan Paine commented that the house was rented out for a period
of time and the tenants had their laundry facilities in the
garage and were still able to easily accommodate two vehicles
inside the garage. In addition, she noted that there is also
plenty of room to park in the driveway.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
C.P. Monroe clarified that if the laundry facilities are placed
at the rear of the garage, the depth of the available parking
area in the garage would be reduced.
C. Harrison noted that there is plenty of room on this property
to park a second vehicle in the driveway and moved for approval
of the two variances with the following conditions: (1) that the
addition shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped September 12, 1988; and
(2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's August
25, 1988 memo shall be met.
Motion was seconded by C. S. Graham and was approved on a 5-0
roll call vote, Cers Giomi and H. Graham absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1988
Page 5
11. A VARIANCE AND FIVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD AN ADDITION TO
THE CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 9/26/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed this request for an addition to the Crowne Plaza Hotel.
She reviewed details of the request, history of previous
approval, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions. Thirty-three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Staff and Commission discussed the visibility of the site from
Airport Boulevard.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jim Kerrigan, General
Manager of the Crowne Plaza Hotel was present and addressed
Commission. He noted that in the past two years they have found
themselves having to turn away customers due to inadequate
meeting space in the hotel; in order to compete with the other
hotels in the area they need to make the proposed addition to the
hotel; feel the addition will enhance their opportunity for
success.
Edward Gee, architect representing Harbor View Investment,
applicant, discussed the project with visual aids. He noted the
variance for the 6' side setback is necessary in order to provide
an efficient parking layout as well as accomodate BCDC
requirements and provide the required fire lane; due to the
irregular shape of the lot, the 10' side setback narrows to 6'
and then spreads to 101. Regarding the Special Permit for height
he noted that the original hotel was approved for a 144, height;
the proposed addition would be behind the existing tower and
therefore not easily visible from Airport Boulevard; the tower
addition will be stepped down from the corner of the rear
addition facing Airport Boulevard, therefore the mass of the
addition will appear smaller; will create an executive suite type
of hotel on the top floors. FAR has been reduced from 2.05 to
1.88, the original hotel was approved for an FAR of 1.91. By
eliminating the destination oriented restaurant, were able to
reduce the parking structure by one story as well; the parking
structure is setback 90' from the street and because of the
existing entrance deck cannot be easily seen; landscaping will be
placed along three sides of the parking structure; 14.4%
landscaping being provided where 15% is required, however this
does not include the 608 linear feet of landscaping to be
provided around the parking structure; in terms of lot coverage,
the new tower is adding only 5.2% of lot coverage and the garage
8.2%.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Harrison noted that the applicant has followed the direction
of the City in this redesign and has satisfied concerns raised
regarding the original proposal; the irregular lot shape
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
September 26, 1988
justifies the variance to side setback. C. Harrison moved for
approval of the variance and five special permits by adoption of
Commission Resolution approving one variance and five special
permits with the 33 conditions listed in the staff report.
Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 4-1 roll call
vote, Chm. Jacobs dissenting on the grounds that the Design
Guidelines should have been followed more closely. Cers Giomi
and H. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Conditions for approval of one variance and five special permits
follow:
(1) that the conditions of the original 1979 use permit as
outlined in the action letter dated Septemer 5, 1979 shall be
adhered to except as more restrictive conditions are approved in
the 1988 action on the proposed addition;
(2) that the project as built shall not exceed a height of
134, 2-1/2", an FAR for the entire site of 1.88, lot coverage of
42.4% or a view corridor obstruction of more than 67% and
landscaped area outside of BCDC jurisdiction shall not be less
than 14.4% and 12% landscaping will be provided on the top deck
of the parking structure and planter boxes will be placed along
the front, interior side and rear of each deck of the proposed
parking structure;
(3) that the project as built shall be within the dimensions and
limits shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped August 12, 1988, and the conditions in the
Public Works Directors memo of August 23, 1988 shall be met;
(4) that this planning action shall be valid for one year or
until a building permit is issued for at least the foundation of
the addition and shall expire if the building permit expires
prior to commencement of completion of construction;
(5) that the hotel operator shall be allowed to provide valet
parking free of charge to the hotel and restaurant patrons and to
visitors officially using the site so long as the valet parking
does not affect more than 55 of the parking stalls provided in
the garage structure for self parking, all below grade parking
shall be retained for self parking at all times;
(6) the hotel operator or property owner shall provide shuttle
bus service on at least a regular daily schedule for hotel
patrons and guests to and from San Francisco International
Airport;
(7) that if on-site parking becomes a serious problem impacting
adjacent properties and/or trips generated from this site exceed
those anticipated in the Traffic Analyzer, the property owner
shall provide an east -west shuttle connection to the Southern
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
September 26, 1988
Pacific terminal at convenient times for employees or shall
contribute an amount of money to be determined by the city to be
his proportional share of the fare box subsidy required to have
SamTrans extend bus service through the Anza Area;
(8) the applicant's traffic engineer shall review all access
points, turning lanes, visibility lines and landscape heights and
provide a written report on the project's plans with
recommendations to the city, final plans shall clearly
incorporate these requirements as reviewed and possibly adjusted
by the city;
(9) that the applicant shall obtain permits from all other
agencies as required by law and the city including CalTrans
Aviation Division, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay
Conservation and Development Commission and San Francisco
Regional Air Quality Control Board;
(10) that the applicant shall pay required city and school
district fees including sewer connection fee, water connection
fee and bayfront development fee;
(11) that during construction the work shall conform to city
established limitations on hours of construction, dust
regulation, etc. as set out in the Uniform Building Code as
amended by the City of Burlingame except that the City Engineer
may place special conditions on the hours of pile driving;
(12) that preconstruction plans shall provide a plan for
construction staging and construction workers, parking during the
course of construction which shall be approved by the City
Engineer;
(13) that the hotel operator shall provide private on-site
security patrol to patrol buildings, parking areas, public access
areas and the site on a full time, 24 hour basis;
(14) that area lighting for the parking structure shall be
confined within the walls of that structure and lighting fixtures
shall be screened from view outside the structure, lighting in
the rooftop parking area shall be directed toward the surface and
be the lowest levels possible for public safety;
(15) that final landscape plans shall be submitted to the Parks
Department and approved prior to issuance of a building permit,
all landscape and public improvements shall be installed and
maintained by the property owner, if any existing landscaping is
damaged during construction it shall be replaced before a final
occupancy permit is issued;
(16) that no room in the hotel shall be rented or leased to a
single person or corporate entity for more than 29 days and the
room shall not be used for permanent residential purposes;
(17) that fire hydrants shall be installed to meet the
requirements of the city;
Burlingame Planning Commmission Minutes Page 8
September 26, 1988
(18) that the structures shall be built so that they conform to
the standards of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as
amended by the City of Burlingame including the provision of
Title 24 and Title 25;
(19) that interior noise levels shall be maintained at the
standards established in the noise element of the general plan
including that the noise level in a sleeping room shall not
exceed 45 dBA whatever direction and source that noise comes
from;
(20) that no occupied area of the structure shall be below
elevation 10' MSL;
(21) that the applicant shall abide by a construction schedule
including the following dates of completion: submitting final
plans, picking up building permit, final foundation inspection,
final framing inspection, occupancy permit completion; compliance
with this schedule is necessary to retain traffic allocation,
change to this schedule requires Council review; the schedule is
as follows:
Submit final plans June 1989
Pick up buildng permit September 1989
Foundation inspection January 1990
Final framing inspection May 1990
Occupancy permit March 1991
(22) that the applicant shall pay the projects proportional
share of a new water main under 101 or agree to join an
assessment district established to make these local or systemwide
improvements;
(23) that the FAA "no hazard" determination shall be obtained
before a building permit is issued;
(24) that the hotel operator shall provide employees and guests
with regional transporation information, carpool and van
matching, and shall provide access to regional transit modes,
schedule work shifts so that they do not occur at peak traffic
times and give priority in employment to closer residents;
(25) that during construction deliveries and hauling to and from
the construction site shall be scheduled during nonpeak commute
hours and shall not interfere with the day to day operation of
the hotel;
(26) that during construction temporary pathways and overhead
protective coverings shall be provided to ensure the safety of
hotel guests and employees;
(27) that the parking structure shall be screened from view as
much as possible by providing landscaping in planters on the face
of the walls on the front, rear and side facing the hotel using
landscaping species that can cascade over the side to soften the
appearance of the structure;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1988
Page 9
(28) that earth tone dryvit, similar to that of the existing
hotel structure, shall be used on the hotel tower addition and
parking structure to enhance the blending of the structures and
to minimize the visual impact of these proposed additions;
(29) that during construction activities dust control measures
shall be implemented on the site proper to reduce suspended
particulate emissions; demolition areas shall be continuously
sprinkled; stockpiled and construction materials shall be
covered; and streets in the construction area shall be swept once
a day as determined by the city;
(30) that construction vehicles shall be properly tuned and
unnecessary idling of trucks and other equipment during
construction shall be avoided;
(31) that during construction measures approved by the City
Engineer shall be followed to protect adjacent bodies of water
from siltation and other pollutants;
(32) that on-site pretreatment shall be provided for all
wastewater from areas of the buildings where food is prepared;
and
(33) that as necessary as determined by the City Engineer the
developer shall install a solid fence around the construction
site to reduce noise levels by 5 dBA.
12. REZONING OF FOUR PARCELS FROM M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
TO C-4 WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN THE BAYFRONT AND
ANZA AREAS EAST OF 101
Reference staff report, 9/26/88, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of this request to rezone four parcels in the
Bayfront and Anza Areas from M-1 light industrial to C-4
waterfront commercial. The rezoning would clarify the policy
intent of the City for development of these properties and would
assist developers in determining criteria for development. It was
noted that the proposed reclassification would have no effect on
the presently allowed density of use or uses on these sites.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Ron Rosberg, 1669
Bayshore Highway addressed Commission and noted that he is not
in favor of the proposed rezoning unless it directly benefits the
property owners. There were no additional audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
CP Monroe explained that the proposed rezoning would assist
developers as well as property owners since permitted uses and
development criteria for these properties would be more easily
identified. CP noted that she had received a phone call from one
property owner in the area who had no concerns about the
rezoning. All property owners of affected properties have been
noticed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
September 26, 1988
C. S. Graham noted that the proposed rezoning would be beneficial
to all parties involved and recommended Council approve the
rezoning. Second C. Ellis; motion was approved unanimously on
voice vote.
13. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A PROPOSED OVERLAY ZONE
RESTRICTING USE OF THE PARCELS FRONTING ON THE WEST SIDE OF
BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 9/26/88 and Negative Declaration ND -411P.
CP Monroe reviewed this proposal for an overlay zone to be placed
on 17 parcels fronting on the west side of Bayshore Highway.
These properties are currently zoned M-1. The proposed overlay
zone would allow freestanding restaurants which are prohibited
under the M-1 zone and would prohibit freestanding office
buildings, now a conditional use under the M-1 zoning
classification. She also discussed the enrivonmental review of
this proposal and the study meeting questions.
Commission/staff discussion: in response to Commission questions
staff explained that the proposed overlay zone would make
existing office buildings in this area non -conforming; non-
conforming uses could continue as long as they are not
demolished; interior remodelling is allowed for non conforming
structures, expansion of area is not allowed; most of the
existing office buildings in this area are already built to the
maximum allowed by code, therefore expansion is not a feasible
option; under the M-1 zoning designation may have a freestanding
office building with a use permit; since 1981 have had 1
application for a new office building in this area, all other
applications have been for conversion of warehouse buildings to
office use. CP Monroe explained the traffic model used by the
city to analyze traffic impacts at critical intersections;
traffic generation of restaurant uses was compared to that of
office uses and found to be substantially less; proposed overlay
zone is consistent with the Specific Area Plan; procedure for
rezoning was discussed.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The following individuals
spoke: Ronald Rossburg, 1669 Bayshore Highway; Bob Brown,
Burlingame Realtor; R.W. Reid, 1831 Bayshore Highway; Jack
Winster, 1633 Bayshore Highway; Burt Horn, 405 Primrose Road,
representing 1499 Bayshore Highway; Chandler Eason, Blunk
Associates. The following comments were made: feel this proposal
is taking away the property owner's free choice, would like to
maintain the right to come before the Commission and request a
use permit for a freestanding office building; hotel and
restaurant uses are making it difficult for warehouse uses to
compete in the area; question the .15 FAR being proposed and
whether this is appropriate as part of the overlay zone; have a
problem with prohibition of office buildings due to non
conformities that would be created; the prohibition of office
uses should be studied much more thoroughly; would like to see
restaurant uses allowed, but.,_do not want to see office buildings
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
September 26, 1988
prohibited; some office buildings in the area have high vacancy
rates, have concern that if office buildings become non-
conforming uses, high vacancy rates may result in loss of ability
to use portions of these buildings; feel proposed restrictions
are unreasonable; perhaps should consider some other zoning
designation for properties fronting on Bayshore Highway; feel
allowing restaurant uses in the area would upgrade the area and
increase property values; restaurant uses and office uses should
be looked at separately; code does not consider a conditional use
as a non -conforming use, feel will be creating non -conforming
situation by prohibiting office buildings rather than leaving
them as conditional uses.
There were no additional audience comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission discussion: am bothered by the fact that an office
building could be built one lot away from Bayshore Highway but
not on the lots which front on Bayshore Highway; have no problem
adding restaurant uses but have a problem with prohibiting office
uses. Staff explained that there is no minimum frontage for
properties in this area; if a property is subdivided, it would
stay in the overlay zone. Staff also clarified the
interpretation of the section in the code regarding non
conforming structures pointing out that if any part of an office
building is in use then all vacant areas can be leased.
C. S. Graham moved for recommendation to City Council of overlay
zone allowing freestanding restaurants with FAR and parking
requirements to C-4 standards for properties fronting on the west
side of Bayshore Highway. Second C. Harrison; motion was approved
on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and H. Graham absent.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no audience comments.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its September 19,
1988 regular meeting and September 21, 1988 study meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Ellis, Secretary