Loading...
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 AGENDA - Item # 4 withdrawn at the request of the applicant.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 SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF TRUE LEARNING CENTER - 2109 BROADWAY AVENUE, ZONED R=1 Project withdrawn by applicant. 5.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