Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.03.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1988 Wadtm- • •:� : A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday,, March 28, 1988 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 14, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #10 withdrawn. ITEMS FOR STUDY Study items were taken first. 9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A 6 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT - 113 ANITA ROAD, ZONED R-3 Requests: clarify the statement in applicant's February 17, 1988 letter, . . if Mr. Larry Nelson would not shut. it down . . ."; will there be a security gate; height of fence on the wall, maximum height allowed. Item set for public hearing April 11, 1988. 10. PARKING VARIANCE - 20/20 RECYCLE CENTERS - 1825 EL CAMINO REAL Item withdrawn. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 224 PRIMROSE ROAD Requests: how will the deli be advertised; reevaluate number of customers weekdays and Sundays. Item set for public hearing April 11, 1988. 12. NEGATIVE DECLARATION/SPECIAL PERMIT - USE OF EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES - 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE Requests: status of sale of the site; information on parking layout; ownership of visitor parking area, will there be an arrangement with this owner; how often will the amphitheater be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 28, 1988 used, by how many people; where will participants park, will there be an overlap with use by the on-site nursery school; will sight lines be O.K. with widening of the driveway; can anything be done about cleaning up the amphitheater. Item set for public hearing April 11, 1988. DETERMINATION 1. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON CITY PLANNER'S INTERPRETATION OF CODE SEC. 25.42.030-h REGARDING RESTAURANTS IN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request of Robert M. Blunk, architect that Commission review the intent of the conditional uses requiring special permits in the M-1 zone as they relate to large, freestanding restaurants. She noted his position is that CS 25.42.030-h addresses specific criteria for small pedestrian oriented eating establishments, he felt larger freestanding restaurants would be addressed under CS 25.42.030-g establishments for goods and services at retail. and perhaps CS 25.42.030-i retail sales of alcoholic beverages. It was the City Planner's position that the code is unclear and CS 25.42.030-h could be interpreted that large freestanding restaurants are prohibited. Commission comment: Gulliver's restaurant, also in M-1, was constructed prior to the code section 25.42.030-h establishing limitations on retail food establishments in M-1; Commission has always been concerned about protecting the M-1 zone and retaining wholesale in this district; delis were approved by special permit for the use of people working in the area; if it is determined that any type of restaurant in M-1 is a conditional use, think the code should be studied and revised for clarity; have understood that small coffee shops were allowed in M-1 to cut down on traffic in the area, with no advertising, discreetly available to employees in the area, and should be separated by a certain number of feet. CA stated Commission is being asked to determine if CS 25.42.030- g or -i allows large, freestanding restaurants in the M-1 zone; the restrictions in CS 25.42.030-h were adopted to limit restaurants in this zone. Further Commission comment: have understood it was never intended to allow a ]Large full scale restaurant in this district; concur with this statement, the limitations on restaurants were intended to regulate small restaurants, preserving the M-1 area; we have been protective of M-1, perhaps there could be an overlay zone. CA commented the issue this evening is what is the meaning of the language in the code. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 28, 1988 C. H.Graham moved that Commission determine the intent of CS 25.42.030-h is to regulate small delis for the use of office employees in the area and would preclude any large, freestanding restaurant. Second C. Harrison; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. SPECIAM PERMIT TO USE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE REAR OF THE GARAGE AS AN OFFICE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION, AT 409 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During discussion staff noted the home occupation ordinance allows a maximum of only two persons on the premise in the conduct of the home occupation; special permits and variances run with the land, not the homeowner; a use permit is required for an office in an accessory structure; structural aspects of the suggested conditions would bring this structure up to UBC requirements, a use permit would allow the office, the structure would continue to be nonconforming. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Kevin Morgenstern, applicant, was present. It was determined he advertises his business in the yellow pages, just a phone number, no address; none of his clients come to the office at his home nor do his employees come to the site, there are no employees parking and working from his home; he has four employees including himself and his wife; the vehicles (business vehicles and employees, automobiles) are parked in San Mateo where he has rented space; he uses his garage to store things, equipment used in the business is stored in San Mateo; he parks his pickup in the street and his car in the driveway. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement he had made a site visit, his concerns have been answered by the applicant and he has no problem with this application, C. Harrison moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's March 7, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the 129 SF nonconforming room attached to the rear of the 15' x 18' garage shall be used only for office or storage purposes and shall never be used for dwelling purposes or as a sleeping area; (3) that the only business related equipment which shall ever be stored or used on this site is office equipment and that the only vehicles allowed shall be those for personal use of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 28, 1988 the property owner; (4) that the only utility which shall be placed in either the garage or attached room will be electricity; (5) that if the existing garage or attached room shall ever be damaged up to 50% of the value of the structure both areas shall be removed and replaced with a garage built to applicable city standards at that time; (6) that the only improvements which shall ever be made to the garage and attached room structures shall be for maintenance purposes as required by the Chief Building Inspector, the structures may never be expanded or substantially improved; (7) that the property owner shall meet all the requirements of these conditions within 150 days or this use permit shall be terminated; and (8) that this special permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in six months time (October 1988). Second C. S.Graham; motion was approved on a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs abstaining, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TWO VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GARAGE EXTENSION AT 14 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Interpretation of variance finding (b) was requested; staff noted variances run with the property, (b) would apply to the property owner or to a renter. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant, Edwin Elwell, was present. He advised his house is 1,400 SF; routine maintenance of vehicles would include oil change, packing the bearings, fixing the radio, nothing heavy duty; the large garage is needed for his camper, boat, antique car which have been at his in-laws' home, they are moving and he wishes to keep these vehicles off the street so they will not be vandalized; the door in the rear wall of the garage addition is proposed for ventilation. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion Commissioners commented on their support for more off-street parking, this proposal is too large for the lot, they could not make findings of fact to support exceptional circumstances relating to the property itself, the only exceptional circumstance appeared to be the desire of the applicant. C. S.Graham moved to deny the special permit. Second C. H.Graham; motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 28, 1988 4. PARKING VARIANCE, FENCE EXCEPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT IN ORDER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ONE CAR GARAGE AND FENCE AT 1123 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Marina Devoulin, applicant, explained the portion of the structure referred to as a greenhouse, the garage is 25' long and the rear 4' of that structure will be the greenhouse, it will be glassed in, there is no wall between the greenhouse structure and garage; the purpose is mainly for aesthetics, a lower profile at the rear of the garden, height at the far end would be reduced, reducing size of the structure; a car could be parked in this structure; they are trying to recover some of the storage space lost with the new garage; French doors are proposed for access from the rear yard into the garage, this will look better from the garden and blend architecturally with the rear of the house which also has French doors. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CE commented on his second memo which noted there are eight other lots in the Oxford -Cambridge area with large front yards and house and garage close together farther back which would cause problems if a two car garage were needed. Commission discussion: commenting on the glass wall of the greenhouse, Planning staff advised a one hour separation is required only on property line, the greenhouse is 7' from the rear property line, the glass wall is allowed. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in this property with a small rear yard, the property would be changed appreciably if a two car garage were required, there is a long driveway, applicants are not requesting an addition to the house, it will not be detrimental to the city or other- property owners nor adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, the garage will still be used as a garage. C. ,Jacobs then moved for approval of the parking variance and special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the four conditions listed in the staff report. (see subsequent motion). Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. In comment on the motion the Chair reviewed exceptional circumstances: there is a long driveway with space for parking behind the front setback, the home is set deep into the lot and has been there for many years, this application does not deal with an addition to the house, the home is not being enlarged. Applicant acknowledged she understood the CE's condition in his Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 28, 1988 memo that if an addition was ever made to the house in such a way that it would require a second covered off-street parking space, the main structure must be remodeled to allow a 20' x 20' garage to be placed in the rear yard with access clear for two cars. Motion to grant the parking variance and special permit was approved on a 4-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and S.Graham abstaining, C. Ellis absent. C. Harrison commented on his site visit: looking from the breakfast room of this home one can look over a 6' fence, an 8' fence would provide the privacy needed for both homes, the level of the yards seems to be the same but the patio next door is higher. Architectural style and age of these houses was discussed as well as date of adoption of the fence ordinance. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances in the elevation of the houses, this application is only for a 10' section of the fence, it is a replacement of an old fence, there would be no public hazard and neighbors' property would not be materially damaged, the fence would not be detrimental to anyone. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the fence exception with the conditions listed in the staff report. Second C. Harrison. Conditions for the parking variance, special permit and fence exception are as follows: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's February 24, 1988 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's February 23, 1988 memo and City Engineer's March 15, 1988 memo shall be met; ( 2 ) that the garage, fence for 10' along the side property line and the 44 SF greenhouse shall be built in conformance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 29, 1988; (3) that the only utilities in or serving the garage structure shall be water and electricity, no utilities shall be extended into the greenhouse; and (4) that storm drainage from the garage structure and roof shall be carried forward to the street. Motion to grant the fence exception was approved on a 4-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and S.Graham abstaining, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:56 P.M. 5. SIX SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO SHELTER/STORAGE SHED ABOVE AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 2701 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, history of construction on this site, applicants' letter, study meeting Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 28, 1988 questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: replying to Commissioner question, staff stated prohibiting electricity in the new structure would make enforcement easier, this is a determination the Commission must make; putting electrical outlets on the back wall of the house for patio equipment was suggested; a Commissioner asked why the shed was needed. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Gerald and Geraldine Leri, applicants, were present. They have lived in this house for 17 years and need the shed for storage of patio furniture and exercise equipment; they hoped to use as much of the garage roof as possible, this roof has been leaking and they would like to cover it, they felt their plan would look better; the three car garage is used for cars; they obtained a building permit for the garage and had a drain installed for the shed when the garage was built. Several neighbors have expressed their approval of the project; the house has only two small closets and they need more storage space. Timothy Regan, 1351 Montero Avenue, spoke in support of the project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this will be a beneficial improvement to the property, the circumstances are exceptional with the garage dug out of the hill, there is a need for more storage space, C. H.Graham moved for approval of the six special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's February 23, 1988 memo and the Fire Marshal's February 24, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that there be no electrical service or other utilities extended into this new structure; (3) that the 288 SF patio/storage shed shall be sized, dimensioned and located as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 24, 1988; and (4) that the 288 SF patio/storage shed structure shall never be used for residential or sleeping purposes. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: concerned with the size of the shed, it could be scaled down and still serve the same ;purpose, at this size it could be easily used as another dwelling unit in the future; the accessory structure ordinance was adopted because of large additions such as this, would not object to something smaller, garage needs a better roof, deck could be put there, something that would serve applicants' purposes doesn't need to be this large, the terrain is a problem; 12' isn't very wide, length is somewhat excessive, applicant needs the exercise Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 28, 1988 equipment and has no place to store it and patio furniture, garage downstairs does not have the space; concern about three structures on a lot, approval could set a precedent; from the street one will not be able to see the storage shed, its visibility would be insignificant; have a problem with the 12' width (applicants stated the exercise equipment would be stored and used in the shed) ; the shed width would be only 11' or less inside, height inside 81, it doesn't add to the footprint of the property, driving by one would not see it, the deck will be rebuilt. Motion to grant the special permits was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Jacobs voting no, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 1, MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 3, BURLINGAME PARK - 125 PEPPER AVENUE Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the proposed division of this lot into two new lots, conformance with zoning requirements, urgency ordinance recently adopted by Council, study meeting questions, CP's memo regarding Planning Commission review criteria for a parcel map including compatibility with existing lots in the area and conformance with neighborhood pattern of the finished contour of the building site or sites. CE reviewed lot frontages and lot areas in adjacent and nearby blocks. He stated there are no engineering concerns nor safety concerns. If the map is recommended to Council for approval two suggested conditions are listed in the staff report. There is one major consideration, compatibility with lots in the neighborhood, this determination is required from the Commission. CE read into the record March 18, 1988 letter from Shaun McCallion, applicant, which had been inadvertently left out of the packet. CE and Commission discussed location of property line between 125 and 121 Pepper Avenue, minimum frontage requirements, prohibition of flag lots, dimensions of the proposed lots, staff procedure for processing parcel maps. CP commented Commission's determination on the four criteria for review of a parcel map is a discretionary action; CA stated any other criteria should be related in general. Commission/staff discussed the term "neighborhood." and CP advised the code does not define neighborhood. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Shaun McCallion, property owner and applicant, was present. He stated his belief the proposal is compatible in every way with the neighborhood. Thomas Adams, attorney representing Mr. McCallion and his Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 March 28, 1988 partner, addressed Commission. His comments: there are lots in the area with 54' frontage and under, his clients' lots will be 531; it was his feeling people living across the street are neighbors as well as those living next door; he read the definition of "neighborhood" from Webster's dictionary. He discussed lot frontages in the general area and maintained 53' lots are compatible; they are not proposing lots which would be incompatible as far as shape is concerned; regarding compatibility with a neighborhood, the city's ordinance does not define neighborhood as block. His clients bought this property with the understanding they could have two lots with 53, frontages and 10,000+ SF each, they are not flag lots. They have met all the requirements other than compatibility with the neighborhood. He asked that Commission consider what it is limiting the neighborhood to and why it is not compatible if the request is denied. Speaking in favor, Rebecca Graffigna, real estate agent who sold the property: she stated they came to city hall several times and were assured the proposal would meet all requirements for subdivision. Replying to Commissioner comment, she confirmed she was aware a subdivision requires formal action by a city, she was not aware of the four criteria for review of a parcel map. The following spoke in opposition. Michael Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper Avenue: lives across the street; applicant and his attorney have been through this procedure before and know nothing is final until it goes to public hearing; regarding attorney's remarks about neighborhood, he believed neighborhood can be as small as Commission wishes to make it; of the lots across the street, one has 64' frontage, the other 74' frontage, and one nearby has 125' frontage; regarding compatibility with the neighborhood, it is not a question of whether the lot is rectangular or not, compatibility could relate to scale, texture, setbacks, type of structures; 62% of the lots are greater than 53' in width, 42% of the lots are over 20,000 SF, these two narrow lots will not be compatible with the immediate neighborhood and immediate neighbors. John Kockos, 133 Pepper Avenue (an immediately adjacent property owner): the purpose of the proposed subdivision must be profit, residents of the area and neighbors were not contacted about their reaction to this subdivision; sale of these lots and new homes will make his property jump in value also, he did not wish to think in terms of profit but rather the effect of this one subdivision on all residents of Burlingame; this portion of Pepper is very attractive, subdividing 125 Pepper would detract from the overall aesthetic value of the entire street; if the city is concerned about saving the existing trees, subdivision would be totally incompatible. He would like to see this beautiful block stay as it is, a complement to a].1 of Burlingame. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 March 28, 1988 Robert Rosselli, 121 Pepper Avenue: the two 53' lots would be between two lots 1001+ in width; with 40% lot coverage he would lose much of his privacy in his rear yard; if approved he would like to see setbacks required to preserve his privacy at 121 Pepper Avenue. Catherine Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper Avenue: lives across the street; she would like the existing trees to be saved, setbacks to be comparable to existing setbacks on the street with guidelines to retain the character of the street and neighborhood; she would object to two identical homes such as this developer's project at 330 and 334 Pepper. She has talked to neighbors within a 300' radius of the site, reaching about 80% of them, no one was in favor of this proposal, all signed a petition (51 signatures) which she presented to the Commission; she felt this subdivision would ruin the ambience of the area. Resident of 146 Elm Avenue: agreed with everyone speaking in opposition this evening; proposal meets all minimal requirements, this neighborhood goes beyond minimum requirements, it has an ambience with high quality homes and landscaping; the proposal would not add to the quality of life in the neighborhood. In rebuttal, Attorney Adams stated the trees would remain intact; 53' frontage is not the minimum, 50' is; there is nothing wrong in making a profit; others may see a difference between 53' and 64' frontages but this is not a huge subdivision, just one lot with a compatible project. Responding to Commissioners' questions, applicant stated he has developed property before but those lots were existing lots and already divided; he thought he met all the city requirements, 501+ frontage, 10,000 SF lots where 7,000 SF is required. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: had a problem with the definition of neighborhood also, so went to the corner of Chapin and Pepper to get a feeling of the neighborhood, on this corner there are large lots, well landscaped with large homes, dividing this lot in the middle of that neighborhood would not be compatible with the neighborhood pattern, will vote to recommend against the subdivision; walked the area, my conclusions are much the same, compatibility is in the eye of the beholder, cannot support this proposal; in the definition of neighborhood read this evening neighborliness/fraternization of people was mentioned, it is not just a division of land which creates a neighborhood, if these lots were built to the maximum allowed it would devastate that neighborhood, think lot coverage of most of that block is no more than 30%, part of the beauty of the area are the long vistas, extra landscaping; if these two lots were built to the maximum Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 March 28, 1988 with 40% lot coverage the present feeling of the area would be lost; cannot support the subdivision. C. Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission recommend City Council deny this tentative parcel map. Her reasons: 43% of the lots in the neighborhood are greater than 20,000 SF; 62% of the lots have greater street frontages than the proposed lots; she would define "block" as a "neighborhood", the proposed lot sizes and frontages are not compatible with the neighborhood. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: concur with the motion, there are certain areas in cities which speak about the city, this is one of Burlingame's special streets, the purpose of the public review process is to preserve certain aspects of a city, just because one owns a large lot does not automatically make it subdividable; the people who bought these larger lots have paid for their privacy, would not want to take it away. Staff advised the latest subdivision in this area was in the early to mid 601s. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to City Council. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TWO SATELLITE DISHES AT THE CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL, 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 3/28/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of this request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, CP advised there are six parking spaces provided over code requirement, if the propane tank took one space and the ground mounted satellite dish took two, there would still be three spaces left. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Edward Gee, representing the applicant, Harbor View Investment, Inc., addressed Commission using a photograph to illustrate placement of the dishes. He advised the existing dish was installed by the previous owner, they are proposing to put the landscaping on the outside of the 4' fence around the ground mounted dish; the second dish would be located behind the 5' high parapet wall on the second floor roof, this would not be visible from Airport Boulevard. Responding to Commission questions, applicant stated they are proposing to plant shrubs along the outside of the fence enclosing the lower level dish, this hedge may grow to 6'; the dish is 18' high, however the lower parking area is 11' below the finished first floor of the hotel. Landscaping will be in the dirt along the back side of the fence facing Airport Boulevard and the office building, the landscaped portion facing the parking lot will be in planter boxes. The rooftop dish cannot be placed closer to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1988 Page 12 the building because reception would be blocked, this dish is for the reservation network, the parapet wall will screen it substantially. Applicant felt the proposed rooftop location was better than putting the dish on the tower. Responding to a suggestion that both antennas be located on the ground, CP commented one or two more parking spaces would be lost. A Commissioner commented he did not have much objection to the proposed locations, with the fast changes in this industry the antennas will be obsolete within five years. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's February 10, 1988 and the City Engineer's February 16, 1988 memos shall be met; (2) that the 16' diameter, 15'-9" high ground mounted satellite dish antenna and the 8' diameter, 8' high rooftop dish shall be installed at the respective locations shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 24, 1988; (3) that the satellite dishes as installed shall be painted a nonreflective off-white color to match the exterior of the hotel and the nonreflective surface of the dish shall be maintained by the property owner who will also be responsible for removing the satellite dishes if they are no longer necessary; (4) that the landscaping for the screening of the ground mounted satellite dish shall be installed within 30 days as noted on the plans date stamped March 22, 1988 and as described in the applicant's letter of March 21, 1988; the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining this landscaping; (5) that the landscaping for the existing ground mounted satellite dish shall be placed outside the fence; and (6) that a retroactive building permit shall be obtained for the ground mounted dish and all penalty fees paid and a building permit shall be obtained before the rooftop satellite dish is installed. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:35 P.M.; reconvene 10:47 P.M. 8. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THREE VARIANCES AND FIVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 146 ROOM ADDITION, 9,000 SF RESTAURANT, 5,000 SF BALLROOM, EXERCISE ROOM/SPA AT THE CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL. 600 AIRPORT BLVD.. ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 3/28/88 and Negative Declaration ND -402P. CP Monroe reviewed this request for a second phase addition to the Crowne Plaza hotel. She briefly discussed her staff report: Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 March 28, 1988 details of the request, history of previous approval, the city's Design Guidelines, variances and special permits required, negative declaration prepared for the Phase II: project, staff review, study meeting questions, applicant's letter, procedure for action this evening. Thirty-three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: how is enforcement of conditions for construction vehicles handled (CP advised by observations of staff or complaints received from neighbors); has busing of construction workers to the site been considered (staff advised applicant has been asked to work out a parking plan for construction workers); building code regulates hours of construction, this can be further modified by the impact on residential areas, city has the right to regulate that also. Staff and Commission discussed applicant's proposal to reduce the parking structure by one-half deck and lower the FAR from 2.05 to 1.99, this change would increase the parking variance requested. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Edward Gee, architect representing Harbor View Investment, applicant, discussed the project with visual aids: the original design for the Crowne Plaza did not provide all the necessary public spaces as a first class hotel, they are attempting in the Phase II expansion to provide the needed public spaces and additional rooms to support those public spaces; the need became obvious when the Marriott hotel opened and the new Hyatt was approved. Architect compared their present request with amenities provided by other hotels in the area. A small tower is proposed at the rear of the present hotel, the existing hotel does not have any rooms facing the lagoon; this tower will improve the appearance of the rear building. They are proposing a 2-1/2 deck parking structure, height of new tower will match the height of the existing hotel; they are requesting that one-half level of the parking structure be eliminated, reducing FAR of the project to 1.99 and reducing mass of this structure. To increase on-site :landscaping they would provide landscaped boxes around three sides of the parking structure. Mr. Gee also discussed number of parking spaces provided if valet parking were allowed. Architect/staff/Commission discussion continued: parking spaces required include those for the proposed freestanding restaurant, with the new proposal by the architect FAR and parking would go hand in hand, valet parking would be free of charge (tip optional), parking being provided would be more than that provided in the other hotels; applicant had considered other methods to reduce the FAR but concluded hotel :rooms, ballrooms and restaurants produce income, a parking structure does not; it would be possible to have fewer hotel rooms and more meeting rooms in order to reduce the parking requirement. A Commissioner Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 March 28, 1988 commented that her suggestion at the study meeting to reduce the FAR was intended to suggest that the parking structure should be reduced. Applicant stated they felt reducing the mass of the parking structure was better aesthetically, they would rather reduce the parking structure than cut down on meeting rooms or hotel rooms. Further Commission comment: concerned about the parking shortage at other hotels in the area, would applicant still need a parking variance with an FAR of 2.05 (staff advised a 33 space parking variance would still be required); applicant advised providing parking to code would increase construction costs; considerably. A Commissioner stated he would prefer granting a variance for FAR and providing the parking, than granting a parking variance. Another comment: cannot believe there isn't a way to reduce the addition and provide parking to code. Applicant replied the only way to take off 10,000 SF from the tower is to eliminate two rooms per floor or eliminate one level, the ballroom must stay at its present size, it is at minimum now; the 6,700 SF spa/exercise room will be available to all guests of the hotel, it is an amenity many travelers appreciate. Applicant continued his review of the request: the side setback variance is needed in order to provide 20' between the parking structure and the hotel addition, their design is constrained by the existing site; three sides of the parking structure will be landscaped; BCDC and Fire Department regulations will not allow a covered walkway from the parking structure to the hotel addition; valet parking will be needed for functions in the ballrooms which will require a number of valet parkers; staff commented if valet parking were allowed it would be operated by the hotel management, portions of the garage used for valet could not be used for self parking. Restaurant patrons who park under the hotel will enter through the existing lobby and corridor to the restaurant; Commission asked how patrons will :know the parking structure has free valet parking. The lobby areas of the new and existing hotel will be connected; they will be providing additional landscaping in planters which will bring the total over the 15% requirement. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend negative declaration ND -402P to City Council for approval. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 voice vote, C. Ellis absent. Comment: have a concern with the parking variance but have no problem with an FAR of 2.05; would prefer no parking variance at all; have no concern with the side setback variance. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 March 28, 1988 C. S.Graham moved to grant the variances for FAR and side setback with the 33 conditions listed in the staff report, referencing for findings statements in the staff report, applicants presentation and Commission discussion this evening. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: think it might be possible to put a facade on the parking structure which would help reduce the appearance of bulk; if a 2.05 FAR is granted more parking is needed; see no problem with parking, applicants can add a deck if needed; cannot vote for an FAR over 1.99. Motion to grant the variances with conditions was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting, C. Ellis absent. C. H.Graham moved to deny the parking variance; second C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: would not be opposed to a small variance, don It think total parking to code is needed. Motion to deny the parking variance was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Ellis absent. C. S.Graham moved to approve the special permits for height, lot coverage, view corridor obstruction and two permits for landscaping with the 33 conditions listed in the staff report, and a change to condition #2 to require that 10% landscaping be provided on the top parking deck and planters on the three sides of the parking structure. She also moved for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved unanimously on voice vote. Conditions for approval of two variances and five? special permits follow: 1. that the conditions of the original 1979 use permit as outlined in the action letter dated September 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 14411 an FAR for the entire site of 2.05, lot coverage of 43%, or a view corridor obstruction of more than 67% and landscaped area outside of BCDC jurisdiction shall not be less than 14.4% and 10% 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 in the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 29, 1988; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 March 28, 1988 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 11.6 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 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 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 March 28, 1988 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 and 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; 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 provisions 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 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1988 Page 18 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 February 1989 Foundation inspection August 1989 Final framing inspection February 1990 Occupancy permit December 1990 22. that the applicant shall pay the project's 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 an 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 transportation 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; 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 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 March 28, 1988 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. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no audience comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:56 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary