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AGENDA - Item #10 withdrawn.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Item withdrawn.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