Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.03.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday,. March 14, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City :Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the February 22, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #4, page 9, line 2 should read ". with two 1 -hour lessons back to back . . ." AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. EXTENSION OF SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIZE, AMOUNT, NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SIGNAGE FOR MIKE HARVEY TOYOTA, 1007 ROLLINS ROAD AND 1008.CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request. She discussed details of the approved exception and code regulations for extension of an action. C. Jacobs moved to extend this sign exception to July 20, 1988 with the following conditions: (1) that the condition of the City Engineer's memo of November 10, 1986 shall be met; and (2) that the sign program as installed shall conform to the individual sign descriptions included in the sign permit dated October 29, 1986 as corrected and the summary table prepared by the Planning Department dated November 18, 1986 as corrected. Second C. Harrison. Motion was approved unanimously on roll call vote. 2. VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A GARAGE AT 1612 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the variance granted in 1984, history of improvements on the site to the present date, delay in completing the project due to financial circumstances, expiration of building permit and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 March 14, 1988 planning approval for the garage. Applicant now wishes to construct the garage and complete the project. If approved the conditions of the original approval should be included. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Paula Poor, applicant, advised she is proposing no change in the project, for financial reasons they could not complete it four years ago. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Noting the city's objective of providing on-site parking, this garage will provide parking, C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 1, 1988 memo, City Engineer's memos of November 29, 1983 and February 29, 1988, Chief Building Inspector's memo of December 1, 1983, and the DES letter of November 4, 1983 shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 15, 1983 except that the standards of the 1985 Uniform Building Code as they apply shall be met; and (3) that the applicant shall pay the required fees as set by city ordinance for extending her building permit from March, 1985 until the present time. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOUR BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AT 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, code requirements for granting a variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ernest Boden, applicant, advised they would like to enlarge their house for their growing family and visiting relatives; his wife has her own business in the home and is active in community work, she needs more space. Commission/applicant discussion: possibility of extending the garage forward to provide tandem parking for two cars; applicant stated they had considered adding a carport, enlarging the garage would require reframing; extension of the garage would cut off access to the backyard; possibility of moving the garage back. Applicant stated he would rather put his midsized car in the driveway, at a later time when they might remodel again he would add a carport. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 3 March 141 1988 Commission/staff discussion: size of the redwood tree and its expected growth; concern about doubling the size of the house and not providing covered parking; could the tree be replaced with another tree somewhere else; this 200 year old tree would be difficult to replace, there are exceptional circumstances in terms of parking, applicants could get one car inside the garage, this project blends with the area, would be willing to move for approval; a carport seems feasible, then applicant could have access to the backyard and there is room in the driveway, suggest that a carport be added as a condition of this project. Based on his previous statements in support of the application, C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance request with the two conditions in the staff report and condition #3 that a carport be added as a part of the project designed to retain a 41 separation between the carport and the house. Second C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: carports are unsightly; would prefer to allow applicant to park in the driveway. Several Commissioners agreed the driveway is long enough and they would prefer no carport. Another Commissioner stated he favored a carport, this will be a four bedroom house and should have twc covered parking spaces, he would prefer a carport to nothing. C. Harrison deleted his third condition from the motion, C. H.Graham accepted this deletion; motion to grant the variance without a carport was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 16, 1988; and (2) that this parking variance shall be in effect until the time that the 71± diameter redwood tree would be caused to be removed, at which time within one year a two car garage to current parking dimensions shall be built. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT A TWO CAR GARAGE TO A SECOND DWELLING AT 1250 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to retain the garage converted to a second dwelling unit, this is an enforcement item. She discussed details of the request, staff review, Planners memo reviewing history of enforcement action, applicant's letter. A March 9, 1988 letter in support from Victor Bogan, property owner, was noted. Letters in opposition were received from the following: Sau F. Chin, trustee of the property at 701 Neuchatel Avenue (March 10, 1988); W. N. Eib, 753 Neuchatel Avenue (March 10, 1988); Roland J. and Margaret M. Wynne, 1225 Oak Grove Avenue (March 9, 1988); and Mr. and Mrs. Howard D. Hoops, owners of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 4 March 14, 1988 property at 1240 Oak Grove Avenue (March 11, 1988). Their concerns: traffic and on -street parking in the area; light and noise problems for the property next door. CP noted code requirements for variance approval. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Joanne Bogan, applicant, was present. Her comments: she planned the conversion because she had an opportunity of a tenant who was able to do the work on the garage and some work on her house as well as landscaping of the site at little cost in exchange for rent; she has no future plans for renting out the garage but would live there herself and let her father and brother live in the house; they have only two cars and can park in the front setback; the on -street parking problems on Oak Grove are caused by larger apartment houses. Applicant/Commission discussion: a new duplex would require four covered parking spaces; applicant felt that many times covered parking becomes storage; she has not added an apartment house to the area, merely converted a garage. Regarding her awareness that a building permit was required for such a conversion, friends had advised her she might be able to do without permits if the work were done to code, then the newspaper article appeared and the city began enforcement proceedings. A Commissioner commented the city has laws and regulations for the common good, she had a real concern because the driveway is not long enough. There were no audience comments in favor at this time. The following spoke in opposition: Arthur Ryan, 732 Crossway Road; a resident at 740 Crossway Road; Robert Booth, 728 Farringdon Lane; a resident at 728 Crossway Road. Their concerns/comments: parking situation in the area, approval of this project will make the situation worse, the on -street parking problem has spread from Oak Grove almost to Palm Drive, this is a residential area with children, concern for safety, where will guests park, will this be controlled or will the city let investment properties control the situation; in opposition because applicant is not providing adequate parking, cars now park across the sidewalk in front of a duplex on Crossway, applicant does have enough room to park in front but who knows what will happen in future years with another tenant/owner of this property, think applicant should build a second story and use the garage for parking; Oak Grove is a through street and heavily used by residents of Hillsborough; applicant might sell in a few years, what will happen then, as a general contractor would like to see this request: denied. Grace Jones, 1245 Oak Grove Avenue spoke in favor: have lived on Oak Grove for many years, traffic has increased, apartment houses have caused parking problems, cars are towed away, understand we must live by the laws of the city but this lady is an ideal City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 5 March 14, 1988 neighbor. Applicant acknowledged Oak Grove is getting overgrown, she felt it would be more detrimental if she did sell and someone put up a larger structure, keeping it a single family dwelling should help. CP noted this site is zoned R-2, the only way more than two units could be placed there would be to change the zoning. With the statement she felt any changes in structures should meet parking code, this proposal might work for the present residents but could become a problem with a new tenant or owner, C. Jacobs moved to deny the variance request. Second C. S.Graham. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A STORAGE ROOM OVER A GARAGE FOR RECREATION AT 1136 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R--1 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to use an existing storage room with balcony over the garage for recreation. She discussed staff review, Planning staff comment regarding history of code enforcement on this site, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CE advised he had not been aware of the laundry on the first floor of the garage and had no objection to allowing plumbing to the laundry area; he requested all plumbing to the second floor of the garage be removed. CP believed the second floor storeroom was part of the original construction of the garage, conversion of the storeroom to living quarters was made later. CP also noted storage area is allowed in a garage, it was only the conversion which was illegal. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Herman Bustamante, applicant, addressed Commission: he advised they recently moved to Burlingame, he has a large family, at present only himself, his wife and one son live on the site; they have many interests and would like to use the second floor of the garage for computer equipment, weight and exercise equipment and additional storage. It is a small house, they hope to add a bedroom and sewing room/den upstairs later. They will not use the room over the garage for living quarters; the exterior will not be changed; they merely wish to clean up this upstairs room and are willing to meet all UBC and UFC requirements. He specifically requested he not be judged by previous illegal uses of the garage by other owners; he removed the kitchen in that structure himself after buying the house. Responding to Commission questions, applicant advised cars are parked in the driveway along the side of the house generally, the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 6 March 14, 1988 driveway is very narrow and it is difficult to maneuver to the garage, if there is concern about parking in the street they will park in the driveway, if forced to widen the driveway they would have to remove part of the house. He had an inspection made for structural stability of the garage prior to purchase, the inspector found the basic structure to be sound; he understood this inspector was highly qualified. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Charles Abrahamson, 1145 Cortez Avenue: he commented that a number of people presently live in this house, there are six to seven cars parked on the street in front overnight and on weekends; he had concern about the second floor of the garage being used for living quarters. In rebuttal applicant stated there are four people living in the house presently as his daughter is there temporarily; there are five automobiles, his, his wife's, his son's and two which belong to his daughter one of which will be sold; a son visits with the sixth car once in awhile but does not park overnight. A Commission concern was expressed about five cars and a two car garage which was not being used. Applicant stated there are always at least two cars parked in the driveway. CA advised there is no parking requirement for a recreation room, this application is unrelated to parking. A Commissioner suggested review in one year be made a condition of approval to make sure the facility was not being used for anything other than recreation. With the statement she would support approval as long as parking is not an issue and the suggested conditions are met, the garage area was used as a living unit at one time but applicant has been straightforward about his intentions, C. S.Graham 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 8, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the 363 SF storeroom as remodeled shall include only electricity and shall never be used for dwelling purposes; (3) that the second floor balcony area shall never be enclosed in arty way or used as storage or habitable area; (4) that the entire structure shall be brought up to current Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code standards; (5) that the ground floor of the garage shall be cleared and made usable for parking the family vehicles; (6) that water and sewer shall be allowed in the lower portion of the garage but shall not be extended to the second floor; and (7) that this special permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year's time (March, 1989). Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning_ Commission Page 7 March 14, 1988 Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:00 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PLANT AND SHIRT LAUNDRY AT 1160 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, letters submitted by Western State Design (firm which designs cleaning establishments), study meeting questions. CP noted a letter in opposition received March 11, 1988 from Mary Zencirci, 1141 Paloma Avenue with a series of petitions in opposition (signed by residents of Paloma Avenue, dry cleaners on Broadway and on California Drive near Broadway, Broadway merchants and interested citizens) attached. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP also clarified code regulations for dry cleaning establishments. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Mike Park, applicant, stated he was the sole owner of this property. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Martin Christiansen, 1153 Laguna Avenue: he expressed concern about the restaurant use in this building, the easement is not well maintained, there are no screens on the back of the restaurant; he felt a cleaning shop would be a better use for the building. Mary Zencirci, 1141 Paloma Avenue: she has lived here for 20 years, parking problems are tremendous, accidents often occur, traffic is generated by the Chinese restaurant whose main entrance is in this residential area, in order to allow guests to use her driveway she must park a block away and walk to her home, cars block driveways on the street, she had concern about her family's safety. She presented petitions in opposition with over 200 signatures and stated there is not enough parking on Paloma now, as a resident and Broadway merchant she would like to see a different kind of business, this type of operation will add too much traffic. The owner of a pastry shop on Broadway commented this business will have a high impact on parking, there are seven or eight dry cleaners on the street now, he would like to see something different, the street needs a better balance of businesses. Dortha Chu, San Mateo, spoke for her parents who operate a dry cleaning establishment on Broadway: she noted there are already three dry cleaners in that two block area, enough to provide adequate service; the highest amount of traffic to a cleaning shop is during the rush hours of 7:00-9:00 A.M. and 5:00-7:00 P.M., many customers have complained about the parking problem at present; even with a closed system there is no guarantee that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 8 March 14, 1988 solvents will be contained, a license is no longer required and anyone can open a dry cleaning business, even someone with no knowledge of handling chemicals; a few years ago the city denied an application for another cleaners on Broadway, approval of this application would be unfair to the previous applicant; she would like to see variety in the type of store in the Broadway area. A resident on Broadway commented the rear of her flat directly faces the Chinese restaurant; she was concerned about toxic fumes and the noise factor now because of the restaurant fans, what other noise pollution will this business add. June Hartley of Taste restaurant on Broadway advised that the parking situation is so bad they had to close the restaurant at lunch time because there was no business, the street needs more variety of retailers. During discussion applicant advised he could stay in business with only four employees; this is a new business to him, he has owned the building for six years; he would not object to a different type of business and has been trying to rent the space for six to seven months; the realty company, the previous tenant, had a lot of people in and out; his goal at this point is 50 customers per day, he hoped the business would grow. John Wolohan, Western State Design, discussed this type of business: he stated it is unfair to compare one cleaning plant to another, it depends upon the kind of equipment used, they will be installing a low production shirt unit, if they were planning to wholesale the equipment would be different; 50 customers a day is the goal of the business, his company believes a business scaled to the kind of equipment they will put in can be a successful, profitable enterprise with this level of patronage. Responding to a question, Mr. Park stated another dry cleaning business expressed interest last September, he did not rent to them because he felt there were too many dry cleaners in the area; he has had no tenant for this space for several months, would like to rent as an office but has received no interest, and finally he decided on the present proposal. Applicant did not believe traffic would be a problem with the dry cleaners, a retail store in that space would have longer turnover times. He worked with a real estate agent trying to rent this space, his rents were competitive; people want to move onto Broadway, not this one way street. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: this site is difficult to find, there is no window space on the street, it is not. appropriate for a retail business; even a service business will have a problem but think applicant is entitled to go ahead;: identification signage will be a problem also; because there are so many dry cleaning establishments in the area do not see a need for City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 9 March 14, 1988 another, there are other businesses which do not generate so much traffic; Broadway businesses do have a traffic problem, City Council set a policy when they denied a 7-11 store on Broadway, they don't want in and out traffic; Paloma is basically a residential area, this business would be a detriment to the neighborhood; the type of business is not a problem, just the location; the one way street will be a problem, customers will have to go around the block if they can't find a parking space; have a problem with denying this application merely because of toxics and fire hazards. C. S.Graham moved to deny this special permit. Her reasons: not because of the chemicals used, today's systems are fairly well contained, but because of concern for the merchants and residents of that neighborhood, to keep the area livable for everyone; there are other business which would have less impact that could go into this space. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison who commented consistent movement of traffic on that one way street is not advantageous to a livable situation. In comment on the motion it was noted Broadway is heavily traveled because it is the only entrance to the freeway. Motion to deny was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GROUND MOUNTED SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA FOR THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/14/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commissioner comment: why not color the antenna green to match the landscaping? Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Robert Cartmell -Martin, district manager for Spectradyne, applicant, was present. In discussion with Commission he stated a white color was chosen to match other structures on the property, antenna color is determined by whatever would blend most effectively on a site. A Commissioner felt with all the planned landscaping green would be a better choice; applicants personal opinion was that green would stand out more; he also advised a black wire mesh dish is not adequate to receive from two different satellites. A Commissioner noted the material proposed for the hedge usually grows higher than 3' and questioned if the dish could function if the hedge were higher. Applicant stated the hedge couldn't be higher than 101, this is a fixed dish. There was concern expressed about visibility of the antenna from the western part of Burlingame, applicant said the dish is tucked in between the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 10 March 14, 1988 pool and the freeway, it will be screened, he did not think it would be visible. One Commissioner commented this seems a perfect location for the antenna once the landscaping is installed. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham 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 1, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the 141-9" diameter, 18, high satellite dish antenna shall be installed at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 29, 1987; (3) that the dish antenna shall be enclosed by a 4.5' chain link fence with slats, a 3' high, 5' wide hedge and a row of 15 gallon eucalyptus camaldulensis trees as shown on the landscape plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 20, 1988; (4) that the dish as installed shall be painted a nonreflective white -gray 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 dish if it is no longer necessary for television programming for the hotel; and (5) that the dish antenna installation shall be inspected as a part of the final inspection of the hotel to ensure that all the above installation conditions have been met. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 13 THROUGH 18 AND LOTS 21 THROUGH 23, BLOCK 9, UNIT NO. 5, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK; AND PARCELS 47 AND 49 OF MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 5-E (1600, 1610, 1626, 1634 AND 1640 ROLLINS ROAD Reference City Engineer's agenda memo (March 8, 1988). CE Erbacher reviewed the item, noting this is a continuing process necessitated by the sale of Southern Pacific right-of-way and combination with Rollins Road frontages. Basically it is a merging of several small pieces of Southern Pacific property into these properties on Rollins Road. C. Harrison moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. There were no comments from the floor. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 11 March 14, 1988 ITEMS FOR STUDY 9. SPECIAL 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 Requests: clarify the notation "pkg strip" on the basic plot plan; regarding complaints about commercial vehicles at this site, have these been removed, have there been additional complaints; statement from property owner regarding what vehicles were there in the past and are there currently. Item set for public hearing March 28, 1988. 10. TWO VARIANCES/SPECIAL PERMIT - EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE - 14 BLOOMFIELD ROAD Requests: new plate line height; is an antique car considered an exceptional circumstance under the required findings for a variance, request amended letter from applicant addressing exceptional circumstances which relate to the property; why is there an 8' x 8' door in the rear of the garage. Staff will bring this item to Commission for action at a future meeting. 11. PARKING VAkIANCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ONE CAR GARAGE WITH A NEW ONE CAR GARAGE - SPECIAL, PERMIT FOR A GREENHOUSE ADDITION - FENCE EXCEPTION - 1123 CAMBRIDGE ROAD Requests: could the garage be moved back, would applicant consider this; how far back would be allowed; could greenhouse be relocated. Item set for public hearing March 28, 1988. 12. SIX SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO SHELTER/STORAGE SHED ABOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE - 2701 HILLSIDE DRIVE Requests: is all this space needed; brief explanation of measurement of finished grade; lot coverage; identify setbacks of all structures on this property; dimension of the lot; depth of driveway from side property line. Item set for public hearing March 28, 1988. 13. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - 125 PEPPER AVENUE Requests: statement from CA regarding applicability of the new urgency ordinance to this application; are there any utilities, underground creeks or anything that would prevent the construction of new dwellings on a particular portion of the lot; discuss compatibility of proposed lots to pattern of existing City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 12 March 14, 1988 lots in the neighborhood and conformance of grading and contour of the finished sites with neighborhood pattern; outline of constructable area, show minimum front setback, building envelope, frontage of both lots. Item set for public hearing March 28, 1988. 14. SPECIAL PERMITS - TWO SATELLITE DISHES - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL - 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Requests: screening for the existing ground mounted dish; count of existing parking; why not put rooftop dish away from the corner closer to the tower. Item set for public hearing March 28, 1988. Recess 10:25 P.M.; reconvene 10:30 P.M. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - FAMILY RESTAURANT - 1461 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: tenants, number of employees and hours of operation of the adjacent buildings expected to provide parking for this restaurant; how will the off-site parking be handled; if this application were granted with off-site parking how long would this parking be encumbered; is there any other off-site parking in the city; discuss night lighting for parking lots C and B; would a shuttle bus be appropriate from the parking areas; where are other Spaghetti Factory restaurants located, are they in hotel oriented areas; concern about street lighting: will there be a request to add street lights at that location, is applicant willing to contribute to the cost; number of employees, type of operation and trip ends for the previous use on this site. Application set for public hearing March 28, 1988 providing staff can accumulate all the requested information. 16. THREE VARIANCES AND FIVE SPECIAL PERMITS - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL ADDITION - 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: how will hotel appearance be changed; how many of the variances and special permits were triggered by the change in the ordinance since the original approval of this hotel; what would applicant have to do to reduced FAR to 1.99; what: is Hyatt's FAR; a "guess" sketch of the original approved orientation for Phase II and this proposal; obtain additional letters addressing each of the variance requests. Item set for public hearing March 28, 1988. PLANNER REPORTS - Special Permit review, 1722 Gilbreth Road - Special Permit review, 866 Malcolm Road City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 13 March 14, 1988 - Special Permit review, 1308 Bayshore Highway Items reviewed and acknowledged by the Commission. CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its March 7, 1988 regular meeting. C. H.Graham who attended the Planning Commissioners Institute at Anaheim, California, March 9-11, 1988, gave a brief report on attendance at a mobile workshop on affordable housing. C. Garcia noted he would report later. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:07 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary