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