HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.10.12COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Cis tul1i
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1977
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Mink
OTHERS PRESENT
City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner Yost
City Attorney Coleman
City Engineer Kirkup
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Taylor at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above-named members were present and it was noted that C. Mink was necessarily
absent.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of September 28, 1977 were approved with the
following corrections:
1. At the end of the hearing on Item #2, Draft EIR-43E, Bayside Redevelopment
project, that C. Sine brought up the possibility of an overpass over the
sewage treatment plant.
2. On page 13, Item #17, that C. Francard asked the applicant if he would have
a towing service; the applicant replied that he would not have towing
facilities.
3.
Page 8, the last paragraph on Item #3, "C. Sine voting negatively
he did not feel the report was up to 1977 standards." , change to
voting negatively because he did not feel the report included 1977
information."
because
"C. Sine
Before continuing with the agenda items, Chm. Taylor requested that staff give a
report on the status of EIR-43E for the proposed convention center, particularly
Alternative One. C. P. Swan reported that about half of the staff work has been
completed. The Addendum Report will incorporate minutes into the EIR. He had
completed preparation of responses to the five letters received from public agencies
and preparation of responses to concerns raised at the public hearing. A contract
has been executed with HKS so that Addendum to the EIR will be consistent and
complete. He stated that the Addendum to the EIR, the variance and the special
permit would be ready for hearing in two weeks on Wednesday, October 26, 1977.
Chm. Taylor asked if there was any chance that a special meeting would be necessary
prior to October 26. C. P. Swan stated that no special meeting would be required
and Commission would have an adequate EIR ready for recommendation to the City Council.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1977
There was some discussion about the procedure and progress of this EIR. David
Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, said there have been some financing
problems and he felt that since no comments were made to the adequacy of the EIR
with regard to the addition to the hotel on private property that portion of the
EIR could be considered adequate. C. A. Coleman stated that proper procedures had
been used by the City.
MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-48P, FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION TO THE R-3
DISTRICT OF THOSE R-1 PORTIONS OF PROPERTY AT 911/915 EL CAMINO REAL; PREPARED
BY CHARLES ELEY FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item and outlined the history of the properties being
considered as well as some of the surrounding R-1 properties. He noted that in the
1907 subdivision of the area the lots created did not have principal frontage on
El Camino Real; however, in 1915 and 1916 a resubdivision of the corner properties
occurred, creating two additional lots (911 and 915 E1 Camino Real) on which homes
were constructed. The present property owner, Zev Ben -Simon, would like to remove
these older homes and construct a 14 -unit apartment building. Mr. Yost noted that
while there is an R-3 apartment district along E1 Camino and an R-1 single family
district along Sanchez and Forest View, the parcels in question are split by the
boundary between these two zones and, in essence, each lot is partially zoned R-1
and partially zoned R-3.
Mr. Yost .quoted a portion of the Zoning Ordinance which up until about one year ago
would have permitted Mr. Ben-Simon's proposal; however, in November, 1976 the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 1092 which eliminated this provision and declared
that all properties consisting of two or more lots in more than one zoning district
are non -conforming. Mr. Yost explained that the Commission reviewed and approved
a Tentative Parcel Map in June this year to merge 911/915 E1 Camino Real, but one
of the conditions attached to the map was that "the subject parcels be rezoned
to a single district." Asst. C. P. Yost concluded that EIR-48P is the resulting
report to implement the Commission's condition to the Tentative Parcel Map and the
DEIR is ready for public review and comment.
He then reviewed the report, noting that the DEIR states there would be no significant
difference in the number of apartment units that could be built on the two parcels
with or without a rezoning, or even with or without a parcel map to merge the two
properties. Using any of the alternatives, 16 to 18 units could be developed. The
report outlines three different alternatives to the development of the property:
(1) development of the properties "as is" - no rezoning, no merging of the two parcels
(which is possible as the apartment development could be placed on the R-2 portion
of the property); (2) no rezoning, but City's consent to a merging of the two parcels;
and (3) rezoning the R-1 portion from R-1 to R-3 and a Final Parcel Map to complete
the merger already initiated. Mr. Yost further pointed out that the report addresses
itself to the rezone with relation to visual quality, traffic and circulation, noise,
fiscal considerations, vegetation and seismic safety, and also provides an overview
of cumulative impacts and a set of possible mitigation measures that would reduce the
adverse impacts that could result if the rezoning were approved.
Mr. Yost then reviewed some of the concerns the Commission should consider with regard
to the adequacy of the report and the procedures involved in possible approval of the
next item (Item #2, the actual rezone request) and concluded that it would be
inappropriate to either approve or deny the proposed reclassification at this time
without a Final EIR.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1977
Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing on the above -noted EIR, emphasizing that
judgements on the construction project itself were not being considered at this
time, but instead only the adequacy of the DEIR. He noted that the DEIR was made
available to the public approximately 10 days prior to this hearing.
Jean Jones, 1417 Sanchez Avenue, expressed concern about the parking problem that
might result from the development. She referred to page 19 -of the DEIR, requesting
that parking and traffic problems be given full consideration. Chm. Taylor agreed
that parking and traffic problems are concerns that would definitely be considered;
however, he noted that the applicant is not requesting a variance from the off-street
parking requirements and that a permit would not be issued unless the applicant
complies with City requirements. C. Sine commented that parking is not permitted
along E1 Camino Real so parking would have to be elsewhere or in off-street parking
areas.
Mrs. Judson, 1514 Forest View Avenue, expressed concern about the building's design
and placement on the lot, noting that the building, as proposed, would be close to
her yard areas. She felt that if the building were placed toward:the front of the
property, on the R-3 portion, that would allow for "breathing space" and air around
the building. She referred to page 33 of'the DEIR (specifically Plan #7) where the
building is only on the first 100 feet of the two lots, noting that it'would not
be so close to her property. C. Jacobs asked if she was saying she liked the
alternative in the DEIR better than the proposed architectural plans. Mrs. Judson
stated "yes."
Chm. Taylor thanked the public for their comments, stating their points were well
taken and woul'd be considered by the Commission. He stated that if the report is
found to be adequate there would still be a hearing on the rezoning and further
hearings before the City Council on both the EIR and the reclassification. There
being no one else wishing to speak, Chm. Taylor closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ben -Simon, referring to page 35 of the DEIR, stated that only 25 feet of the
back portion of the building would face Mrs. Judson's lot. He felt that the issue
was not the building, but the rezoning, stating that he could be very flexible with
the plans at this time. C. Jacobs, referring to page 9 of the report, noted there
is an error as to permitted height. The report states that the height must not
exceed 35 feet; in fact, with a special permit the height could be up to 55 feet
above grade. Otherwise, C. Jacobs felt the report was very creative. C. Kindig felt
most of the comments had been addressed to the rezoning and not actually to the
report itself or its adequacy. Responding to the Commission's questions about
correcting the report, C. A. Coleman stated that a one-page addendum could be added
to the report, thereby permitting the Commission to approve the Draft EIR as a Final
EIR at this time.
C. Jacobs moved that EIR-48P be accepted as adequate with minor modifications and
with the addition of the minutes of this meeting (in addendum form) and be sent on
to the City Council for certification as the City's Final EIR for the project.
C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote it carried unanimously
(6-0), C. Mink absent.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
October 12, 1977
2. RECLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 23 and 24 OF BURLINGAME PARK
SUBDIVISION NO. 5 (PORTION OF APN 028-131-020/030) FROM THE R-1 TO THE R-3
DISTRICT BY ZEV BEN-SIMON
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item briefly, and Chm. Taylor then opened the public
hearing. During Mr. Yost's review many members of the public left the meeting as
they were apparently not aware that many of their concernswere directly related
to this reclassification rather than the EIR previously discussed. C. Sine excused
himself briefly and informed those leaving that they might want to stay for the hearing.
Chm. Taylor requested that Mr. Yost restate the three alternatives suggested in the
EIR. Mr. Yost reviewed the alternatives (ref. these minutes, page 2). The Asst. C.P.
and Commission discussed each alternative. Mr. Yost referred to Exhibit 3, page 10
of the EIR, which shows the area on each lot where an apartment building could be
constructed under the present zoning. Mr. Yost noted that an apartment building
could be constructed on the R-3 portion of each parcel. He discussed the various
diagrams in the EIR and answered questions Commission had with regard to location of
parking, lot frontage, setbacks and height of the buildings.
Chm. Taylor asked what the impacts of rezoning the R-1 portion of the property to
R-3 would be on the surrounding area. Mr. Yost referred to Exhibit 4, page 12
and Exhibit 8, page 35 of the EIR and compared the two. He also made reference to
Exhibit 7, page 33 as being the middle alternative, showing a possible apartment area
within the R-3 portion if the properties were merged but not rezoned. C. Jacobs
noted that if the rezoning were to be approved, many variations could be made in the
plan. C. Cistulli and C. Kindig felt the Commission should find out what the
applicant would prefer to do and then make a decision on the applicant's proposal.
Mr. Ben -Simon stated that7 the project, as proposed, would not be to the top height
permitted by the code, that all parking would be underneath the building, there would
be an inside court and the building would be only two stories above parking. The
height would be limited to 28 feet. He stated that he would like the lots in one
zoning district because it would allow"for more flexibility in design. In response
to Chm. Taylor's question, he stated that he would be utilizing the services of an
architect. Responding to C. Kindig's inquiry, Mr. Ben -Simon stated that all the
covered parking requirements would be provided under the building (no separate
garages), and that the six spaces that are not covered are provided for guests.
He said all tenants would have covered parking under the building, none of which
would be visible from the street or neighboring properties. Responding to Mrs. Judson's
concerns, Mr. Ben -Simon stated that while there is 100 feet of building on the south
side of the parcel,only 20 feet of this total length would adjoin Mrs. Judson's
property. Mr. Martin Ron, licensed land surveyor, briefly reviewed the zoning
history and concluded that there is a conflict between the map and the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance. He stated there appears to be no reason for this conflict,
though it is quite clear that the lands fronting E1 Camino Real were to be zoned R-3.
Chm. Taylor then requested public comment.
Ross A. Butler, 1519 Forest View Avenue, spoke in opposition to any rezoning that
continues to encroach upon the single family character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Judson, 1514 Forest View Avenue, stated that she opposes the rezoning. Martha
Bruce, 1506 Forest View Avenue, expressed concern that one rezoning would lead to
another and continue to encroach into the R-1 area. She asked when it would stop.
It came out in discussion that her property is also partially zoned R-3. The point
of her discussion was that this proposed change might mushroom and destroy what is
now a nice single family neighborhood.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1977
E. Brendon, 1513 Forest View Avenue, spoke in opposition to the rezoning and asked
what the parking requirements are now. Mr. Yost reviewed the parking requirements,
noting that 80% must be covered and that the parking requirements include guest
parking.
Secy. Sine then read three letters: (1) dated September 15, 1977 from Ross A. and
Barbara Butler, 1519 Forest View Avenue and Arthur and Sue Rendon, 1513 Forest View
Avenue; (2) dated September 15, 1977 from Lillian Judson, 1514 Forest View Avenue;
Patricia Anderson, 1500 Forest View Avenue; (Resident), #1, 907 E1 Camino Real and
Harriet Reed, 1510 Forest View Avenue; (3) dated September 29, 1977 from Jean Judson
(part owner of 1514 Forest View Avenue). All the letters expressed opposition to
the rezoning and requested consideration of Exhibit #7 in the Draft EIR-48P to be
the most desirable plan since the apartment would be limited to the R-3 portion
of property, and that the mature trees on the southern parcel might be saved.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs and C. Sine indicated concern about the loss of trees. C. Jacobs
specifically referred to page 30 of the EIR and felt something should be worked out
so that the larger trees could be saved (specifically the 24 inch fir and the 36 inch
eucalyptus). Chm. Taylor stated the rezoning could be so conditioned.
Mr. Ben -Simon stated this was one of the conditions of approval of the parcel map.
The entire Commission expressed their individual concerns about the surrounding
property owners. C. Kindig specifically stated that he sympathized with the people
in the area; however, he felt the City was wrong in placing the zoning boundary
where it presently is. He also felt that a project with a 28 foot high building
and the saving of a few of the trees would be better than a project with a three-story
building which would be constructed if confined to the R-3 portion of the lots.
Chm. Taylor agreed with C. Kindig's comments, stating that he felt the lower building
would actually be most desirable. He said that the zoning could be granted subject
to the conditions set forth in the EIR and noted that if the rezoning is denied the
applicant could build a 35 foot building within the existing code. He felt the
underground.parking in the proposed building would be more desirable. Asst. C. P.
Yost said that the parking was not proposed to be "underground," but at ground
level, beneath the two living space levels of the apartment building.
C. Francard felt that landscaping would be at a minimum with the Exhibit #7
alternative as a large portion.of the rear yard would be paved. C. Cistulli indicated
that he liked the project in Exhibit #7 of the EIR. C. Jacobs expressed the concern
that unless the rezone is so conditioned a 35 foot building could be constructed
someday and she noted that such conditions are not normally made on rezoning
applications. Responding to C. Kindig's inquiry, C. A. Coleman stated that a
reclassification can legally be conditioned and indicated that sufficient information
had been provided in the EIR to make a decision.
Mr. Ben -Simon stated that he would be agreeable to such a condition (i.e., restricting
building height to that proposed) and noted that he would like to develop a project
with a certain number of units. By rezoning the property he could get the number
of units desired and keep the building height lower; however, if the R-3 area is
restricted, then a higher building would be required to get the desired number of
units. He also noted that he is restricted by parking. He reemphasized that the
rezone would permit more flexibility in design, i.e., saving trees, placement of
parking, height of building, etc.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1977
C. Kindig moved that the proposed reclassification be sent on to the City Council
with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval subject to: (1) the
building height is not to exceed 28 feet, (2) the 24 inch fir and the 36 inch
eucalyptus on the southern property line remain, (3) that side yards be a minimum
of 8 feet, and (4) that additional landscaping be provided to screen the properties
on Forest View Avenue from the visual impact of a long building. C. E. Kirkup
noted that the planting of trees along the.Forest View side would be placed in an
existing sanitary easement and could be planted right over the sewer, which would
create problems. Mr. Ben -Simon stated that he would be willing to provide trees
and plant them on the rear yards of the property owners' parcels to provide the
required landscaping and not interfere with the sewer lines. Property owners
indicated their agreement to this. There being no further questions to the motion,
a roll call vote was taken and the motion for approval of the reclassification
carried (5-1), C. Mink absent, C. Jacobs casting the negative vote, and C. Cistulli,
in voting for the reclassification, stating that he was doing so because he was
satisfied that the concerns of the public had been satisfied. C. Sine noted that the
parking ordinance adopted several years ago was proving adequate in limiting density.
A brief recess was called and the:meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M.
3. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT AN 8 FOOT FENCE ON THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT
1419 CAPUCHINO AVENUE (APN 026-075-090), ZONED R-1, BY CLAUDE AND CALIFORNIA
MC ROSKEY
Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item, making reference to
a letter from the applicants dated October 2, 1977 listing five reasons an 8 foot
fence would be advantageous: (1) it would provide privacy from two apartment
buildings behind the house; (2) it would compensate for the approximate 18 inch
to 24 inch grade difference, with the subject property on the lower side; (3) it
would provide security; (4) it would serve as a sound and vision barrier to the
Hillside/E1 Camino intersection; and (5) it would aid in blocking an unattractive
view from the back of the house. Mr. Yost further stated that the proposed fence
would be chain link and planted with ivy. He said that a fence exception requires
the following four findings: (1) that there are exceptional circumstances; (2) that
there is no public hazard; (3) that neighboring properties will not be materially
damaged; and (4) that the 6 foot height limit causes unnecessary hardship on the
residents of the house. Mr. Yost further stated that if the Commission makes these
findings then the application can be approved.
The applicants, Claude and California McRoskey were present to answer questions and
presented photos and rough drawings of what exists and what is planned. C. Kindig
felt that an 8 foot fence would not hurt anyone in the area. It was noted that
the one neighborhood response was positive, that being from Buzz Taylor, 1415 Capuchino,
who stated he already has an 8 foot fence and there was no adverse effect on the
neighborhood. Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs moved that the request for an 8 foot fence at the above-mentioned property
be approved, noting that she had gone to the site and there were exceptional
circumstances, i.e., lights from E1 Camino Real traffic and the grade differences;
that it would have no adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood; there is no
public hazard; and the 6 foot height limit could cause unnecessary hardship on the
residents of the home. C. Cistulli seconded the motion. Chm. Taylor asked if
notices were sent to surrounding property owners. Mr. Yost stated that the hearing
was noticed. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously (6-0),
C. Mink absent.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
October 12, 1977
4. AMENDMENT TO MARCH 1975 SIGN PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 56 SF WALL SIGN TO
BE ILLUMINATED, PROPERTY AT 1301 BROADWAY (APN 026-211-010), ZONED C-1, BY
FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVINGS WITH QRS CORPORATION
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. P. Swan recommended the October 12, 1977 staff report
be attached to the minutes. He referred to past and present sign permit rules and
Planning Commission minutes of March 10, 1975, and noted that a sign permit had been
approved with the condition that the sign not be illuminated. The application is
a request to amend the previous sign permit and allow illumination of the Fidelity
Federal Savings sign on Paloma. This item was noticed for hearing as a minor permit.
Responding to C. Jacobs' question about present code requirements, Mr. Swan indicated
that the sign could be illuminated under today's code. Mr. Ralph Ready, manager of
Fidelity Savings was present to answer any questions. He noted that the sign in
question is on the southwest corner of Paloma and Broadway, and that only the
background, not the face letters, would be illuminated. He stated that the sign
faces the blank wall of a market. Responding'to questions from C. Francard and
Chm. Taylor, Mr. Ready stated that it would not be a flashing sign and that
illumination would be on a time clock. He noted that two signs are on the same
time clock, but this one has been disconnected.
Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the
public hearing was closed. C. Kindig stated that though the sign is on a one-way
street going north, he felt and still feels it is visible from adjacent apartments
and still objects to it being lighted. C. Jacobs felt that a compromise might be
agreed upon, stating that she had walked along the street and did not feel the sign
would project that much light; she suggested possibly lighting it from dark until
1:00 A.M. C. Sine felt that dark until 10:00 P.M. was adequate, as anything much
later would seem useless. Mr. Ready noted that there are no street lights on that
side of Paloma. C. Cistulli asked if it would be a soft light in back of the
lettering. Mr. Ready stated that additional material could be added to reduce or
soften the amount of light. Responding to C. Cistulli's question, Mr. Reedy said
he would not object to an 11:00 P.M. limitation on both signs.
C. Jacobs moved that the March 1975 sign permit be amended to allow an existing
56 square foot sign to be illuminated up to 11:00 P.M. -in the evening with the
"softening" of lighting as described by the applicant. C. Sine added that the
other sign was also to be on the 11:00 P.M. time clock. It was agreed that the two
signs are on the same time clock. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon a roll
call vote it carried 5-1, C. Kindig casting the negative vote, C. Mink absent.
5. APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A METAL GAS PUMP CANOPY; AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION BEHIND AVIS RENT -A -CAR AT
1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-282-130), ZONED C-4, BY DAVID H. KEYSTON, TRUSTEE
OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
Chm. Taylor read the item and C. E. Kirkup reviewed the application, making reference
to a letter dated October 5, 1977, from David H. Keyston, which gave background
information on the application. C. E. Kirkup noted that as it is an entirely open
structure the fire potential is not a problem. He noted that if the item is approved
by Commission there should be architectural review and requirements on it, i.e., color,
stipulating that it not be enclosed, etc., and that the City Council in approving
this item had stipulated that recycled water be used for the car wash facility
(present plans do not show this).
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
October 12, 1977
Mr. Keyston noted that the existing non -conforming structure was to be (or already
had been) demolished and that although the area is not enclosed it would not
generally be visible from various locations. Commission reviewed the application,
discussing various concerns with C. E. Kirkup and C. A. Coleman. There was also
discussion as to the definition of a gas station. It was indicated that a
"private" gas station had been approved several years ago on the Anza property
without a canopy. The proposed canopy would cover pumps which were to service rental
cars. Mr. Keyston said that the only type of use which permits a metal canopy is a
service station and therefore the use is being referred to as that of a service
station, although it would not operate as a commercial one. There was some concern
as renters (of the cars) would be purchasing gas at these pumps. C. A. Coleman stated
that it was not the concept of the code to consider this a commercial operation.
Mr. Keyston emphasized that the use of metal was an exception to the code because
of the extreme fire hazard potential in such uses.
Chm. Taylor referred to the requirements of Municipal Code Sec. 18.08.240.
C. A. Coleman stated that the Building Code and Zoning Ordinances are not completely
consistent in this area, and noted that the zoning definition is not controlling in
this instance although it would support Mr. Kcyston's statements. C. Kindig
specifically stated that he did not want this to open up as a regular service station.
It was indicated that although car washing facilities were designed, the mechanical
equipment was never installed. It was noted that the height would have to conform
to code requirements for campers, etc.
There being no further discussion, C. Jacobs moved that the appeal of the denial
of a building permit for the above-mentioned item be granted as specified in the
diagram presented to the Commission and that the structure conform to Fire and
Building Codes. It was noted that the recycling condition was not necessary at
this time. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (6-0),
C. Mink absent. It was further noted that this action is final at the Planning
Commission level.
6. RECOMMENDED TITLE 25 CODE AMENDMENTS: CHAPTER 25.62 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
CHAPTER 25.66 SIDE YARDS'AND REAR YARDS; CHAPTER 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING
Staff reported that the Title 25 code amendments were not ready for action at this
time. There was a very brief discussion and concern expressed about the legal
notices for the hearings on this item. Chm. Taylor opened the hearing to the
public; there being no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and
continued the item to the meeting of November 28, 1977.
C. Cistulli brought up loading and unloading problems at Petrini's market and the
possibility of expansion of the market. He felt some controls should be placed on
the loading and unloading procedures. It was felt that such considerations could
be placed on the map as a possible condition. C. A. Coleman said staff would look
into this as a condition.
MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY
7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO ADD A BEDROOM AND PLAYROOM AND EXTEND AN
EXISTING HOUSE TO WITHIN 4' OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE; PROPERTY AT 1105 DUFFERIN
AVENUE (APN 025-232-820), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. R. R. MILLER
Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed a letter from the applicant and explained that an
addition to this house could be constructed within code requirements, but such an
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
October 12, 1977
addition may be more costly. He noted that financial hardship is not justification
for a variance. Mr. Yost stated that the application is complete. Chm. Taylor
set the item for public hearing on October 26, 1977. Mr. Miller, the applicant,
indicated that he understood the alternatives to applying for the variance and what
is required for approval of a variance.
8. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-44P, FOR BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS;
PREPARED BY TORREY & TORREY INC. FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME
C. P. Swan referred to a diagram pointing out inconsistencies between the General
Plan and the Zoning Code. It was confirmed that public hearings on General Plan
changes would have to be held separately from this item. C. A. Coleman stated
that if zoning modifications are made the General Plan would have to be changed.
C. P. Swan then suggested study of this item Monday, November 14, with the hearing
on November 28, 1977. Responding to Chm. Taylor's inquiry, C. P. Swan indicated
that the DEIR would be distributed, noticed and ready for public hearing on
November 28, 1977. Chm. Taylor then set the hearing on this item for November 28.
C. Sine noted that a number of public agencies would have to be involved in this
project. C. A. Coleman stated that this is required by the State.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT PER SEC. 25.41.020(j) FOR JILLY'S ENTERTAINMENT CENTER AT
450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-361-120/170 AND A PORTION OF 026-361-160),
ZONED C-4, BY MARK TRACY FLOWERS OF FLOWERS, GEFAELL & ASSOCIATES WITH
DAVID H. KEYSTON, TRUSTEE, ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (REF. ND -134P
DATED 9/20/77
C. P. Swan reviewed the application and a staff report dated October 12, 1977.
Chm. Taylor asked if all the information is available and the application is complete
for a public hearing. C. P. Swan indicated that it was. There was a brief discussion
during which Mr. Swan noted that the City Council found that an EIR is not required.
The Commission discussed the main issue of the item, whether or not a showroom is
considered a compatible use in the C-4 zone. It was indicated that if it is found
to be compatible, then it would be a permitted use; if it is not found to be
compatible, then it could be a conditional use. David Keyston was present, noting
that his submittal to the City Council did not require the finding that it was a
recreation establishment. C. A. Coleman advised that the Planning Commission should
make a finding that this was a compatible use in the C-4 District. Chm. Taylor set
the item for hearing on October 26, 1977, requesting that the following concerns
be addressed: adequacy of parking, private security, traffic control, the use of
search lights and the type of entertainment proposed.
10. VARIANCE TO ESTABLISH A LOT WITH NO STREET FRONTAGE, PORTION OF 1508 LA MESA
DRIVE (APN 029-022-510), ZONED R-1, BY GORDON R. STROCHER (CONTINUED FROM
FEBRUARY 9, 1976)
C. P. Swan reviewed the application, noting that the area lies in a geologic hazard
zone. He recommended that a focused EIR be required and that a geologic report
be submitted. After receipt of the geologic report the City staff would prepare
the DEIR. Lou Arata, civil engineer representing the applicant, stated that they
had no questions about the need for a geologic report; however, due to the cost of
such a report, he requested some indication be given as to the Commission's feelings
about the variance before the geologic report is prepared. He suggested the
possibility of a conditional approval to the variance.
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1977
The Commission understood the applicant's concerns; however, the variance would
require an EIR and an EIR would be incomplete without the geologic report. Therefore,
the geologic report must be prepared prior to action on or consideration of the
variance. It was also noted that State law requires a geologic report on projects
within a hazard zone. It was decided that Mr. Arata would discuss this with staff
further to see if this item could be resolved. C. Jacobs stated that she would like
to know the length of the private street in the final application.
11. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 8, BURLINGAME
MANOR NO. 2 AT 1508 LA MESA DRIVE, ZONED R-1, BY GORDON R. STROCHER
See Item #10.
12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5 AND 6,
ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. 2 (APN 026-331-280/290/300); PROPERTY AT 320 LANG ROAD,
ZONED M-1, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR-LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY
C. E. Kirkup recommended that the Tentative and Final Parcel Map be considered at
one time and stated that they would be ready for hearing on October 26. Chm. Taylor
set the hearing for the above-mentioned item on October 26, 1977.
13. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.42.055 TO PERMIT AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO
BE CONSTRUCTED TO WITHIN 5' OF A PUBLIC STREET IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY
AT 320 LANG ROAD (APN 026-331-280/290/300), BY RICHARD LAVENSTEIN (APPLICANT)
WITH CROCKER NATIONAL BANK (PROPERTY OWNER)
Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed the proposal and indicated it was ready to be set
for hearing. Chm. Taylor set the item for hearing on October 26, 1977. Mr. Anderson
asked if staff had a tentative recommendation on this item. Chm. Taylor stated that
no recommendation was available at this time; however, he added that Mr. Anderson
could come to the hearing.
14. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.41.080 TO PERMIT THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT WHICH
HAS NON -CONFORMING PARKING TO ADD 713 SF OF NEW FLOOR AREA; PROPERTY AT
1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-410), ZONED C-4, BY ALBERT SEYRANIAN
(ARCHITECT) FOR RICHARD S. PATANE (LESSEE)
C. P. Swan indicated that this item will not be ready for hearing until staff receives
more specific information, i.e., "as -built" plans showing ground floor of restaurant,
public access easements, accurate documentation of where off-street parking will be
and how long it will be available, etc. He noted that there was some question about
the validity of the construction that has already been done. C. Sine felt proof
should be provided as to whether a building permit was issued to construct office
space on the porch and whether any building permit was issued for the front banquet
area in an area that was to be used for a boutique. He felt this would change the
parking requirements.
Mr. Seyranian, architect representing the lessee, was present for the discussion.
Chm. Taylor requested that information regarding public access to the bayfront be
provided when the item is to be acted upon. Commission requested more information
on the proposed parking arrangements. C. Sine specifically requested that the owner
or his representative be present for the hearing. It was concluded that the architect
would work with staff on these concerns and that the application would be placed on
an agenda when it is ready for hearing.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
October 12, 1977
15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL AND SERVICE BOATS AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY
AT 390 LANG ROAD (APN 026-331-370/400), BY HOWARD G. HICKEY (PROPERTY OWNER)
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item and made reference to a letter dated September 30,
1977 from Howard Hickey, specifically paragraph 3 which explained the proposed
selling and servicing of boats. It was noted that the property is zoned M-1.
There being no questions to the applicant, Chm. Taylor set the hearing for
October 26, 1977.
16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APARTMENT HOUSE THAT EXCEEDS 35' IN HEIGHT;
PROPERTY AT 729/731 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 028-141-070), ZONED R-3, BY JACK
WOODSON (ARCHITECT) WITH TERENCE O'NEILL (OWNER)
17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS 35' IN HEIGHT; 25 -UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 1210 BELLEVUE AVENUE (APN 029-133-210/220), ZONED R-4, BY
JACK WOODSON (ARCHITECT) FOR THOMAS J. GLYNN (OWNER) (REF. ND -122P DATED
8/12/77)
Mr. Yost reviewed Item #16, noting that the application is complete and recommended
it be set for hearing. Commission discussed various concerns with staff and the
architect, Jack Woodson, who was present to anwer any questions. C. Sine asked if
there would be a problem with the dead-end water main. C. E. Kirkup indicated that
a current water project would eliminate any problem including the fire hydrant.
He further stated that this project is part of the rehabilitation of the water system
that will take place on an entire section of E1 Camino Real. C. Sine noted that
another project was conditioned to "pick up" part of the cost on this. Mr. Yost
pointed out that the.applicant had apparently made a mistake because there are two
definitions on grading in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Woodson explained that Item #17 is basically the same as Item #16, and stated
that he did not feel the buildings would be "out of line" with other structures in
the neighborhood. Chm. Taylor set Items #16 and #17 for hearing on October 26, 1977.
18. RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENT: SEC. 25.41.025; TO REQUIRE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES THAT EXCEED 35' IN HEIGHT IN THE C-4 DISTRICT
C. P. Swan and C. E. Kirkup discussed this study item with the Commission, indicating
it be given consideration at a future date, possibly incorporated into the Blayney
report so that all.buildings more than 35 feet in height would become conditional
uses requiring a special permit. One purpose would be to assure the provision of
an adequate water supply system. David Keyston spoke briefly, indicating concern
about this item and the possibility of being charged with fees after a water system
has been designed to City specifications. He stated that some areas now have
adequate facilities and should not be charged, and to do so would be unfair.
18(B). FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE PARK WOODS CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 33 PARK ROAD
C. E. Kirkup indicated that the map is ready for hearing. Chm. Taylor set the
hearing on this item for October 26, 1977. It was noted that the developer would
be bonded to install the necessary improvements.
OTHER
19. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE
Chairman Taylor briefly reported on the conference.
Page 12
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 1977
CITY PLANNER REPORT
C. P. Swan noted that other items coming up on October 26 are: (1) the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Westates Park Project on Bayshore Highway
next to Avis; and perhaps (2) Aztec Rent-A-Car 60 -day special permit; and (3)
Adeline Arms condominium conversion permit.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:05 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary
r
STAFF REPORT
Item #4
P.C. 10/12/77
The Municipal Code in effect in March, 1975 gave the Planning Commission discretion
to approve any sign that was larger than 32 SF on a single face. March 10, 1975
the application for two illuminated wall signs of 56 SF each at 1301 Broadway by
Coast QRS for Fidelity Federal Savings was approved with "the sign on Paloma to be
non -illuminated."
QRS Corporation on behalf of Charles Braden, Facilities Manager, Fidelity Federal
Savings, requests permission to illuminate the existing non -conforming wall sign on
their Paloma Avenue frontage. The revised Title 22 Sign Code, which was effective
February, 1977, authorizes the City Planner to approve a sign permit for a sign
with up to 50 SF of sign area on the secondary frontage of a C-1 property.
Currently a sign with more than 50 SF of sign area requires a Sign Exception approved
by the Planning Commission.
If consideration is given to allow illumination during business hours or to reduce
the amount of illumination, then some assurance will be needed to have this sign
conform to the amended terms of the sign permit.
A Notice of Hearing for Amended Sign Permit was mailed to adjacent property owners.
Action can be taken 10/12/77.
WMS/s
Wayne M. Swan
Documents attached for reference:
- Minutes of P.C. Meeting of 3/10/75
- Letter of June 24, 1975 to Fidelity Savings requesting that
the illuminated sign on Paloma conform to the terms of the Sign Permit
- Reduced plan of typical sign
Communications:
- Letter of August 30, 1977 from Bob Van Gerpen, QRS Corporation
- Letter of September 2, 1977 from Ralph W. Ready, Fidelity Federal Savings