Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.09.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT CistulIi None City Planner Swan Francard Asst. City Planner Yost Jacobs City Attorney Coleman Kindig City Engineer Kirkup Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER 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. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of August 22, 1977 were approved as mailed as there were no additions or corrections. MEETING ITEM FOR ACTION 1. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL A 4' x 8' WALL SIGN AT THE MYRTLE ROAD ENTRANCE OF THE RETIREMENT INN OF BURLINGAME; PROPERTY AT 250 MYRTLE ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY BOGDANICH BUILDING COMPANY FOR RETIREMENT INNS OF AMERICA Asst. C. P. Yost indicated correction on the item. The Sign Code specifies that signs in the R-3 District should be limited to 20 SF. This sign can be considered an identification name plate for a group residential facility, and Sec. 22.34.060 permits one sign not to exceed 32 SF for a building with 21 or more units. The Retirement Inn of Burlingame has 74 units. Staff advised that this item could be removed from the agenda and a building permit issued for Sign A which is not to exceed 32 SF. Chm. Taylor questioned if the application was redundant because it met requirements of the Code without a sign exception. Mr. Yost responded 'yes'. The application was dropped from the agenda. Chm. Taylor asked if all conditions of the special permit to construct a retirement home were met. Asst. C. P. Yost responded that there was a written condition that 15% of the residents be on Supplementary Support Income (SSI). He said he believed C. A. Coleman had talked to the attorney for the company and he thought someone had said 15% welfare recipients. Copies of the Agreement, the Council resolution and minutes of both the Commission and Council hearings were mailed to Mrs. Gray, manager of the Retirement Inn in Burlingame, so she had been made aware of this condition. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes CITY PLANNER ITEMS Page 2 September 12, 1977 2. URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 1113: EXTENDS ORDINANCE NO. 1107 WITH MODIFICATIONS C. P. Swan explained Ordinance No. 1113 extends with modifications Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1107 for a period not to exceed six months. This would allow time for new regulations, guidelines and procedures to be established. In a letter to the City Council David Keyston requested that four projects be exempt. On Tuesday, September 7, the day following the Council meeting, four applications were received for Study Area Permits. Staff is preparing CEQA documents for each of these four applications. They will go to Council this week for action September 19. C. P. Swan submitted a handout on Study Area Permit procedures to Commission for the period of time the John Blayney Associates study is under way. Study Area Permits were distinguished from Special Permits which require public hearing by the Planning Commission. A Study Area Permit is a building improvement which may be approved at the discretion of Council. These projects are also required to satisfy CEQA requirements. Jilly's includes a discotheque and a showroom that may attract many people at one time. The disco and showroom are deemed to be permitted uses under Sec. 25.41.020(j) . . . if after a public hearing by Commission, the uses are found to be desirable and compatible with purposes of the C-4 District. Under this stipulation of the Municipal Code, Jilly's is a discretionary project and C. P. Swan believed an EIR should be prepared. Chm. Taylor said he understood that items which will normally not require action before the Commission will go directly to the Council. C. P. confirmed the Chairman's statement was correct and reminded that projects would require an initial assessment as to whether an EIR would be required. Council determined that EIRs are not required for all projects. C. Mink inquired if staff would prepare summary documents to keep the Commission and the various consulting firms informed. C. P. Swan replied yes; of the four projects for which Study Area Permits have already been requested, three will go forward with negative declarations. C. Mink requested that staff keep Commission aware of the status of those applications and staff accepted this charge. Chm. Taylor concurred with C. Mink's statement, saying that Commission would surely appreciate that. David Keyston said all of these projects have been considered by the consultants thus far within their previous instructions. There are no new projects here. There is a question whether a showroom falls under Sec. 25.41.020(j), other uses in the Waterfront Commercial District, or whether it is under (e) as a commercial recreation use which is permitted without review by the Commission. He felt it would just be a determination of whether this is a commercial recreation use or another use. He said he would be glad to furnish Commission and staff information on any of the projects. Chm. Taylor asked Mr. Keyston if he had informed the Council that Avis, in its generosity, had agreed to a 10 foot strip whenever 25 foot strips were available to the north and south of the property. Mr. Keyston said a letter was submitted with a commitment for 10 feet of level area plus 15 feet of the slope easement that extends out to the Bay. 3. PROGRESS REPORTS ON CURRENT EIRs: i. EIR-43E CONVENTION CENTER C. P. Swan reminded the Commission of the hearing previously scheduled for September 26 to consider Draft EIR-43E for the Bayside Redevelopment Project. Notices had been mailed to surrounding communities and to public jurisdictions requesting their comments. Chm. Taylor suggested that the meeting be rescheduled from September 26 to Wednesday, September 28 and that C. P. Swan take the necessary action. C. P. Swan said he would notify all applicants that the meeting will be on September 28, 1977. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1977 ii. EIR-44P BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS C. P. Swan reported that Torrey & Torrey Inc., consultants on contract to the City, will prepare information essential for a General Plan Amendment, reclassification of the site from C-4 to R-4 and a condominium permit. Specific plans for the condominium project are being finalized. The preferred project has two 14 -story towers with 336 units on 4.7 acres of fee title property plus 2.0 acres of State land. This is a residential density of about 50 units per net residential acre. The Draft EIR will be brought to the Commission in October. iii. EIR-45P ONE WATERFRONT, 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD C. P. Swan reported this project is a major office building, about 300 feet in length, 4 stories in height (54 feet approximately), with about 78,000 SF of gross floor area. Those project plans have been reviewed by staff. There are three different schemes involved, one for a U-shaped building and the second for the so-called Chevron -shaped building. Plans have been reviewed and sent to the EIR consultants, Madrone Associates; the Draft EIR will also be brought to the Commission during October. There are two other reports of note: (1) a supplement to the National Feasibility Corp. feasibility study on the Bayside Redevelopment Project, and (2) the Bayfront Traffic Report from J. D. Drachman. The NFC report mentions that the 210 room addition will eliminate approximately 50 spaces and that a 70% parking ratio "is more than ample to meet the requirements, (but not City regulations)." Projected operations of a 536 -unit Sheraton Inn are expressed in this particular report without the Convention Center complex. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. JOHN BLAYNEY ASSOCIATES' BURLINGAME BAYFRONT REPORT NO. 1: BASIC DATA AND ISSUES C. P. Swan announced there is a special study meeting scheduled Saturday, September 17 at 11:00 A.M. The Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission has received this report and has been invited to attend. Council discussed the JBA report at their study meeting Wednesday, September 7. They decided to meet Saturday with the Planning Commission and the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission to review development issues posed by Report No. 1 prepared by JBA. Staff input for these 30 -day reports by John Blayney Associates and J. D. Drachman assumed developments that would be in place in Burlingame in 1980. The C. P. stated he had prepared this list of projects for the first 30 days but now his assumptions are no longer valid. He said it is now an opportunity for the Commission, the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, other people in the City and the Council to decide on those assumptions. C. P. Swan asked Commission to review the list of assumed projects on page 6. JBA expanded the study area slightly to include Northpark and the M-1 zoning district located south of Broadway. Report topics are the market potential, current City policies, regional government policies in question and the Bayfront development issues. Staff has received comments that the absorption rate of office space appears to be too low. Full development with 100% build -out can occur within 10-20 years. Answers to these development questions will provide certain guidance to JBA for preparation of sketch plans focused on different development patterns. Should the area on the other side of Bayshore Freeway be planned for land use to produce revenue or should it be integrated with the residential areas and be a part of the City of Burlingame? Nine development issues are listed on pages 22-25; the JBA Report raises many questions. Commission asked many questions including: Are assumptions complete; are they valid now? What are spinoff needs of Convention Center? What else, in addition, should be questioned? What are the other impacts with a Convention Center Project? Will Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 12, 1977 residential have priority? Which questions need more precise answers? What happens to other areas? C. E. Kirkup said staff has a water study report already prepared for the City which was completed by George S. Nolte the first of the year and which clearly states that additional improvements are needed to serve the study area, both east and west of the Freeway. The Engineering Dept. is currently preparing a review of the sewer and storm drainage facilities for the study area and at the end of the 60 days they will have what the existing facilities can service. C. Mink noted the section entitled "Regulation of Developments"; the City will make determinations based on a set of collective values of Commission and Council and the people who speak for both bodies, and out of that will grow a set of ordinances which will essentially control the development. The second section of Part 9 points out that as the City proceeds with developments it must deal with the cost of providing public facilities and services. Chm. Taylor commented this is a collective decision of Commission to decide what recommendations to make,. what questions they wish emphasized and what priorities they should assign to various individual aspects of the proposal, in order to give Blayney Associates some guidance. C. Mink noted that Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust territory is one area which has high potential for development. The reason for this study is because of the trade-off impacts on other parts of the City. The Report does not say what will happen to marginally developed land. It is a critical question which is missing from the listed questions. Mr. Keyston said that Blayney was told he should assume the projects between now and 1980 are the ones that are really before the City for consideration today and, therefore, said the average project takes 2-1/2 to 3 years to get a permit. He added, if economic conditions remain the same and if there were no zoning restrictions, the entire area could be absorbed in 3-4 years. That is the potential. Regarding criteria for the land use determination, David Keyston reported John Blayney had said he would take the traffic study and reduce the office development by residential until the residential impact equals the office impact, which would balance the traffic and minimize the traffic requirements. Traffic costs are overwhelming and there seemed to be little traffic study input in the land use report. It was Mr. Keyston's hope Commission would consider traffic in deciding what direction to go. C. Cistulli thought consideration should include retailing for the residential, how much land could be used for residential purposes, what the density would be and traffic impacts. Chm. Taylor asked how much building could be done with these levels of traffic and improvements. Mr. Keyston responded about 40%; about 900,000 SF of office space of the proposed office development could be accomplished within the capacity of the two existing roads. C. Mink requested the section on traffic mention transportation and moving people. C. Francard felt the size of the disposal plant would have to be increased to handle all the new developments. Chm. Taylor noted that traffic could be a roadblock to any development. C. Sine pointed out no mention was made about possibly changing the Peninsula Avenue Interchange and amending Broadway for further traffic circulation. C. E. Kirkup responded that this report is based on a set of assumptions of what will be built in 1980 and what the traffic impact would be within that period of time. This report deals primarily with traffic between now and January 1, 1980. The next report will investigate what is practical as far as additional on -ramps and off -ramps, interchange modifications and transporta- tion. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 12, 1977 C. Sine's major concern was the Convention Center. C. Mink, assuming the Convention Center to be built to its maximum potential, thought the City should look at related uses. What will the impact be on the M-1 District property between Bayshore Highway and Route 101? What would be the impact on other M-1 Districts? There would be impact on facilities and services. He believed Commission shouldlook seriously at rezoning part of the M-1 District between Bayshore Highway and Route 101 as well as the impact on the remaining M-1 in that area and the M-1 across Bayshore. 6. RECOMMENDED TITLE 25 CODE AMENDMENTS .(CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 8, 1977) i. Chapter 25.70; Off -Street Parking ii. Sec. 25.66.50; Side Yard Requirements iii. Chapter 25.62; Setback Requirements iv. Sec. 25.70.030(b)(3); Parking Prohibited in Side Setback C. A. Coleman reviewed this item and said the first section of the ordinance amends a number of sections in the Ordinance Code. For every reference in the chapter on setback lines, it adds'structures and buildings.' Section 2 eliminates the phrase "for dwelling purposes." The final section is a response to an inquiry from Chief Fricke who was unhappy about parking in side yards. Mr. Keyston believed this last prohibition could be a great hardship in C-4 Districts. After further discussion this item was set for hearing on October 12, 1977. 7. PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR A 210 ROOM ADDITION TO THE SHERATON INN: D. K. GOODRICH REPORT DATED 9-6-77 TO AUGMENT EIR-43E ALTERNATIVE ONE Asst. C. P. Yost discussed this application. The project to which the Goodrich report refers is the 210 -room addition to the existing Sheraton Inn. The expanded Sheraton Inn will have a code requirement of approximately 680 off-street parking spaces, while only 340 to 400 may be provided. This shortfall is the subject of Item 8 on the agenda which is a variance application from off-street parking requirements. Item 9 is an application to exceed 35 feet in.height in the M-1 zoning district. The proposed 7 -story addition will be 60 feet to the main roof line and about 69 feet to the top of the elevator shaft in the mechanical penthouse. There are four supplementary items to the Goodrich report: (1) memo from Barry Silverton to the Commission dated 9/7/77; (2) memo from Rudy Rausch to Silverton dated 9/7/77; (3) letter from Silverton to Goodrich dated 9/7/77; (4) a set of preliminary drawings of the proposed additions prepared by Joseph Kent of Raiser Construction Co. and received by the City on 9/8/77. He said, reading the Goodrich report and the comments by Silverton and Rausch, it is apparent that there is some disagreement on the number of parking spaces presently available on the Sheraton property. Goodrich, having field -counted the parking lot and basement area twice, said 385-390 spaces can be claimed. Mr. Rausch, however, suggests there are presently 427 spaces. He hoped that staff, Goodrich and Rausch could sit down together and get a precise figure for the Commission prior to the hearing later this month. Mr. Yost said Commission should consider two basic questions about the variance application: (1) What is the maximum number of days per year that an overflow of cars should be permitted from the Sheraton property? (2) What is the maximum number of cars that should be permitted to overflow at any one time? Related to these two questions are two other points raised in Goodrich's memo. There is a question of what is the maximum percentage of compact cars that should be permitted on the Sheraton property in the future. In the Goodrich report there was a 40% observed Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1977 operating figure and the suggestion in the Goodrich report was that up to 30% compacts could be approved. The second point is the off -premise location of overspill parking. If some number of cars at some regular frequency over -spilled, where are those cars to go? Some firm commitment should be made now by the applicant to identify more suitable off -premise locations and to submit some evidence that he has the property owner's consent for this use. All of the above assumes that a variance from parking requirement could be justified and would be acceptable to the City. Asst. C. P. Yost said if this assumption should be incorrect, or if the variance were conditioned to some maximum number of overspill vehicles, then some additional on-site parking should be considered. The Goodrich report mentions a hypothetical parking area under the new hotel wing. Amore practical alternative may be a commitment to a parking deck at the back of the new addition. The third option might be the enlargement of the present Sheraton Inn site through acquisition of land from an adjacent parcel. Mr. Yost suggested Commission discuss these points so that a more precise proposal with mutually agreed figures could come back to the Commission at a public hearing -on September 28. Mr. Silverton indicated that Mr. Drachman, in his original report, said if there is going to be a Convention Center, a coefficient of 0.34 appears to be acceptable and Goodrich said if there were not going to be a Convention Center and the City is considering the property within itself, he would recommend 0.43 coefficient. He commented that Mr. Yost's analysis was thorough and it was his hope Commission would consider 0.38 coefficient. Referring to page 9 of the Goodrich report, C. Mink did not find it helpful to have information about hotels which are designated A to I unless he had a complete study of comparable depth from those hotels. He would like staff to consider extending the number of alternatives. It might be possible to require as a condition that there be a bonding to create a parking structure by some time specific following perhaps one to three years or so. In response to suggested use of compact cars, Mr. Silverton mentioned he preferred to lower the coefficient with the proviso that if the smaller number of on-site parking spaces proved to be inadequate, he would commit to the City a restriping of the parking lot to obtain the additional 20-25 parking spaces at a compact size to increase the proper number. 8. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.70 TO PERMIT THE ADDITION OF 210 ROOMS TO THE EXISTING SHERATON INN AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN.026-290-310), ZONED M-1, BY BARRY SILVERTON WITH PHILIP WASSERSTROM (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 8, 1977) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. He said the processing procedure assumed an EIR is required. The Convention Center EIR was found to be inappropriate with the "no convention" alternative selected by Mr. Silverton for this application and this was the reason for the addendum by Mr. Goodrich. Mr. Yost suggested that the procedural method to handle this is to first act on the Goodrich report and use the material developed in that report to support findings that would be relevant to this application for a variance. Chm. Taylor asked if the Goodrich report met the requirements of an EIR. Mr. Yost responded that it will not stand on its own; however, it would form an addendum to EIR-43E for the Convention Center which, of course, has to be reviewed on its own and found to be legally adequate. Chm. Taylor asked what kind of a report would be required to submit to City Council that would meet the requirements of dealing with an EIR for 210 rooms of the Sheraton Inn Hotel unsupported by any other structures or activity. Mr. Yost said the EIR for the Convention Center should be a legally adequate document which can be certified by Council whether or not the Convention Center project happens. This report by Goodrich will form a portion of that EIR. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 12, 1977 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ADDITION MORE THAN 35' IN HEIGHT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-290-310), BY BARRY SILVERTON WITH RAISER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE SHERATON INN Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. He noted that Commission had received plans that were prepared by Raiser Construction for the building which are somewhat preliminary at this stage but which do show a 7 -story addition with 30 rooms per floor. The indicated building height is not actually marked on the drawings, but at one inch scale it does scale 60 feet above grade,about 69 feet at the top of the elevator penthouse. The supportive material that will be used to make findings on this application will be drawn from the HKS Draft EIR which did have statements about aesthetic judgments and visual impacts, noise, etc. C. Sine questioned if Mr. Silverton had any plans for expanding the use of the coffee shop and the dining room since he is increasing the total number of area by 210 rooms. This item was set for hearing on September 28, 1977. 10. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: REPORT, EIR-46P, FOR WESTATES PARK PROJECT; PREPARED BY EARTH METRICS INCORPORATED FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 1700-1880 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (PORTION OF APN 024-380-080), ZONED C-4, BY JESSE D. YOHANAN C. P. Swan reviewed this application. He stated Commission had a page entitled "Highlights" for review, in which the most significant portions of the EIR were mentioned. There will be 810 parking spaces, a 24,000 SF 3 -story office building, and a restaurant with 6-10,000 SF of gross floor area. Over a period of time the park and fly facility will be phased out, the restaurant will remain, but for the ultimate development as proposed and described in the EIR, there will be five office buildings with an aggregate of 120,000 SF of floor space. Diagrams in the EIR indicate the access driveways will be located directly opposite existing cross streets. Even so, traffic conflicts.will be one of the major environmental effects of this project. One advantage to the City of Burlingame might be the shoreline improvement with a 25 foot wide recreation easement. The Commission will recall this is one of three vacant properties remaining between Broadway and the Millbrae city limits; the other two being the property at 1220 Bayshore Highway next to California Trucking and the King Center project. These three shoreline projects will require permits from BCDC. Before an applicant can apply for BCDC hearing, they are obliged to provide documentation showing that the City of Burlingame has reviewed and approved the project and show that they have satisfied CEQA.requirements. Draft EIR-46P is adequate and could be scheduled for hearing concurrent with the special permit to allow a parking facility. C. Kindig said he would want some access somewhere on that property to the 25 foot strip. C. Jacobs questioned if there were an access to the 25 foot strip at the northern part of the project. Ms. Kay Ransom of Earth Metrics Incorporated said the plan does not show the access but it is suggested that it be considered as a mitigation measure.C. Francard commented that 18 years is too long for a 25 foot easement along the IBay. Ms. Ransom advised the project does include a 25 foot easement as part of the initial development. Items 10 and 11 were set for hearing on October 26, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 12, 1977 12. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-48P, FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION TO THE R-3 DISTRICT THOSE R-1 PORTIONS OF PROPERTY AT 911/915 EL CAMINO REAL; PREPARED BY CHARLES ELEY FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME 13. 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 R-3 DISTRICT BY ZEV BEN-SIMON C. P. Swan reviewed this application. A parcel map was acted upon in June and one condition for approval of the parcel map to combine two properties was to rezone from R-1 to R-3 so that the entire holding would be one lot in an R-3 zoning district. The two lots are side by side, in the middle of a block, and the rear one-third of the total area is in the R-1 District. An EIR is required because rezoning requires code amendment. Questions: What would the impacts be from a development possible in an R-3 District? What options are there? What range of impacts would result if only the R-3 portion of the lot is developed? In reviewing the Draft EIR prepared by Mr. Eley there are four exhibits that should be considered. Exhibit 2 on page 6 indicates site conditions; on page 8 code limitations are mentioned; Exhibit 3 on page 10 gives the existing development potential, and a diagram indicating how it Tight be developed without consolidation of the two lots and without a change in zoning district shows two separate apartment buildings, one on each of the existing lots. This is an illustration of what might be done with that property with no further change; Exhibit 4 indicates that a single building could be constructed containing 18 dwelling units; and Exhibit 7, a comparable intensity of development with consolidation but no change in zoning. To accomplish this the Commission would need to reconsider the condition placed on the tentative parcel map requiring that it be rezoned. By doing this the development might take place as indicated on Exhibit 7. The overview of the Draft ETR is given on page 28 and some mitigation measures are suggested on pages 30 and 31. These deserve close review and should be considered at the time of hearing on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is adequate and complete and the rezoning application could be considered at that meeting also. Items 12 and 13 were set for hearing October 12, 1977. 14. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOT 15 (APN 029-121-060/070) AND A PORTION OF LOT 16 (APN 029-121-080), BLOCK 10, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY; PROPERTY AT 1429/1433/1435 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR D. A. NICOLAIDES ET AL. C. E. Kirkup reviewed this application. There was no further discussion on this item and it was set for hearing by Commission September 28, 1977. 15. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR REDWOOD CREST, A 27 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1435 BELLEVUE AVENUE (APN 029-121-060/070/080), ZONED R-4, BY DAVID A. NICOLAIDES FOR 1435 BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES (APPLICANTS) WITH R&S COMPANY AND KATHERINE MEYERS (PROPERTY OWNERS) Asst C. P. Yost reviewed this application. The project is the demolition of the 14 dwelling units on the property at 1429/1433/1435 Bellevue Avenue. The site plan shows the building will be set back not less than 27 feet from the front property line and one portion of the building will be set back 103 feet. The building will be in the form of a reverse "C" with a pair of small pools in the center and with considerable landscaping along the existing creek which will remain open. The basement area has 53 parking spaces, 44 of these are covered and 9 uncovered. The ground floor has two one -bedroom units, five two-bedroom units and two additional two-bedroom units each with dens which could function as a third bedroom, for the total of nine units per floor. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1977 The second and third floors are .identical,with a total of 27 units; community facilities in the project include a spa and sauna on the ground floor, a billiards room on the second floor and a social room on the third floor. One possible weakness to the design is the guest parking; only one guest parking space has apparently been allocated next to the front entrance driveway. The building meets all zoning requirements and the application is complete. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977. 16. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP..FOR 27 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1435 BELLEVUE AVENUE (APN 029-121-060/070/080), ZONED R-4, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR W. 0. NICOLAIDES & SON, INC. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977. 17. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR ADELINE ARMS, AN 8 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1469 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-013-030), ZONED R-3, BY JOHN YOHANAN FOR SARKIS M. FARD (APPLICANTS) WITH GORDON KULLBERG AND TERRANCE IRWIN (PROPERTY OWNERS) 18. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 8 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1469 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-013-030), ZONED R-3, BY KCA ENGINEERS, INC. FOR SARKIS FARD (APPLICANT) WITH GORDON KULLBERG AND TERRANCE IRWIN (PROPERTY OWNERS) Asst. C.P. Yost discussed this application to convert an existing 8 -unit apartment building to an 8 -unit condominium. The design shows a 3 -story building, two floors over parking. Each floor will have four units. The site plan shows 13 covered parking spaces plus four open spaces. The total is one more than required by code and, in addition, the plan shows there is owner storage area where an 18th space could be provided, so technically there are two more than the code requires. Open space on this project is the most sensitive issue. At ground level the building is set back 24 feet from E1 Camino Real; there is a seven foot sideyard on the southerly side of the property. At the corner of Adeline and E1 Camino Real there is an existing park and immediately next to that a vacant lot which is now framed up; next to that is this building which has recently been finished. The landscaping shows there is asphalt all along the common driveway between this building and the one that is under construction, and all asphalt at the back where the parking garages are located. The 24 foot front setback is landscaped as well as the southerly side yard. Each of the eight units has a balcony and there is an average of 80 SF per balcony among the units. Chm. Taylor inquired why Commission could not consider this building with the building that is now under construction. Mr. Yost replied that the applicant, with consent of the property owner, foresees the Adeline Arms project as Phase I; when the building under construction is completed a condominium permit application will be submitted, and the two buildings will function as one project. This particular design did qualify for a building permit and meets all of the present code regulations. Commission was concerned that the apartment and condominium conversion meet minimum requirements of the condominium project guidelines. The Asst. C. P. noted Chap. 26.30 Condominium Subdivisions, specifically Sec. 26.30.060, Standards and Sec. 26.30.070, Minimum requirements. The requirements tend to be those that are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance does not differentiate between apartments and condominiums. Therefore, this building which received a building permit as an apartment house does meet the technical classifications for a condominium. Condominium guidelines specify that site plans shall include parking spaces for guests and owners but do not say how many guests. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977 together with Item 18. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 12, 1977 19. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO CONVERT TWO BASEMENT PARKING SPACES INTO A WORKSHOP; PROPERTY AT 500 PENINSULA AVENUE (APN 029-294-290), ZONED R-3, BY ROBERT AND SYLVIA PISANI Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. He noted a letter from Mr. Pisani dated 9/1/77. The owners of the apartment building believed that the amount of off-street parking they presently have in their basement is more than they actually need. They are applying for a variance to take two of the parking spaces at the back right and construct a workshop storage area to keep tools for maintenance of the building. C. P. Swan said when the Code was amended to increase the number of parking spaces required for a family, the Council made it very clear that the requirement included guest parking. This item was set for hearing on September 28, 1977. 20. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUE LEARNING CENTER, INC. TO HOLD CLASSES IN COOLIDGE SCHOOL; PROPERTY AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026-073-110), BY LARRY KRUSEMARK (APPLICANT) WITH BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT (PROPERTY OWNER) C. P. Swan reviewed this application. Larry Krusemark is requesting approval for a private school to occupy one classroom and a previous office on the first floor of Coolidge School; they would use existing classrooms and some of the playground. The type of lease to be executed would be similar to the one with Country Club Day Care Center; it is revocable after 30 days. This is a non-profit private school with three employees. It would have about the same kind of impact as the Country Club Day Care Center except that the children will be older. They are accredited by the State as a non-profit school. Mr. Swan commented it is difficult to write a negative declaration and say there will not be any significant effect without adequate information. C. A. Coleman said he was contacted by the School District today and their approach is that they are basically agreeable to whatever conditions are set by the Commission. C. Mink desired to go back to the basic issue with the Burlingame Elementary School Board and have them come in with some kind of a permit request if they wish to have multiple tenants in a single building. C. Sine said he would like Commission to formally request the School Board to declare its intentions with regard to use of the property. C. Mink believed it would be difficult to make a fair judgment on the application until the School Board provided information about total property use. C. Sine wished the School Board would provide Commission with some direction as to their intent. Ci: Francard asked if this was a non-profit operation. C. P. Swan advised.the State had so authorized. It was his feeling the City should protect existing uses and consider compatibility of new uses. Chm. Taylor summarized discussion: Commission does not want to take action until clarification is received from the Board of Trustees and the Elementary School District with regard to their proposed use of the land. 21. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 890 MAHLER ROAD (APN 026-321-500) BY CHARLES G. MAYO ET AL FOR AMERICAR RENTAL SYSTEMS (APPLICANT) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF BURLINGAME/MOUNTAIN VIEW PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application, noting that Commission had a copy of September 1, 1977 letter from Charles Mayo with the other documents submitted. The application is complete. It is to operate a car rental agency at 890 Mahler Road and to keep the cars within an existing warehouse building. A parking layout is shown on the third page of the attachment sent to Commission. The portion of the plan within a heavy solid line is the existing building, of which 935 SF is office area and 5,353 SF Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 12, 1977 is warehousing. The plan shows there is additional outside parking area for the rest of the rental fleet. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977. 22. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY FROM OCTOBER 1, 1977 TO OCTOBER 1, 1978 IN THE C-4 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1300 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-480), BY DAVID KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR DODGE COUNTRY RENT -A -CAR 23. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY FROM OCTOBER 1, 1978 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1983 IN THE C-4 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1310 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-330), BY DAVID KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR DODGE COUNTRY RENT -A -CAR 24. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-110), BY DAVID H. KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR AVCar RENT -A -CAR Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed these three applications.for two car rental agencies, Dodge Country and AVCar. Item 22 is to permit Dodge Country to operate at Suite 108, 1300 Bayshore Highway from October 1, 1977 to October 1, 1978. Item 23 is to allow the same company to move to 1310 Bayshore Highway next year and remain there until September, 1983. The two applications are related but cover different periods of time. Item 24 is to permit AVCar which is presently at 1310 Bayshore Highway to move to 1290 Bayshore Highway. Details of these moves and numbers of employees, site plans, parking reserve, etc. were submitted to staff this afternoon at 4:00 P.M. This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977. 24a. FINAL PARCEL MAP, COMBINING LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME GROVE (TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/77) This item was set for hearing September 28, 1977. 24b. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP TO THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 988 HOWARD AVENUE Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application to add the car repair business to this property. Basically it will consist of moving Pruett's Olde English Garage from its present location to what was Carl's Exxon. The reason for the application is because a gasoline service station requires a special.permit in any zoning district, and this is a change, or an amendment, to the gas station special permit. COMMUNICATIONS 25. 1045 EL CAMINO REAL; AUGUST 30, 1977 MEMO FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR There was a special permit approved for the Aikido School at 1045 E1 Camino Real and the original permit was approved by Commission with the following conditions: (1) that the classes be limited to two instructors and 12 students at any one time; (2) that classes be held on Monday and Wednesday evenings only from 7:30 to 9:00 P.M.; (3) that the non-profit status of the organization be legally established; (4) that the requirements of the Building and Fire Departments be satisfied within 30 days or this special permit shall be terminated. The Building Inspector has been out on a number of occasions to inspect the property and found that the conditions had not been met. Staff was directed to contact the property owner for compliance. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 September 12, 1977 26. 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD; SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 LETTER FROM THE ASST. CITY PLANNER At their February 28, 1977 meeting Commission approved a variance application to enlarge an existing building with the stipulation that the exterior and yard improvements be completed within six months. Six months have elapsed and the neighbors have been complaining. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary