Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.05.09COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 9, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None 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 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes were amended to add the following to Item #10 at the top of Page 13: "Chm. Taylor closed the public hearing. C. Jacobs moved approval of this fence exception; second C. Mink and all aye voice vote." Minutes of the April 25, 1977 meeting were then approved as mailed and amended. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-40P, FOR PROPOSED 90 FOOT HIGH OFFICE BUILDING AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-430), ZONED C-4; PREPARED BY DEL DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CHARLES KING & ASSOCIATES (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 25, 1977) Chm. Taylor announced this item and referred to a May 6, 1977 memo from Del Davis Associates listing amendments to the Draft EIR. He asked the C.P. for comments. C. P. Swan reviewed the background of a previous proposal for this site. Over four years ago a proposal had been received for a 16 -story office building with approximately 205,000 SF of office area and a 4 level parking structure immediately behind it. There were 25 foot wide openings along each property line so that a long narrow corridor for view toward the Bay would remain. EIR-4B was prepared for the proposed project which listed these adverse environmental impacts: increased air pollution, present sanitary sewer capacity would be exceeded, increased traffic congestion, and a portion of the view of the Bay would be blocked. City Council had conditioned approval with certain stipulations: that the developer retain a traffic consultant to make feasibility and site studies for traffic signal installations on Old Bayshore; that the developer contribute up to $5,000 for traffic signals and grant a 25 foot easement at the rear of the property for a linear walkway system, and that the basement level be limited to storage space. On February 20, 1973, with these conditions and modifications, EIR-4B was adopted 3-2. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2May 9, 1977 C. P. Swan believed it was important that EIR-4B be treated as an independent report. He said that subsequently a revised design with a square shaped building located at 45° to Bayshore Highway was designed and foundation excavation created a hole in the center of the property. A multistory parking structure was to be built along the property line next to the Airport Marina. A building permit was approved for the substructure and foundation but the superstructure building permit was to be issued at the same time as the parking structure. It was pointed out by the C.P. that this hole in the ground preconditioned the shape and location of the office building which is the subject of the present environmental impact report. Mr. Swan reviewed the State Guidelines. The purpose of an EIR is to identify significant effects on the environment, identify alternatives to the project and identify the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. In the event economic, social or other conditions make it -infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, such project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of -a public agency, provided the project is otherwise permissible under applicable laws and regulations. The test for acceptance indicates the document should be reviewed and evaluated for the environmental circumstances or consequences should the project be approved. The Guidelines specify standards for adequacy of an EIR. It should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive but the sufficiency of an EIR should be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. The courts have looked for adequacy and completeness, not perfection. The C.P. believed Commission should focus upon adequacy and sufficiency; once the significant environmental effects are identified, then the mitigation measures should be presented and alternatives to the particular project. C. P. Swan suggested that at this continued hearing Commission concentrate on specific environmental effects and if there are necessary mitigation measures, propose specific recommendations to modify the Draft EIR. He recommended Draft EIR-40P be considered independently of the subsequent applications for this particular project. Commission was told the City Council will certify the Final EIR; it is no longer the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Commission is to accept the EIR, or accept with modifica- tions, and thereafter recommend that the Draft EIR go forward to City Council for final certification. C. P. Swan told Chm. Taylor the responsibility of Commission is to make findings that the EIR is adequate and sufficient. C. A. Coleman pointed out that approval of the EIR is not a commitment to a variance or other actions which may come before Commission with regard to this project. Comments from Chm. Taylor, C. Jacobs and C. Sine indicated their belief Commission was not dealing with background information in regard to this site, but dealing with the present proposed project. Commission felt that the excavation on the site was not relevant to the P.C.'s deliberations; the developer could enlarge or diminish this hole in the ground. C. A. Coleman said the hole had nothing to do with the project. C. E. Kirkup pointed out that the excavation has predetermined many of the alternatives of development; all mitigation circumstances are dictated by the existing hole in the ground. C. Mink suggested the Chm. determine a method of procedure. Chm. Taylor referred to the amendments presented by the consultant, Del Davis, and asked for Commission questions. C. Jacobs asked about alternatives to the parking variance. Del Davis noted that the recent amendments had discussed other alternatives. He stated the Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1977 possibilities at Commission's discretion were: removal of a floor in order to make parking within limits, add a parking garage on the surface area of the lot, or utilize the basement area for parking. A McDonalds restaurant as an alternative in the C-4 District would generate more traffic. C. Jacobs requested alternate land uses be reported in the EIR. C. Mink referred to the amendments received from the consultant. He requested, on the second page, adding another line "parking required" above the "parking provided." Under III. Public Plans and Policies, page 21, line 2, item 4., he requested that the last sentence read: "Variance$ and special permit will be requested from the. City." He also asked for a change on page 20, E., Burlingame Zoning Ordinance (line 29) to read: "The bank and retail sales on the ground floor of the building will require agpweva4 a special permit at the public hearing and finding of fact." C. Sine suggested the developer consider a 10 or 12 story building with adequate parking. He felt a structure without a parking variance would be preferable, and then Commission would be dealing only with the height of the proposed building. C. Francard asked about parking and landscaping and felt they were incompatible with the proposed project design C. Kindig agreed with C. Sine regarding alternatives to meet parking requirements. He felt this, as well as concern over the planting area, was a part of the project itself, not the EIR. He remarked that on page 50, Part b. of 3. deals with landscaping as a guideline for action at another time, but it is part of the mitigating circumstances. Chm. Taylor asked Secy. Sine to read a letter dated May 9, 1977 addressed to the Chairman of the Planning Commission and signed by Steve Wintner, AIA, Project Architect of Gensler and Associates, Inc. This letter indicated several points which the architects requested be included as part of the amendments to be incorporated in the Final EIR in order to be more descriptive and accurate. (1) The amended site plans show the northerly driveway in all three phases has been relocated so that there is now approximately 90 feet between it and the Airport Marina Hotel driveway. (2) Project driveways do not coincide with the existing exit driveway from the Hyatt House Motel opposite the project site, and that driveway is a secondary exit not used often by Hyatt traffic. (3) Other communities' parking regulations permit 20 to 25% compact car spaces. (4) There are alternatives for noise reduction at the exterior glass wall, including 55% vision glass and 45% insulated spandrel glass (backed by a thickness of fiberglass) to absorb outside noises; the percentage of vision glass is normal for this type of building occupancy. (5) Suggested amendments for pages 49 and 50 regarding visual aspects of the proposed building are not yet complete. The architects suggested adding: (A) The potential glare, due to reflected sunlight, will be over a short period in any one position due to the characteristics of the glass which is partially reflective and partially transparent. (B) The building orientation with respect to the Bay and hillside residents is such that it will help to reduce the angle of reflectance. (C) Selection of the glass exterior was made after careful consideration of many factors, one of the most important being energy efficiency; the glass selected is an energy-efficient reflective solar grey glass. Steve Wintner reported the distance between the Airport Marina driveway and the northerly driveway of the proposed King project would be 99 feet. C. Jacobs asked what mitigating circumstances or solutions were proposed for cars going in and out. Consultant Del Davis referred to his cover letter dated May 6, 1977 which stated: "We found that in certain instances a suggested modification has been proposed for the project. After review of the proposal, the sponsor and architect may have suggested an alternative approach. Until definitive definition is determined, it is difficult for us to properly respond through modifications in the Draft EIR." Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 9, 1977 He added an example might be that the architects modified the location of the driveway, the C. E. indicated another location, and at this stage in development of the EIR it would be difficult to change it. C. P. Swan told Commission that additional parking information would be distributed later along with the parking variance application. Chm. Taylor noted the City's consideration of a Convention Center only a few blocks from the project site which.might include a series of support facilities. He suggested the EIR consider the alternative of a hotel use for this site. He believed the site should be considered in light of the potential growth needs of the whole area. The Chm. also suggested discussion in the EIR of the alternative of an office building which meets all code requirements. C. Mink liked the fact that the proposed building did not impede the view of the Bay. He suggested adding a parking structure behind the building so that it would not block the view to the Bay. If a parking structure is noted in the EIR,,it should be stated that it sits behind the building and leaves vision corridors on either side of the building. C. Sine pointed out that all of the southbound traffic would have to go northbound to a stacking lane with left turn signal. Chm. Taylor commented that the EIR report addressed the local problems but did not offer solutions. Consultant Davis told him that as set forth in the law and interpreted by the courts an EIR does not have to solve all the problems; there may not be mitigation measures within the limitations of this particular project. Alternatives which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project could be included. C. Mink requested the inclusion of a statement concerning the basement area, a statement supporting the rationale for excluding it from the floor area. Mr. Davis noted the developer's letter of May 2, 1977 concerning utilization of the basement which stated: "Other public uses which would be non -conflicting with the daytime parking might be a dinner restaurant, discotheque or meeting rooms which would be made available to the surrounding hotels." It was agreed by all that this would change the project entirely. C. Kindig was concerned about the suggestion of a discotheque and the possible public services which might be required for such a use. Steve Wintner told C. Jacobs it was planned to use the basement basically for dead storage, maintenance equipment, mechanical equipment and perhaps computer equipment. He added the suggestions for nighttime use of the basement were mainly in answer to Commission's request as to what might be done there. Chm. Taylor stated his feeling that every member of the Commission was concerned with having to accept assumptions and not being able to evaluate alternatives. C. Mink remarked that traffic circulation is bound to the project the way it is because of the existing excavation. Architect Wintner commented on the critical problem of getting people on and off the site; a driveway opposite the back drive from the Hyatt House creates other problems. C. Kindig suggested extending the basement so that parking could be provided not only under the building but at a level below the ground level. C. Francard wanted a diagram showing the driveways and the points of conflict for traffic on Bayshore Highway, and was told by C.P. Swan that the C.E. had met with the architect after the traffic problem was brought up. C. Sine was advised by staff that the City of Millbrae had been given a copy of EIR-40P. Architect Wintner suggested consideration be given to reducing the building floor area by 7200 SF, thereby eliminating the parking variance in Phase 3. There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor announced this item would be continued to the meeting of May 25, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 9, 1977 2. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-302-550), BY RONALD A. ROSBERG (PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) WITH CYRUS J. MC MILLAN (ATTORNEY); (ND -113P POSTED MAY 2. 1977) Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney for the applicant, addressed Commission, noting that a negative declaration had been posted stating that an EIR was not required. He said the applicant wished to increase the office and showroom area to 10,400 SF; additionally, to permit the resale of distress merchandise purchased in bulk from a single catalogue store. He advised he had reviewed the 1971 files; at that time Mr. Rosberg leased a small portion of the building and had only six or eight parking spaces. The applicant now owns the building and has adequate parking, 44 parking spaces. Mr. McMillan believed this sufficient justification to increase the retail sales area. Discussing the distress merchandise, he advised these items are not entirely office equipment. C. P. Swan reviewed this application. He advised one of the Commissioners had discovered that many of the items being advertised and sold were not office equipment. Some of the items now in stock were: cameras, strollers, Toast -R -Ovens, golf clubs, wine racks, fishing equipment, patio furniture, vacuums, toys, jewel boxes, watches, etc. etc. Mr. Swan circulated a photograph of the parking area and advised that at the time he visited the site two ping pong tables were in the parking area. At that time he had observed most of the items listed in Mr. Rosberg's advertisements and had asked Mr. Rosberg to make application for a special permit for this expanded use. The C.P. told Commission that in 1971 Council conditionally approved the sale of office furniture and equipment at retail in the building located at 1669 Bayshore Highway, sales and office space to be restricted in area to 3,000 SF and located in the building according to the plan on file with the City Planner, and the inventory generally to consist of no more than 20% of new merchandise. Staff does not have the right to modify, change or amend a condition that the Council puts on a conditional use permit which went to them on appeal. The C.P. objected to general merchandise being sold on Bayshore Highway with the possibility of more office buildings, a convention center, and further development of Anza property in this same area. He recommended limiting sales to office furniture and equipment. C. Mink was told by C. A. Coleman that Commission could act on this amended special permit application. Mr. McMillan confirmed that the existing parking would be available for cars and not used for outdoor display of merchandise. He felt his applicant had a reasonable request and stated Mr. Rosberg would not open up a general retail store. Mr. Rosberg added that the ping pong table had been out for a customer only that day and it was not his practice to leave such things outside. He noted he had been doing business in the City of Burlingame for about five years, was not competing with the stores on Burlingame Avenue and had no intention of doing so. He said that distress, or discontinued merchandise appeals to the people who buy from Repo Depo. C. Mink remarked that this is in an M-1 District, across the street from C-4. The policy of Commission has created mixed uses in M-1. The Commissioner found it compatible to sell used office furniture and equipment in an office industrial park 5' area, but selling general merchandise was not compatible within the M-1 District. Items such as gifts which are indirectly perhaps related to office use are more appropriately sold at other locations. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1977 Chm. Taylor believed that most of the equipment was reasonably related to office use. Mr. McMillan reminded that the merchandise is purchased from a single source. The Chm. requested audience comments. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, stated he had heard nothing but favorable comments regarding Repo Depo, and he did not think it was an incompatible use. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Cistulli related his visit to Repo Depo to purchase fireproof boxes. While there he noted the amount of jewelry, watches, and the like that were for sale. He suggested telling the applicant not to purchase this type of item; then, if he continues, revoke the permit. Chm. Taylor thought only 2-3% of the sales volume consists of jewelry. Mr. Rosberg advised it was generally necessary to buy related merchandise in order to purchase the office equipment he wished to sell, i.e., most suppliers of calculators sell watches. C. Kindig agreed with C. Mink's comments; he said he would approve of used office furniture, and perhaps some new office furniture, but was strongly in favor of keeping retail sales out of that area. C. Francard wondered who would police such a matter. C. Sine was not happy with the fact that Mr. Rosberg did not come in voluntarily to amend his permit, and that it had to be done as a police action on the part of staff. Chm. Taylor did not feel this would be a use which would result in a change of character of the store itself. C. Jacobs wished to limit the use to office equipment, possibly enlarge the area, but was hesitant with retail sales for other items. Mr. Rosberg commented on his problem when buying in bulk and trying to keep his two stores in Burlingame and San Jose identical. Retail sales of non office related items was a small percentage of his business. C. Jacobs moved approval of this amendment to the special permit granted by City Council in October, 1971 to allow expansion to 10,400 SF of office and showroom area; with the stipulation that sales be restricted to new or used office equipment only, excluding the sale of any other distress merchandise. Second C. Mink and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE C. A. Coleman remarked that the motion allows expansion of the size but not expansion of the use. There were Commission questions as to what might or might not be office use and how this might be policed. Chm. Taylor declared a recess at 9:20 P.M.; the meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.70 WHICH SPECIFIES STANDARDS FOR THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES; PROPERTY AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-430), ZONED C-4, BY GENSLER & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS) FOR CHARLES KING & ASSOCIATES (PROPERTY OWNER) C. P. Swan reviewed this application, noting the architect's letter with background material concerning a parking variance. This letter gave detail to show a certain percentage of compact stalls is allowed in other cities. The parking variance is more complicated because there is a time variable, or three phases of development. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1977 The C.P.'s evaluation of parking requirements was written on the blackboard: bank - 16.67 spaces; balance of ground floor - 39.5 spaces; total ground floor - 56.17 spaces; remaining floor area in building (127,092 SF) - 423.64 parking spaces; total required spaces - 480; applicant would provide 456 spaces by Phase 3, leaving 24 parking spaces.deficient. This application requests Commission waive or defer the requirement for 24.full size parking spaces in Phase 3 only; additionally the applicants are requesting permission to allow 10.5% compact spaces in Phase 2 and 19.3% of the total parking spaces to be compact in Phase 3. Mr. Swan suggested the backup letter might be incorporated in the EIR as an appendix. The C.P. compared this project with another office building in the immediate area which also has a bank, the Reynolds C. Johnson 7 -story office building at 851 Burlway Road. The Wells Fargo Bank occupies 6,020 SF of the ground floor. This is 9.2% of the 64,660 SF of gross floor area in the building. There was only a building permitfor the Johnson building in 1964 and the parking deficiency is greater when measured by today's standards. The King building is 2-1/4 times as large as the Johnson building and would have 24 parking spaces deficient compared with the nonconforming Johnson building which is 36 spaces deficient. Commissioners did not feel there was any relevancy to this comparison. Mr. Swan believed there was rationale to recommend that the first 50 spaces should be standard size but up to 20% of the total required parking spaces in excess of 50 might be 8' x 17' compact spaces. He told Chm. Taylor the highest requirement in Burlingame is for specialty restaurants which requires one space per 91 SF of gross floor area and includes a requirement for employee parking. C. Kindig inquired about parking should a restaurant go in on the first floor of this building and was told by the C.P. that one space per 200 SF would be required for an eating andror drinking establishment. A specialty restaurant is a self-contained single land use on a separate parcel of land. He did not believe a fast food operation in the building would have a different parking requirement. C. Cistulli staged his belief that the parking regulation for restaurants in hotels should be changErd, noting he experienced a lack of parking space available at the Sheraton Hotel. C. Mink wished the applicant to understand this parking variance would be granted with the condition that BCDC grant its permit; if BCDC does riot grant a permit, then the applicant must be prepared to build a parking structure. He asked the C.A. to draft appropriate language to get that intent properly into Commission action. C. Jacobs had concern over what might happen if BCDC did not grant the permit; perhaps the applicant would come to Commission requesting approval for 50 parking spaces deficient. She wished to settle the parking problem first. C. P. Swan commented that the Commission could approve a variance or a special permit subject to City Council certification of the Final EIR. Thereafter the applicant could seek a permit from BCDC and report that the City of Burlingame had reviewed the project and had certified an EIR. David Keyston asked to speak at this study meeting since he would not be able to attend the public hearing. He said he was in favor of the height permit for this project and also approved of 20 or 25% compact car spaces being allowed. However, he would oppose any variance from the number of parking spaces required by code. He stated there were not adequate parking spaces in the area presently. The variance for compact car spaces not to exceed 20% was supported by several Commissioners. However, there did appear to be Commission concern about the variance from number of parking spaces required. Steve Wintner suggested reduction of the floor area by 7200 SF to eliminate the parking deficiency. Chm. Taylor requested the applicant address Commission requests for information at the public hearing. This matter was set for hearing May 25, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 9, 1977 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 90 FOOT HIGH OFFICE BUILDING AND TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES AND A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-430), ZONED C-4, BY GENSLER & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS) FOR CHARLES KING & ASSOCIATES (PROPERTY OWNER) C. P. Swan discussed this item, noting the parking requirements for the proposed uses on the ground floor have been considered in the Draft EIR. He suggested space in a building of this nature be evaluated at one space per 300 SF.. When a building exceeds 50 feet in height it is a conditional use requiring a special permit; it is a discretionary action by Commission. He noted the Wells Fargo Building and the proposed King building are relatively the same height, 104 feet to the roof of the mechanical equipment room. Mr.. Swan told Commission the Urban Design Guidelines by William Spangle indicated that in this area tall buildings would be appropriate. C. Kindig asked that the applicant be prepared at the public hearing to describe in more detail what the retail sales area on the first floor might include. C. Mink asked for parking required and parking recommended.• He commented that if staff and the applicants could agree on something for this area, then the parking required could be stated in the EIR, and all actions considered by Commission would be consistent. Chm. Taylor set this matter for public hearing May 25, 1977. 5. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-41E, FOR PROPOSED BROADWAY/SOUTHERN PACIFIC GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT; PREPARED BY DE LEUW, CATHER & COMPANY FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME C. E. Kirkup discussed this EIR; he noted that one additional alternative had not been included, that of relocation of the passenger platform at Broadway. He recommended the EIR be set for hearing May 25; the Engineering Dept. has filed with the State Clearinghouse, ABAG and all other agencies. Paul Holley, Principal Urban Planner of De Leuw, Cather & Company was present. Newspapers have been contacted and most now have copies of the EIR. C. Sine thought it advisable that the City of Millbrae receive a copy of the EIR. He also asked if Commission was to find for one of the alternatives or consider the entire EIR. Chm. Taylor said Commission was considering the adequacy of the entire EIR. C. Mink asked that consideration be given to an Alternative A-3 which might be discontinuation of the passenger service at the Broadway station. He also suggested widening of California Drive north of the intersection be discussed in the EIR. Chm. Taylor wished the public to be advised that this hearing would be on the adequacy of the EIR itself and not whether there is going to be a grade separation at Broadway. It was noted it would be difficult to separate the two. C. Sine asked that the right-of-way of the old 40 Car Line be indicated in the EIR. C. Kindig inquired about funding. The C.E. advised gas tax funds would be used. Commission discussed the need for capital expenditure policy. They recognized that the Commission is charged with reviewing the capital improvement program, the priorities, the amounts of money and the timing for capital improvements. C.E. Kirkup indicated that he would be preparing a shopping list of capital improvement programs incorporating utility improvements, street improvements, etc. and that this listing would be considered in the fall for evaluation. C. Mink asked that a blowup be prepared to indicate where photographs had been taken and where the measurements for noise had been taken relative to the Broadway grade separation. In conjunction with the other major projects under way, such as the convention center, development of the Anza property and the King Center project, Commission requested a staff report with obvious links and indicating the overall impact on a grade separation at Broadway. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 9, 1977 The Commission asked if staff would.have time to make adequate information available before May 25. The hearing has already been scheduled and published in the papers. Commission recognized that the two major environmental impact reports would be on the same meeting and it would be quite a long meeting May 25. 6. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.28.070(2) WHICH LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF A HOUSE ON A HILLSIDE LOT TO 30 FEET ABOVE THE FRONT SETBACK LINE; PROPERTY AT 1835 LOYOLA DRIVE (APN 025-052-240), ZONED R-1, BY GUSTAVO KUBICHEK AND JACOBO MERLIN This variance to construct a house on a hillside lot was withdrawn by the applicant, Mr. Kubichek, in his May 9, 1977 letter received by the Planning Department this afternoon. Plans are under way for a house that will satisfy zoning regulations. 7. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING GARAGE AT 228 CLARENDON ROAD (APN 029-254-270), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. NEVIO E. TONTINI Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application for. Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Tontini wish to add a new second story with master bedroom to their existing two bedroom house which has a single garage near the front of the building. Two covered parking spaces are required by code; there is no other location on the property for parking space because the sideyards are narrow and the single garage is served by a short driveway from the street. The applicants are not able to add to their present one car garage or to park a second car on the driveway behind the setback line; therefore, they have applied for a variance. The matter was set for hearing May 25, 1977. 8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE CASA DEL SOL, A 10 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1500 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 028-291-010), ZONED R-3, BY MR. AND MRS. MARTIN BRUTON WITH MR. SOL GITTELSOHN 9. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 10 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1500 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 028-291-010), ZONED R-3, BY GEORGE S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES FOR MR. AND MRS. MARTIN BRUTON Asst. C. P. Yost presented information about the condominium permit for Casa del Sol, a 10 -unit condominium project at 1500 Howard Avenue on property zoned R-3. A tentative subdivision map has been prepared by George S. Nolte and Associates. Both are essential to the execution of the condominium project. The plans received show the building will have its principal entrance on Howard Avenue; it will be set back 20 feet from El Camino Real, 15 feet from Howard Avenue, have a rear yard of 20 feet and a sideyard of more than 7 feet. The building will be three stories over a parking garage and will be less than 35 feet high. There are 19 covered parking spaces and one open guest parking space. The ground floor will have 3 units and a recreation room, the second floor will have 3-1/2 units and the top floor will have 3-1/2 units; each unit will have two bedrooms. Landscaping and lighting plans as well as a copy of the Draft CC&Rs have been submitted with the application. The plans are consistent with zoning regulations, the application is complete and staff recommends the condominium permit and tentative map be set for public hearing. Chm. Taylor set these items for hearing May 25, 1977. C. E. Kirkup indicated that the flood protection map showed this particular lot subject to flooding. An underground garage could be flooded and cause problems unless adequate provisions were made to keep the creek water out. Commission commented that staff should get busy on townhouse regulations. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 9, 1977 10. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 21, BLOCK 12, BURLINGAME TERRACE (APN .029-053-020) AND LOT 3, WILLBOROUGH PLACE (APN 029-053-390) AT 1121 PALM DRIVE AND 792 WILLBOROUGH ROAD, ZONED R-.1, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR JOHN WARD C. P. Swan discussed .the tentative parcel map to resubdivide property owned by John Ward at 792 Willborough Road and 1121 Palm Drive. By purchasing 1121 Palm Drive and locating a new -rear property line, this property fronting on Willborough Road can be enlarged and include the existing accessory building. For the parcel at 1121 Palm to be a legal lot a carport will be necessary. No expansion of the house is proposed; therefore, although it has three bedrooms, a single carport may suffice and can be located at the rear of the existing driveway. Sec:. 25.70.030,Parking requirements for single family dwellings,states: "There shall be at least one permanently maintained garage or covered carport for each single-family dwelling with the further requirement that any single-family dwellings; hereafter constructed which contain three or more bedrooms shall provide garage or carport space for at least two vehicles." Thus, the existing single family dwelling will satisfy code regulations with one carport and adequate off-street parking on the driveway from the front of the lot to the rear. C. E. asked that elevations be determined to assure that adequate drainage would take place on the rear of 1121 Palm Drive. The matter was set for hearing May 25, 1977. 11. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, TOWN OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-201-090) AT 1417 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR MARIO CASTRO AND JOSEPH KARP This is a straightforward parcel map. Effectively it would place a new property line down the middle of the existing lot which is presently occupied by the Fox Burlingame Theater. Staff has information from Mr. Karp that they intend to raze the theater building and construct two commercial retail buildings, one on each of the parcels being created by this tentative parcel map. It was pointed out by the Commission that the final map could not be filed until the existing building is removed. This parcel map was set for hearing May 25, 1977. 12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 30 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1515 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (APN 029-111-280), ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTL.ETT FOR FLORIBUNDA DEVELOPERS Construction of Floribunda Casitas is almost complete; deposits have been accepted on all of.the units and the developers now need approval by the City of a subdivision of the existing building. Both a tentative and final map have been prepared based upon surveys of the actual location of living units and approval is requested this month so that people with deposits on the units can take possession in June. The tentative and final subdivision maps were set for hearing May 25, 1977. CITY PLANNER REPORT Commission discussed the sequence for consideration of the long agenda at the May.25 meeting. It was agreed to handle the short items first. Commission set Item 7, variance for 228 Clarendon Road and the tentative maps, Items 10, 11 and 12, first; the condominium at 1500 Howard Avenue, Items 8 and 9, next; then Item 1, Draft EIR-40P for the King Center project, and the variance and special permit on this project, Items 3 and 4; and finally Item 5, the Broadway grade separation project Draft EIR-41E. It was estimated that Item 5 would not begam until 9:00 P.M. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1977 C. P. Swan discussed pending development along Airport Boulevard. He showed plans for the Legaspi Towers, a 4 -story office building project with 101,000 SF of office space located at the corner of Airport Boulevard and Pacific. A notice of exemption had been filed for this project because the building satisfied all the regulations of the C-4 District. The C.P. reported that on Monday afternoon plans had been submitted for a major project, another 4 -story office building which would be about 400 feet in length to be located at 700 Airport Boulevard. This had a roof screen which would extend the height to more than 50 feet. The building might be said to be 47 feet in height but the structure would be 55 feet in height; an environmental impact report might be required. C. P..Swan also mentioned that he had advance information indicating that a condominium project would be proposed for the intervening land area, also on the north side of Airport Boulevard at about 600 Airport Boulevard. David Keyston commented that there are a number of tenants in the area who are looking for large quantities of office space up to as much as 60,000 SF of floor area. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:08 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary