HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1980.12.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1980
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Sine on Monday, December 8, 1980 at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Graham, Harvey, Jacobs, Mink, Sine, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner John R. Yost; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - Upon motion of C. Jacobs, second C. Cistulli, the minutes of the
November 24, 1980 meeting were approved and adopted.
AGENDA - Upon motion of C. Jacobs, second C. Cistulli, order of the agenda approved.
APPLICATIONS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6,575 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY WITH 8
ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 SPACES); BY GARBIS S. BEZDJIAN
CP Yost reviewed this application to construct a one-story commercial building at the
corner of Broadway and Laguna Avenue. Reference staff report dated 12/4/80; Project
Application and CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 11/14/80; aerial photograph of the
site; November 17, 1980 letter from David C. Carr, attorney representing the applicant;
12/3/80 memo from the City Engineer; November 21, 1980 memo from the Fire Inspector;
December 1, 1980 memo from the Park Director; plans date stamped November 5 and amended
plans date stamped December 4, 1980. CP reviewed zoning ordinance requirements, particu-
larly parking regulations; issues raised by the application; and a 1979 design for this
site. Staff had no objections to approval with three conditions as listed in the staff
report.
Garbis S. Bezdjian, the applicant; Paul J. Gumbinger, architect; and David C. Carr,
attorney representing the applicant were present. Attorney Carr discussed in detail
his contention that all four legal requirements for variance approval had been
satisfied. He stressed that it would be a hardship on the applicant to require parking
to code and questioned this requirement when the majority of other businesses on
Broadway do not provide on-site parking.
Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. There were no comments in favor. The following
spoke in opposition: Eugene Klein, 1127 Chula Vista Avenue (has business on Chula Vista);
Peter Campanile, owner of the Tower Deli, 1184 Broadway; Anna V. Bruce, AVR Realty,
1169 Broadway; Patrick Gilbride, 1129 Laguna Avenue (lives in apartment nearby).
Concerns: traffic congestion on Broadway; "since there is a parking ordinance, why
not require parking to code for this application?"; "Broadway should be in a parking
district". There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Secy.
Harvey read petition in opposition dated December 4, 1980 and signed by 25 merchants
in the area. Petition requested denial of this application in that it is not compatible
with the zoning code and would further compound the Broadway parking situation.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1980
Determinations: applicant was aware of the requirements for variance approval (this
matter had been addressed in David Carr's letter of November 17); applicant has owned
this property for approximately three years; it was estimated by staff that only 5%
of the businesses on Broadway conform to the present parking requirements.
Discussion: possibilities of establishing a parking district for the Broadway area;
"there have been no concerted efforts by the Broadway property owners and merchants
themselves to deal with the parking problem"; types of businesses proposed for this
project and the possibility of restricting the uses; advisability of restricting the
on-site parking provided to either employees or customers; alleys in the area and
maintenance of same; a to n ti designs for i gres and a reg; condition of the
lot at present; thrk1n es �ir��en scOnarkrinte�a�la �atfar�thjassCteploeodwith
anormal
e
te
Uaf ick cor�ges ion o� sur in�ameVs oneTy ��iroug�i s�ree io Hig�iway T8 ye
Concerns: "how can you allow a 50% parking variance in the already congested Broadway
area?"; need for more public parking; a strong concern was expressed about traffic
congestion and it was suggested the building could be redesigned to provide additional
parking without impacting the economic condition of the applicant.
Minority opinions were expressed that the testimony presented had established the need
for a variance; that the developer had made every effort to meet the needs of the area
within the limits of the project; that it would be unfair to the applicant to require
parking to code, i.e., holding the applicant to a different standard than others in the
area; that this might be the best use of the land that could be found; "the problem
is of the area, not of this particular developer".
C. Graham found that the four legal requirements for variance approval had been met by
the applicant. He then moved for approval of this application with the following
conditions: (1) that the variance be approved to Mr. Garbis Bezdjian and be nontrans-
ferable; (2) that the final working drawings for the Broadway Plaza be consistent with
the plans filed with this application; (3) that the conditions recommended by the City
Engineer in his December 3, 1980 memo and by the Park Director in his December 1, 1980
memo be met to the satisfaction of each department; (4) that retail merchandising only
be allowed on the site; (5) that ingress be from Broadway with no left turns allowed
into the alley, with egress on Laguna Avenue; and (6) that on-site parking be limited
to employees only. Second C. Taylor. Motion denied on a 3-4 roll call vote (Cers
Cistulli, Harvey, Jacobs and Sine dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:42 P.M.; reconvene 9:52 P.M.
2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 4 UNIT PROJECT AT 1119 CHULA VISTA AVENUE;
BY BARRY G. SMITH OF D. L. WALKER CONSTRUCTION WITH RON VERNALI OF JANUS BUILDERS, INC
CP Yost reviewed this application to construct a 4 unit three story project. Reference
staff report dated 12/4/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff
11/10/80; aerial photograph of the site; 12/3/80 memo from the City Engineer;
November 20, 1980 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; memo from the Park Director
received December 1, 1980; and plans date stamped October 31, 1980. CP reviewed
compliance with zoning ordinance and engineering requirements as well as the condominium
guidelines. Approval was recommended with three conditions as listed in the staff report.
Barry G. Smith, architect for the project, was present. Chm. Sine opened the public
hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Commission determined
that the project meets all Engineering Department requirements and the Condominium
Guidelines.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
December 8, 1980
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this condominium permit with the following conditions:
(1) that the final working drawings for this condominium project be consistent with
the plans filed with this application; (2) that the conditions recommended by the City
Engineer in his December 3, 1980 memo and by the Chief Building Inspector in his
November 20, 1980 memo be met satisfactorily; and (3) that the final landscaping and
irrigation plans be approved by the Park Director prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
3. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 4 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1119 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
CE Erbacher recommended approval. Reference CE's memo dated 12/3/80. C. Taylor moved
for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative subdivision map.
Second C. Mink; motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 UNIT PROJECT AT 1277 EL CAMINO REAL; BY
WILLIAM HEIJN, AIA FOR MANUCHEHR DAI-JAVAD
CP Yost reviewed this application to construct a three story project with six 2 -bedroom/
2 -bath units. Reference staff report dated 12/4/80; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
accepted by staff 11/20/80; aerial photograph of the site; 12/3/80 memo from the City
Engineer; 11/26/80 memo from the Park Director; and plans date stamped November 19,
1980. CP reviewed compliance with zoning ordinance regulations, engineering requirements
and consistency with the condominium guidelines. Approval was recommended with three
conditions as listed in the staff report.
At the request of C. Jacobs, CP Yost discussed elevations of the project, windows which
would face the rear property line and rear yard requirements. William Heijn, architect
representing the property owner and developer, was present. Chm. Sine opened the public
hearing. Stephen Attell, 1272 Balboa Avenue, whose property abuts the site on the
southwest corner, discussed recent developments along El Camino Real. He suggested
traffic studies to mitigate the traffic problems as well as City requirements to insure
the fine environment which has always been enjoyed by property owners to the rear of
E1 Camino lots. Wilma M. Cimino, 1280 Balboa Avenue expressed concern about landscaping
between the proposed site and properties to the rear. Donald Getchell, 1276 Balboa Avenue
voiced a complaint that during the recent demolition of the existing structure his
picket fence was broken (Chm. advised the applicant to take note). He also expressed
concern about landscaping and preservation of his privacy. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
On the basis that this condominium project meets all regulations of the City of Burlingame
and that landscaping must be approved by the Park Director, C. Harvey moved for approval
of the application with the following conditions: (1) that the final working drawings
for this condominium project be consistent with the plans filed with this application;
(2) that the conditions recommended by the December 3, 1980 memo from the City Engineer
be met; and (3) that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the
Park Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Second C. Graham; motion
approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 6 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1277 EL CAMINO REAL
CE Erbacher recommended approval. Reference CE's memo dated 12/3/80. C. Mink moved
for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative subdivision map.
Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1980
6. REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT - MUNKDALE BROS., INC. - 1576-1700 ROLLINS ROAD
Reference City Engineer's 12/5/80 memo advising staff did not have complete information
to allow review of the construction and drainage. Also reference December 8, 1980
letter from Steve Munkdale. It was recommended this item be continued to the next
regular meeting. Commission concurred; item continued to the meeting of January 12,
1981.
7. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL A 51 SF WALL SIGN, 4 AWNING SIGNS AND ONE 2' WIDE SET
OF GRAPHIC STRIPES THE LENGTH OF THE MYRTLE ROAD FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY AT
927 HOWARD AVENUE; BY DAVID J. MANI OF DATSONVILLE
Reference staff report dated 12/3/80; aerial photograph of the site; Sign Permit
application filed November 24, 1980; Sign Exception application filed November 24, 1980;
photo copy of proposed DatsonVille signage; Planning Commission minutes of October 28,
1975 covering Sign Permit approved to The Four Car Garage at this location; and photo
copy of The Four Car Garage signage. CP Yost discussed this property; Planning Commission
hearing for the 1975 sign permit; signage approved in 1975; proposed signage; and
code exceptions required. Staff recommended approval of the present application.
David J. Mani, the applicant, was present. He explained that the spelling of DatsonVille
with an "0" was to correlate with the logo which incorporates the use of a "rising sun".
Chm. Sine opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed.
C. Mink found that because of the location of the property, which is distant from the
majority of auto sales and service establishments on California Drive, approval of
this application would not constitute a grant of special privilege; that there are
special circumstances applicable to this property because of its location in the city.
C. Mink then moved for approval of this sign exception application. Second C. Cistulli.
Following a question on the motion, the special signage characteristics of auto row
were discussed and it was pointed out that each sign exception is considered on its
own merits. The motion to approve was passed unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AT
841 FAIRFIELD ROAD; FOR STEPHEN AND LARI KIRCHER
Reference 12/3/80 memo from the City Engineer; City Council appeal hearing minutes of
July 7, 1980 approving a variance to establish two lots at this location; and Planning
Commission minutes of June 9, 1980 denying the variance. CE Erbacher reviewed the
variance application and advised staff found the map conforms to the approved variance.
Commission approval was recommended with one condition as listed in his 12/3/80 memo.
C. Harvey moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative and
final parcel map with the condition that the map indicate "the maximum house footprint
allowed on Parcel 2 is 1,100 square feet". Second C. Graham. Motion approved
unanimously on voice vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
9. CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE ACADEMY, 1799 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY; REVIEW OF 10/27/76 SPECIAL
PERMIT
Reference staff report dated 12/3/80; November 14, 1980 letter from Richard J. Loughlin,
Regional Director, Century 21; First Floor Plan of Airport Office Center dated 10/6/76;
site plan; October 27, 1976 Planning Commission minutes and November 13, 1978 Planning
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1980
Commission minutes. CP discussed the permit granted in 1976 and extended in 1978.
There was no staff objection to a further two year extension as requested by the
applicant.
C. Jacobs moved that the October 27, 1976 special permit to allow Century 21 Real Estate
to conduct real estate training classes be extended for a further two years, and be
subject to review in November, 1982. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote.
10. STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS
CP Yost discussed this agenda item. Reference staff report dated 12/3/80; Planning
Commission Draft Resolution No. 5-80 with Exhibit A, Findings attached; copy of
Ordinance No. 1015; Engineering Department Condominium Permit checklist, September
1977; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-75. CP noted inquiries received about
commercial condominiums, City requirements for condominiums, and recent staff discussion
to consider policies/standards that would update Commission Res. No. 16-75. If found
adequate, staff recommended adoption of the proposed Resolution No. 5-80.
C. Harvey questioned whether Item 9a of the Exhibit should have the following added:
"the main sewer lateral to the street shall be outside the footprint of the building".
CE Erbacher advised this could present some problems and suggested it should be handled
in the CC&Rs and maintained by the homeowners' association.
C. Mink moved for adoption of Resolution No. 5-80, Adoption of Guidelines and Review
Criteria for the Evaluation of Condominium Permit Applications. Second C. Graham;
motion approved unanimously on roll call vote.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
11. CP reported the following Council actions at its meeting of December 1, 1980:
- Dance Movement, Hoover School - appeal of Planning Commission denial sustained,
with conditions.
- Intertelephon office project, 700 Airport Boulevard - appeal of parking variance
sustained, granting a 10% parking deficiency with
a resolution to be adopted requiring additional
parking be provided should the need arise in
future.
12. BAYFRONT HOTEL FOR THE CULVER COMPANIES, 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
The following data was distributed to Commission for information: staff report dated
12/2/80; Negative Declaration ND -265P posted December 4, 1980 with attached Initial
Study; and Environmental Impact Assessment of the project prepared by Real Estate Data
Services for Culver Construction Company. CP detailed the present status of this project.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Housing survey results received from the San Mateo County Community College District
and the Governmental Research Council of San Mateo County.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph E. Harvey, Secretary