Loading...
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