Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.11.26BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called'to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, November 26, 1984 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 13, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE AT 1501 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY EUGENE AND EVELYN CONDON CP Monroe reviewed this request to rebuild the existing garage on this site. Reference staff report, 11/26/84, Project Assessment and CEQA Assessment received 10/23/84; letter from the applicant dated 10/22/84; plans date-stamped 10/23/84; staff review: Fire Chief (10/30/84), Chief Building Inspector (10/29/84), City Engineer (10/29/84); aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed 11/16/84. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, appliant's letter, Planning staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mrs. Eugene Condon was present. There were no comments for or against the application and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of these Variances for side yard and side setback as conditioned by staff with exceptional circumstances as outlined in the staff report and the applicant's letter: that such a Variance being necessary for the preservation of a property right of the owner because without these Variances there would be no garage and that the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, rather, it would improve the public health, safety and welfare in that it would be taking down a deteriorated structure, and that the granting of such variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City as it would remain an R-1 piece of property. The conditions are: (1) that the garage be built consistent with the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 26, 1984 plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 23, 1984; and, (2) that the requirements of the Fire Chief's memo of October 30, 1984 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 29, 1984 be met. Motion seconded by C. Garcia; motion approved 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY, FIVE UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1114 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY CORNELIUS AND ELIZABETH BROSNAN CP Monroe reviewed this request to build five condominium units on this site. Reference staff report dated 11/26/84; project. application and CEQA Assessment received 9/12/84; staff review: FirE� Chief (9/25/84), Chief Building Inspector (9/19/84), City Engineer (11/19/84), Park Director (9/26/84 and 10/19/84); study meeting minutes, 11/13/84; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 11/16/84; and plans date-stamped 11/20/84. CP discussed revisions made to plans in order to provide drainage to the street, landscaping and open space provided, staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Giomi clarified that the expiration date for the present application, if approved, would begin as of the close of the next Council meeting unless appealed and not the approval date of the previously approved Condominium Permit for a six -unit project on this site. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mrs. Elizabeth Brosnan, was present. There were no comments for or against the application and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Possibility of attaching a condition to require upkeep of the lot prior to the commencement of construction of the project; it would be permitted to attach a condition that the property be maintained in a safe and habitable condition although the enforcement of that condition could be difficult. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this Condominium Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshall's 9/25/84 memo, the City Engineer's 11/19/84 memo and the Director of Parks' 10/19/84 memo be met; and (2) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 20, 1984; second by C. Schwalm. After question on motion C. Giomi added condition,(3) that appliant be required to maintain the property until construction is commenced. Condition was accepted by makers of motion. Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 5 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1114 PALOMA AVENUE, LOT 17, BLOCK 3, EASTON ADDITION, CE Erbacher advised this map is ready for recommendation to the Council for approval. C. Garcia moved that the Tentative Condominium Map be recommended to City Council for approval; second C. Jacobs. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 26, 1984 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PIZZA RESTAURANT IN A SECTION OF A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BY RICHARD MONASTERI WITH GARBIS BEZDJIAN CP Monroe discussed this proposal to allow a 2350 SF restaurant in this new commercial building on this site. Reference staff report dated 11/26/84; Project Application and CEQA Assessment received 10/5/84; letter from applicant dated 10/5/84; staff review: City Engineer (10/15/84), Chief Building Inspector (10/19/84), Fire Marshall (11/6/84); 10/28/84 and 11/14/84 memos from R. Monasteri; parking survey for average spaces available in 5 -day period from applicant; copy of petition circulated by David Hinckle; study meeting minutes of 11/13/84; 2/27/84 Staff Report; 2/27/84 Planning Commission minutes on Parking Variance; 3/5/84 Council minutes on Special Encroachment Permit; March 8, 1984 action letter to Garbis Bezdjian; reduction of 1/6/84 site plan; aerial photograph; notice of hearing mailed 11/16/84;; resolution SP/3-84; and plans date-stamped 10/5/84. CP discussed details of the restaurant operation, parking availability as discussed in Brian, Kangas, Faulk traffic study done for Encore Theatre project and applicant's own traffic study, history of previous uses on site and approved Parking Variance, update of restaurant survey, parking affected by future proposals also. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission questions: for audience benefit, clarification that restaurant use is a permitted use in Broadway area and this review is required only as result of condition #8 of Variance; clarification of proposed operating hours. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Richard Monasteri, was present. He added that his parking study covered the lunch hour unlike the BKS Traffic Study. The following spoke in favor of the application: Al Kapkin, Clyde M. Williams, Garbis Bezdjian. Discussion included: mainly food related businesses have been interested in leasing the site; they had been in contact with local merchants and were attempting to satisfy their concerns regarding tennants; free enterprise; Mr. Bezdjian is losing money due to inability to find tenants; should enjoy same property rights as other land owners; at least site provides some parking and, with on -street spaces, provides more than required by code; requirement for Use Permit for all tennants should be! removed. Those speaking in opposition were: David Hinckle, Louis Cabez, Ron Santero, Larry Speckman, Pete Campinelli. Discussion, included: to allow another restaurant would aggravate existing traffic problems and over -abundance of restaurants on Broadway, uses on site should be limited to retail uses because that's what Broadway needs; Burlingame is becoming "restaurant row"; all the cars are blocking driveways because parking is so bad; lunchtime traffic is bad because of employees from Anza and Rollins areas coming here; restaurants depend on available parking for their business; if trend continues where very limited types of uses come to Broadway then people will stop coming here at all. The public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 26, 1984 Commission discussion included: earlier in year, Commission approved Variance which allowed construction of present commercial building with only 50% of required parking and is ironic that first application received requires more than 100% of required parking; Commission intended uses on site to be small retail uses; restaurant uses are by definition retail uses and so this is not the time to discuss whether or not that use should be limited on Broadway; the condition that we review uses going into this building was telling us to be careful about what we allowed; restaurant uses, although retail, are a different intensity; the present property owner was owner when parking variance was approved and no complaints about the condition were made at that time; merchants were looking forward to new commercial building and their concern with uses permitted on site is valid since impacts on existing merchants is something Commission is trying to look out for; original application should have been restricted specifically to retail uses; other uses could be put on this site; Mr. Bezdjian did his share in providing some parking there; merchants could work with the City to provide downtown parking; variance had in mind controlling the traffic problem while allowing this property to be developed. C. Taylor moved that the application for a pizza restaurant at this location be denied; second by C. Giomi. Motion approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess until 8:37. 5. REZONING OF 41 LOTS FRONTING ON ROLLINS ROAD (301 TO 599 ROLLINS ROAD) FROM R-3 (MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO R-2 (TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS) WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THIS AREA, BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CP Monroe reviewed the proposal to bring the General Plan and the Zoning Map for these lots into conformance by rezoning the lots from R-3 (multi -family residential) to R-2 (two family residential). Reference Staff Report dated 11/26/84; Project Application and CEQA Assessment; General Plan Map for area; aerial photograph; study meeting minutes of 11/13/84; 7/9/84 Planning Commission Minutes; 9/17/84 City Council Minutes; Resolution No. 67-84 approving amendments to land use element of the General Plan with Exhibit A; notice of public hearing mailed 11/16/84; copies of both pro- and con- resolutions for the rezone. CP discussed difficulty of developing multi -unit residential structures on property with General Plan designation of R-2; existing multi -unit structues could be replaced if destroyed although they could not be expanded; in July, Commission wanted to retain General Plan designation for lower density for this area; the rezoning action would clarify the land use policy; area receiving public notice. Commission questions: clarification of method of determining assessed value with relation to Prop. 13; cost to replace a non -conforming building which is destroyed is limited to 100% of assessed value; can we treat those parcels already developed with multi -unit residences differently; Commission can recommend to Council that existing multi -unit residences be allowed to retain R-3 zoning but should be based on a rationale; existing land use is one criteria but reasons for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 26, 1984 allowing some lots to remain R-3 should be clear for the Council; possibility that this action will deprive land owners of full value of their property; when was this land zoned R-3. The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the rezoning: Bud Harrison, Pete Hartman. Discussion included: presentation of petition from 36 residents on Lexington Way area in support of the rezone; in 1969 Council and Commission discussed rezoning and - establishment of certain corridors and buffer zones, and at that time the area along Rollins from Dwight to Burlingame Avenue was established as R-3; property owners on adjacent lots would like to preserve integrity of area from series of apartments which would create a wall at rear of adjacent parcels, traffic problems, drainage problems and loss of privacy from tall buildings; down -zoning is appropriate for this area; City should also be concerned about speculative development of land at the same time that we protect property owner's investment. Those speaking in opposition: Orin Fields, Larry Gavin, Alex Hansen, Max Colona, Patrick Kinsella, Robert Leon. Discussion included: why change zoning now when it's been R-3 for so long, especially since zoning is important to value of land; multi -unit structures will not be detrimental to adjacent properties; would be better off to leave R-3 to encourage redevelopment of the structures on these lots; preserve low -rent units; properties were purchased in this area because of R-3 zoning and rezoning would decrease value or prevent redevelopment with larger structure; new construction would have to meet local codes anyway so you would not get large developments. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commision discussion: State law requires that General Plan and Zoning Map conform with each other which requires this action; Commission didn't want same type of appearance as exists on other end of Rollins Road; in 1969, when General Plan adopted, Commission did designate this area as R-2 and had policy to require conflict between General Plan and Zoning Map be resolved in keeping with General Plan which is what Commission is now talking about; would be better buffer as R-2; area, if it remained R-3, would more than likely be developed with condominiums which would not provide low-cost housing. C. Taylor moved to recommend that the City Council change the zoning of properties at 301-599 Rollins Road from R-3 to R-2; second by C. Giomi. Chm. Graham amended motion to exclude the parcels where apartments now exist; second C. Leahy. Discussion on amendment: ones now multi -family are generally the lots on the corners and are not suitable for R-2 development; since restricted to replacement value for reconstruction, could be a real property loss; those lots perhaps weren't acceptable as R-2 because now built as apartments; shouldn't down -zone property already developed; over last years there has been upgrading of this area; leaving area R-3 will not necessarily mean apartments will be built; delapidation is a problem of maintenance; would this be special privilege for those sites now developed with apartments; those parcels now developed as apartments structures have already obtained permission to develop as multi -family structures so rezoning those sites would be action in opposition to past city actions; since buildings fully Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 26, 1984 depreciated, not a financial hardship but is concerned that uniform planning is needed. Motion for amendment approved 4-3 on roll call vote, C. Giomi, Jacobs and Taylor dissenting. The original motion (to rezone the area on Rollins Road from 301-599 Rollins Road from R-3 to R-2 except for those properties currently developed in multiple family uses which will retain their R-3 zoning as shown in the staff report) was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. 6. REZONING OF A PORTION OF THREE PARCELS AT 741 SAN MATEO AVENUE AND 741-755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE FROM R-3 (MULTI -FAMILY :RESIDENTIAL) to C-2 (SERVICE COMMERCIAL), BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CP Monroe reviewed this proposal to rezone a portion of three parcels from R-3 to C-2; the lots are double -zoned and this ,action will create one zoning classification on those parcels. Reference staff report dated 11/26/84; Project Application and CEQA Assessment, General Plan Map; aerial photograph; study meeting minutes of 11/:13/84; 7/9/84 Planning Commission Minutes; 9/17/84 City Council Minutes; Resolution No. 67-84 approving amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan with Exhibit A; Notice of Hearing mailed 11/16/84; proposed resolution recommending reclassification from R-3 to C-2; location map. CP discussed history of double zoning designation of these three parcels which are developed with commercial uses. Commission questions: clarification of present R-3 district boundary; easement for San Mateo Avenue cuts across the three ;parcels; at the time present zoning boundaries were established properties already developed with commercial structures; is the San Mateo Avenue easement part of these properties; clarification of frontages; is the easement a dedicated street; future development of properties would have to take easement into consideration; permitted uses under C-2 zoning. The public hearing was opened. Since there were no comments for or against the proposed rezoning the public hearing was closed. Further discussion: everyone within 500 feet was noticed. C. Giomi moved that this resolution recommending the rezoning of 741 San Mateo Avenue and 741-755 California Drive from R-3 to C-2 be recommended to City Council; second by C. Schwalm. Motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. 7. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A 300 ROOM HOTEL, 7,000 SF RESTAURANT AND 12,000 SF RESTAURANT AT 450 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP reviewed this request from Leonard McVicar, representing the owners of this property, for the one year extension of the City's approval of the Burlingame Group project at this location. Reference staff report dated 11/26/84; 11/7/84 letter from CP Monroe to Leonard McVicar; 7/10/84 BCDC minutes granting approval of project; 11/1/84 letter from Mr. McVicar requesting extension; 10/19/83 action letter; conditions of approval. CP discussed the history of permits granted for this project, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 26, 1984 the traffic allocation, January 15, 1985 deadline for submittal of revised project plans, extension would be until December 15, 1985. Commission and applicant discussion: timing of payment of Bayfront Development fees; this permit extension is for the existing project; new owners -are negotiating with two possible operators and decision will be made whether to continue with present plan; change to "suite hotel" will not affect traffic allocation as long as no major changes are made and the building footprint does not change; revised site plan would not affect Variance issued for this project but revised parking plan would have to be reviewed; effect of submittal of revised plans on available traffic capacity; traffic allocations are reviewed independently of any local permits. C. Taylor moved for approval of a one-year extension of the Special Permit and Variance for this hotel/restaurant project; second by C. Garcia. Approved 7-0 on roll call vote. ITEMS FOR STUDY 8. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 9'-6" FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE REAR AND SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE AT 1005 LARKSPUR DRIVE, ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM MCDONALD Item set for hearing on December 10, 1984. 9. NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEW, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REZONING FROM C-1 TO R-4 FOR PROPERTIES AT 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE FOR A 120 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR THE ELDERLY, BY BAY PARK ASSOCIATES Item considered together with Item #10. 10. NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEW AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AND EXCEEDING 35 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR A 120 UNIT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AT 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE, BY BAY PARK ASSOCIATES CP Monroe reviewed the details of this proposed elderly residential facility, the required permits and the land use designation and zoning change needed. Commission requests: provide information on comparison of parking, staff and automobile ownership and useage with similar projects in applicant's parking study; justification of number of employees. Items set for hearing on December 10, 1984. 11. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR THE BUIDING AT 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BY GEORGE HORVATH FOR BOARDWALK PROP. No uniform signage proposed for secondary frontage. Commission requests: clarify if window signs are part of proposed sign program; sidewalk sign noted on plans to be eliminated since it is a prohibited sign. Item set for hearing on December 10, 1984. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 26, 1984 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE M-1 ZONE AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY AFFILIATED AUTO RENTAL Commission requests: parking requirement for the entire building; auto rental facilities location map; other similar rental operations. Item set for hearing December 10, 1984. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT THE RAMADA INN, 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, BY EXPO RENT -A -CAR Variance is also required for this proposal since parking on site will be 25 spaces short of the required number of spaces :if approved. Although applicant had indicated to staff the desire to'discuss application with the Commission, the applicant was notified of this requirement and additional fee requested. The applicant was not present at the study meeting. Item set for hearing on December 10, 1984. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL DRY CLEANING PLANT AND SHIRT LAUNDRY IN SUB -AREA B OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA AT 321 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, BY AMERICAN PACIFIC EQUIPMENT COMPANY CP Monroe reviewed: location of property lines, parking lot with related openings on property line; either merging lots or obtaining wall opening agreement; entrances all required to be on street frontage; potential that parking lot could be developed separately; possibility of tying parking to proposed use by condition; City Engineer concern involves access to rear lot for delivery purposes as well as customer parking; Engineer would hesitate to allow a short-term parking area in front of cleaner. Commission requests: information on trip ends generated by the plant; landlord's consent to application. Item set for hearing on December 10, 1984. 10. ITEM RE -OPENED BY C. GIOMI IN ORDER TO MAKE MOTION ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION C. Garcia made a motion to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration for the 120 -unit elderly residential project at 1221 Bayswater Avenue to Council; second by C. Jacobs. A1]_ aye voice vote. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the letter from School Supt. Black regarding the sale of the former Pershing School property. The letter was sent'to inform the Commission of sale. Property already zoned R-1; four lots involved. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its November 19, 1984 regular meeting. OTHER BUSINESS C. Giomi requested that staff contact property owner of property at 1300 Howard Avenue about large, temporary real estate sign. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Nannette M. Giomi Secretary