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