HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.02.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 25, 1985
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, February 25, 1985 at
7:32 P.M.
DnT.T. 0 21 T.T.
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs,
Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F.
Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the February 11, 1985 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF TWO
PARCELS (LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 8, POLO FIELD SUBDIVISION) (42 AND
48 PARK ROAD) FROM SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, BY BAY PARK ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT)
2. REZONE OF TWO PARCELS (LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 8, POLO FIELD
SUBDIVISION) (42 AND 48 PARK ROAD) FROM C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO
R-4 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), BY BAY PARK ASSOCIATES
3. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A 120 UNIT/130 BED SENIOR RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY ON FIVE PARCELS (42 AND 48 PARK ROAD, 41 LORTON AVENUE,
1209 AND 1211 BAYSWATER AVENUE) (NEW ASSIGNED ADDRESS 1221 BAYSWATER
AVENUE), BY BAY PARK ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT) WITH WILLIAM J. AND
ROBERT A. GILMARTIN (PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference 2/25/85 Staff Report; Planning Commission Minutes, 2/11/85;
Notice of Hearing mailed 2/13/85; memo from Planning Dept., 2/11/85;
petition in opposition from residents of 110 Park Road; and plans date
stamped February 19, 1985.
CP Monroe reviewed these items which were continued from the meeting of
February 11, 1985. Applicant and his architect have addressed the
issue of parking and submitted a re -layout of the parking garage;
project now meets all parking requirements of city code. CP reviewed
the six conditions previously suggested by staff and proposed one
additional condition (#7). There was Commission comment on the possi-
bility of designating spaces in the garage for employee parking.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1985
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Speaking in favor, Eva
Holbrook, Foster City: have worked with senior citizens in Burlingame,
most want to live in their homes or apartments until unable to function
in that environment, believe the majority of those who might live at
the proposed facility would not own cars and would not need parking
spaces.
Although not opposed to a senior citizen facility, the following spoke
in opposition expressing concerns about this proposal: Allen Linde, 110
Park Road; Edward Johnston, 110 Park Road; Richard Sofos, 119 Highland
Avenue; Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue; Marion Donahoe, 110 Park Road.
Their comments: parking provided is insufficient; a survey of three
facilities in the area indicated there are waiting lists for resident
parking and no employee parking provided; parking is a problem now,
let's not add to it; will force those presently parking on street into
other areas of the city; developer should provide more parking, could
set a precedent for other developers; if residents do not have a car
they will have friends with cars. Responding to one of the speakers,
staff advised the lot on Lorton will be driveway and ramp, there is no
income requirement for this project.
Drew Bradley, representing the property owners, spoke in rebuttal: the
three facilities cited by one speaker are not comparable to this
project; they are larger, people come in at a younger age (buy -in life
care operation), one is in a rural environment where cars are a
necessity. He also commented that Burlingame's parking requirements
are consistent with those of other cities. There were no further
audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: parking requirements for group residential
facilities for the elderly and for convalescent homes; residents of
110 Park Road appear to have no objection to the use nor the height of
this project, parking seems to be their main concern; staff's survey of
other retirement homes showed parking required was less restrictive
than Burlingame's and it was sufficient; traffic engineer has indicated
people often own cars when they move into such a facility but after six
months or so they sell and rely more on public transportation or walk;
there are no studies which show more parking is needed. Staff advised
complaints had been received about on -street parking problems in the
area of the Burlingame Retirement Inn but investigation showed it to be
generated by sources other than the retirement facility. The Chair
reported that over the last seven years when visiting the Retirement
Inn on service calls he had never seen more than four cars in the
garage at one time. Concern was expressed about locating this facility
in an already impacted area but Commission found it to be a good
proposal which meets a significant community need.
C. Taylor moved to recommend to City Council amendment of the general
plan to change the land use designation to high density residential and
rezoning to R-4 (high density residential) of a portion of the property
at 1221 Bayswater Avenue (Lots 13 and 14, Block 8, Polo Field Subdivi-
sion). Second C. Leahy; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 1985
C. Taylor then moved for approval of the two special permits, to allow
a group residential facility at 1221 Bayswater Avenue and to allow this
project to exceed 35' in height, and for adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following
conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's
memo of November 13, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of November 16,
1984 and the Director of Parks' memo of November 9, 1984 be met; (2)
that eight of the underground parking stalls shall be designated for
visitor parking use and shall be available to visitors at all times;
(3) that the driveway at the entrance of the project (corner of
Bayswater and Park) shall be posted for loading and unloading of
passengers and emergency vehicle use only and no visitors' or
residents' cars shall be parked there for an extended period of time;
(4) that the project shall provide a van seven days a week to take
residents to medical appointments, shopping and to meet their other
transportation needs; (5) that the service entrance driveway on Park
Road shall be removed and replaced with a paved walkway from the
sidewalk to the service entrance and landscaping; (6) that the detached
building shown on the plans as a recreation room shall be used by the
residents for that purpose and shall not be converted to additional
dwelling units or leasable area; and (7) that the project as built be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped November 5, 1984 as amended by the plans for the parking garage
date stamped February 19, 1985. Second C. Garcia; motion approved 7-0
on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. These items will be heard by Council
on March 4, 1985 and have been duly noticed.
Recess 8:15 P.M.; reconvene 8:20 P.M.
PUBLIC FORUM
4. PUBLIC FORUM TO REVIEW CONCERNS WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT
Reference staff report, 2/25/85 with attached Notice of Preparation for
the Environmental Impact Report on the Master Plan for the Wastewater
Management Facilities. CP Monroe discussed the public review process
for the master plan and the environmental document as well as San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board permits and standards.
Commission concerns and requests for additional information: under Land
Use, Population and Housing, page 14, address hotels/restaurants in the
bayfront area, how much land remains to be developed; staff advised
full buildout of the bayfront and residential areas was included in the
projected figures; address financial impact if wholly funded by the
city; how will odor be controlled; page 14, does the acreage figure for
vacant land represent existing or projected acreage buildout; clarify
why this wastewater master plan is required and by whom, is it just
good management/good engineering that the city should do this; cost
effectiveness should be addressed more clearly; Figure 4, will the
equalization basin be screened from view; page 1, B, address items
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
February 25, 1985
1-4 in more detail, would like to know when the city now does and when
it doesn't meet these requirements; page 9, provide breakdown by phase
of the total project cost figure; does this total figure include cost
of lease purchase.
The Chair asked for audience comments and the following spoke. Alan
Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue: request the EIR address secondary and
tertiary treatment of the water system and chemical analysis of the
effluent before it leaves the city. Alex Post, 108 La Loma Lane asked
what was meant about reclaiming park land; staff explained that the
previous system created a number of ponds, this system is no longer
used and all that land will be reclaimed and put into a future park.
In further discussion it was noted repairs to privately owned laterals
has been recommended.
CP advised the next public review meeting would be held when the Draft
EIR is complete.
ITEM FOR STUDY
5. SPECIAL PERMIT - 341 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE
Requests: history of this site, including the nonconforming apartment
unit in the basement; why were 5 covered parking spaces requested in
the 1983 application; what permits/variances were granted in 1983.
Item set for hearing March 11, 1985.
PLANNER REPORT
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 19, 1985 meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- Copy of letter to the City Council from the Board of Directors of the
Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, through the Parking Structure
Committee, February 15, 1985.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M.viomi
Secretary