Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.02.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, February 11, 1985 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL 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 January 28, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO REPLACE A 4 -CAR CARPORT WITH A 7 -CAR CARPORT AT 300 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY GROVER CLEVELAND CP Monroe reviewed this request for an accessory structure which exceeds 500 SF and which is built to side and rear property lines but is not entirely located within the rear 30% of the lot. Reference staff report, 2/11/85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/26/84; applicant's letters, November 26, 1984 and February 3, 1985; drawings date stamped February 4, 1985; staff review: Fire Chief (12/ 12/84; Chief Building Inspector (12/17/84); City Engineer (1/14/85); study meeting minutes, January 28, 1985; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed February 1, 1985; Planning Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits; and plans date stamped December 5, 1984 and February 4, 1985. CP discussed details of the request, code require- ments, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions, historical record and permits issued for the site to date. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: code requirements for fence/wall; drainage requirements will be met on the final plans. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Grover Cleveland, applicant, discussed his application: will provide seven covered parking spaces; installation of fence and electronic gate will increase security; he had discussed the proposal with many of the neighbors and contacted by letter those he could not reach, no objections were received; structure has consisted of eight units since it was built; he now lives in one of the units. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 11, 1985 Paul Sterner, 1561 Ralston Avenue spoke in favor: he lives directly across the street, this building and its grounds have always been well kept, excellent neighbors, proposal will decrease on -street parking and increase safety for these residents. Harriet Knudsen, 315 Occidental Avenue spoke in opposition: she expressed concern about exhaust fumes from cars which affect her property now, with seven cars the problem will be worse; if driveway is changed the headlights of all seven cars will shine into her living room; she hoped the existing driveway would remain and the street tree which offers them some protection not be removed. In rebuttal, appli- cant commented he had spent time in the Knudsen's living room discussing his proposal, he wished to reassure them there would be a 6' wall and cars would exit forward with exhaust fumes going in the opposite direction; he felt lights from cars parking on the street would have more impact on the neighbors. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: carport will'be covered but will have no doors; applicant felt the security gate would function as a door. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances with this structure which has been in existence for a long time and in its placement on the lot, that the carport would improve on -street parking in this area and would be an improvement to the neighborhood, that it would not be detrimental to the public safety and would not adversely affect the general plan of the city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and the variance and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Chief's December 12, 1984 and the Chief Building Inspector's December 17, 1984 memos be met; (2) that all construction conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 5, 1984 and February 4, 1985 except that any fence or wall in the required 15' front setback shall be limited to a maximum height of 51; and (3) that in no way does this action address the expansion of the footprint or floor area of the primary (residential) structure at 300 Occidental Avenue. Second C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: find this a classic example of a nonconforming use in the R-1 zone, it does create some conflict but the proposal will get cars off the street, there will be no major change; the request seems warranted. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 15 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 141 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY TIM BROSNAN FOR TRICO-PACIFIC CP Monroe discussed this application. Reference staff report, 2/11/ 85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/12/84; Negative Declaration ND -374P posted January 7, 1985; staff review: Fire Chief (12/14/84), Chief Building Inspector (12/18/84), City Engineer (1/23/ 85), Director of Parks (12/18/84); study meeting minutes, 1/28/85; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 11, 1985 aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed February 1, 1985; Planning Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits; Chief Building Inspector's memo received after preparation of staff report, 2/5/85; and plans date stamped January 15, 1985 and February 4, 1985. CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions addressed in the staff report. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: the proposed project meets all requirements for residential condominiums as well as zoning code requirements; staff will require mechanical ventilation of the garage area be shown on the final plans. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Tim Brosnan, applicant and his architect, N. N. Gabbay were present. Mrs. Cignetti, owner of the property next door at 1509 Howard Avenue, expressed concern about fencing between the two properties, ventilation of the garage and privacy. Applicant's architect commented there would be a 6' solid fence and mechanical vent to the roof of the garage; staff advised the structure would be three stories and 8-12 feet from the side property line. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of this condominium permit and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 4-85 with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Chief's memo of December 14, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of January 23, 1985 and the Director of Parks' memo of December 18, 1984 be met; (2) that the five parking spaces at grade along the southeastern property line be designated for guest parking and not assigned to specific residential units and that at least one parking space in the underground garage be assigned to each residential unit; (3) that the automatic garage gate be placed as shown in the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 4, 1985; and (4) that the project as built be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 15, 1985 with revisions date stamped February 4, 1985. Second C. Garcia; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 15 UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 141 EL CAMINO REAL (LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 5, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2), BY HUGH ANTON FOR TIM BROSNAN Reference City Engineer's memo of January 23, 1985. CE advised these maps are ready to be sent to Council for approval. C. Jacobs moved that the above referenced maps be recommended to City Council for approval. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 4. 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 DENSI'T'Y RESIDENTIAL, BY BAY PARK ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 11, 1985 5. 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 6. 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) CP Monroe advised that due to an error on the Assessor's Parcel Map which resulted in only part of the owners of condominiums at 110 Park Road being noticed of this hearing, tonight's public hearing will be continued so that all property owners may be properly noticed and given an opportunity to be heard by the Planning Commission. CP reviewed this proposal for a senior citizen group residential facility at 1221 Bayswater Avenue (two of the five parcels included in the site require general plan amendment and rezoning). Reference staff report, 2/11/85; Table, Comparison of Existing Similar Projects, 1/22/ 85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment for general plan amendment and rezone (received 9/25/84) and for the two special permits (received 9/25/84); Negative Declaration ND -370P posted November 13, 1984; study meeting minutes, 11/26/84; Commission minutes, 12/10/84; City Council minutes, 1/7/85; letter, Robert A. Gilmartin, September 18, 1984; staff review: Fire Chief (11/6/84 and 9/28/84), Chief Building Inspector (11/13/84), City Engineer (11/16/84); Director of Parks (11/9/84); Gilmartin letter, February 1, 1985; Ivelich/Leong (architects) letter, January 25, 1985; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing published 1/29/ 85; Planning Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits; plans date stamped November 5 and November 16, 1985. CP discussed details of the project, general plan amendment and rezoning actions needed, staff review, environmental action, Commission concerns expressed at study. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: number of units with potential for two beds; ratio of employees to residents; will van be parked in the basement; applicant's letter explaining there would be a total of 19 employees, 10 on one shift; staff's table comparing this proposal with similar projects; should a parking variance be required. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. William Gilmartin, property owner, introduced George Ivelich, architect. Mr. Ivelich commented on the desire to develop this project consistent with the character of the city and, using slides, commented on the proposal: site is in a mixed neighborhood which appears to be in transition; ground floor contains most of the public areas with a few residential units, there is a landscaped courtyard with separate but connected recreational building, porch entrance is at the corner of the two streets, there is an under- ground garage. Landscaping is planned all around the site, bordering the streets. He described the upper floors containing the residential units, each with a lounge area and small kitchen. Levels 5 and 6 are Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 stepped back, units at the corners have been eliminated; there is an outdoor deck on the 6th level and small lounge; unit size ranges from 300 SF to 475 SF, units do not have kitchen facilities, most have patios -or outdoor deck space. Elevations and sections of the building were shown, particularly to illustrate the effect of dropping key corners on two floors. Red tile roof and soft stucco exterior are proposed. The following spoke in favor. Thelma Castle, 1021 Capuchino Avenue: there is a real need for senior citizen housing in Burlingame, would suggest investigation of the possibility of a small bedroom unit, would like units which include a small kitchen for brewing tea/heating soup. Thomas Sine, 304 Bayswater Avenue: support the concept of a deluxe boarding house, units have no kitchens but project includes small kitchen facilities on each floor; Burlingame needs this project, there is only one other in the city and the waiting list is long; speaking as a construction man, the design is more than adequate; parking is adequate, not all tenants will own cars; their general contractor is a reputable builder and will give the city an excellent project. Robert Leon, 1036 Laguna Avenue: difficult to relate housing for senior citizens to parking considerations; Burlingame is a pleasant town to live in and its senior citizens help make it so, they deserve more consideration; it is more important that they have a good place to live than to worry about parking spaces. The following spoke in opposition. Richard Sofos, 119 Highland Avenue: proposed six stories would block views to the west, particularly trees on E1 Camino Real and the hills; would be too visible in the downtown, think development should be limited to 35' in height in this area; concerned about increased parking congestion, there is considerable commercial on -street parking at present, delivery trucks line up, the nearby school adds to the problem. Albert Kapkin, 110 Park Road presented a petition in opposition from residents of 110 Park Road. His comments: driving hazard would be increased at Park and Peninsula, visitors and/or residents new to the area would be confused by the traffic signal; with the church in that area parking and traffic are already a problem; this highrise would be precedent setting, nearby property owners will also want to build highrises. George Turner, 110 Park Road: it will be a deluxe boarding house, rooms twice the size of Burlingame's Retirement Inn; am not aware of the number of parking spaces provided but with a minimum age of 60 many residents will own cars, suggest there would be a need for 50-60 parking spaces; the others will have visitors, where will they park; there is a difficult parking situation in that area now, very full from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; with shifts of service employees there will be a parking need for both shifts for a short period of time. There were no further audience comments. Chm. Graham continued the public hearing to Commission's meeting of February 25, 1985. Recess 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:10 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 11, 1985 7A. AMENDMENT OF 8/26/68 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AMFAC HOTEL, 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-440) TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND TO ALLOW ALAMO RENT -A -CAR, 778 BURLWAY ROAD TO USE A PORTION OF THE SITE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA; ZONED C-4; BY AMFAC HOTELS AND RESORTS WITH PREFERRED PROPERTIES FUND 82 (PROPERTY OWNER) 7B. AMENDMENT OF 7/5/83 SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ALAMO RENT -A -CAR, 778 BURLWAY ROAD (APN 026-113-040/130/160/400) TO ALLOW AMFAC HOTEL, 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY TO OCCUPY A PORTION OF A WAREHOUSE FOR SERVICE AND ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS; ZONED C-4; BY ALAMO RENT - A -CAR WITH DKBERT ASSOCIATES (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this interdependent request for special permit amendments to allow the engineering services division of Amfac Hotel to continue to use a portion of an existing warehouse on the Alamo Rent- A-Car site and to amend the Amfac special permit to show a change in on-site required parking and allow Alamo to use a portion of Amfac's site for additional parking area. Reference staff report, 2/11/85; Project Application & CEQA Assessment, Alamo Rent-A-Car, received 9/7/ 84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment, Amfac Hotel, received 1/15/ 85; Salisbury (Blunk Associates) letter to Monroe, 9/7/84; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (1/28/85), Fire Marshal (1/28/85); staff report, 10/22/84; staff review: City Engineer (9/17/84), Chief Building Inspector (9/17/84), Fire Marshal (9/18/84); Monroe letter of action to National Car Rental System, 7/19/84; Planning Commission minutes, 7/23/84; Commission minutes, 7/9/84; Commission minutes, 6/13/83; Commission study meeting minutes, 10/9/84; Commission minutes, 3/11/68, 1/27/69, 3/25/68, 8/12/68, 8/26/68, 1/13/69 with notations by George A. Mann, City Planner at that time; Commission minutes, 10/22/84, 11/13/84; Gerald Wright (Charles King & Associates) letter to Monroe, 10/24/84; aerial photograph; hearing notices mailed 10/12/84 and 2/1/85; City Engineer memos, 2/4/85; Planning Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits; and plans date stamped 1/15/85, 1/21/85 and 2/11/85. CP discussed details of the requested amendments, history of the application, staff review, letter from Alamo's representative. She also noted letter received 2/8/85 from The Koll Company (property owner, One Bay Plaza) regarding a pending agreement with Amfac for Amfac to use the One Bay Plaza parking lot after office hours for overflow parking. Two sets of conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: present provisions for public access along the bay at these sites; need clarification of Amfac's engineering services division, possibility of an alternative arrangement to locate this division on Amfac's site; Fire Department's requirement for one hour wall separating the propane tank from the parking area. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants were present. Sue Diamond, attorney representing Amfac, discussed Amfac's desire to continue to lease space in the warehouse in exchange for giving Alamo a portion of its parking lot to use for dead storage. She discussed parking spaces now provided and the pending arrangement with The Koll Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 11, 1985 Company to lease 458 spaces as overflow parking; Amfac believes 329 spaces are generally sufficient but certain events require overflow parking. Amfac accepts all staff's conditions but does not see the need for valet parking for off-site spaces, with a ramp and gate installed drivers could park their own cars. Regarding landscaping, she commented that in 1982 Amfac won a landscaping award. The alternative of an additional warehouse on the Amfac site itself -was considered but found to be extremely expensive and would result in elimination of parking spaces. If the engineering services division were located on the ground floor of the hotel it would require converting 25 rooms and the city would lose room revenues. The general manager of Amfac Hotel advised the engineering services division located in the warehouse consists of housekeeping/engineering personnel/services, storage and two small office areas; the pending agreement with The Koll Company is for five years with a five year option to renew; operational details for this parking have not yet been worked out but use of a gate and directional signage should suffice. Beverly Howe, billing manager at One Bay Plaza, also spoke in favor. She advised there is a lease pending exactly in the terms stated this evening; if the special permit amendment is not granted the offer would still be open. Staff advised they were not aware of any formal agreements for other hotels in the city using adjacent sites for parking. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Schwalm found it was obvious Amfac needs this amendment and that the city is in no position to obtain a 25' strip along the bay at this time. C. Schwalm moved to grant the amendment to Amfac's 8/26/68 special permit and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 28, 1985 memo and the Fire Marshal's January 28, 1985 memo be met; (2) that Amfac provide 340 off-street parking spaces on site for 329 rooms and that if the room count should increase the additional parking spaces to current city code at the time of the addition should be added; (3) that if Amfac arranges for supplemental parking on any adjacent sites it shall not be counted as required parking for increasing the number of hotel rooms; (4) that the pending agreement for overflow parking with The Koll Company, One Bay Plaza be consummated and be made a part of this permit; (5) that the use of the warehouse by Amfac is coterminous with the use of the parking area by Alamo and when one is discontinued so shall the other be and the use permit amendment terminated; and (6) that this action shall be deemed an amendment to the Planning Commission's actions of March 11, 1968 through January 27, 1969 which constitute the original use permit for this site. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Taylor moved to grant the amendment to Alamo's 7/5/83 special permit and for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 Chief Building Inspector's January 28, 1985 memo and the Fire Marshal's January 28, 1985 memo be met; (2) that the Amfac use of the Alamo site shall be limited to 9,500 SF in the warehouse at the south end of the site and that Alamo use shall be limited to 11,180 SF of Amfac's parking lot immediately adjacent to the property line of 778 Burlway Road; and (3) that the use of the warehouse by Amfac is coterminous with the use of the parking area by Alamo and when one is discontinued so shall the other be and the use permit amendment terminated. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION REVIEW OF REGULATION OF RESTAURANTS IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA AND IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (INCLUDING LOTS FRONTING ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE BETWEEN BROADWAY AND CARMELITA) CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference 1/22/85 staff report; Commission minutes, 1/28/85; Commission staff report, 1/18/85 with attachments; Notice of Hearing published in the SAN MATEO TIMES 2/5/ 85; copy of staff's updated bar/restaurant survey; letter received after preparation of staff report from Lori Rutter, operator of The Keeping Room, 1320 Broadway. CP discussed the fundamental issue, should restaurants be regulated and, if so, items which need to be addressed: definition of restaurant, areas to be included, alternative means of regulation. She stressed the importance of consistency and uniformity in implementation. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The following audience members spoke. Cyrus J. McMillan, Burlingame attorney: felt no prohibition was the best solution, restaurants are legitimate businesses, he urged at least 10 seats be made a part of the definition of restaurant and recommended implementation by a use permit procedure. Bob Leon, 1036 Laguna Avenue: was in favor of the quota system, there are sufficient restaurants in the city, if any number of restaurants are allowed there will be a bigger parking problem. Julie Long: spoke in favor of no change, there are more than enough city regulations at present, too much bureaucracy which stifles growth and free competition, think it defeats the purpose of zoning. David Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez Avenue, spoke for the Broadway Merchants Association: support a prohibition on any new eating establishments with the following exceptions: that existing restaurants can freely change hands, that current restaurants be able to expand and that restaurants in the planning process or applying for permits not be subjected to this regulation; if prohibition is decided upon, he suggested restaurant be defined as "any establishment which offers or is an outlet for prepared meals, with or without seats", that the areas regulated be Sub -Areas A and B in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the Broadway commercial area including California Drive from Broadway to Carmelita (these areas are the areas of parking impact) and that with prohibition the easiest tool for implementation would be through the business license and what a business calls itself. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 Further audience comments follow. Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road: own property on Broadway; in favor of a restaurant moratorium; feel prohibition would be the best option tempered by allowing existing restaurants to change hands and expand and those in process not fall under the moratorium; prohibition would be the least complicated to administer and addresses the parking problem as well as retaining a retail mix in the commercial zones. Pete Campanelli, owner of the Tower Deli on Broadway: in favor of the moratorium; there is too much competition, need customers but won't get them if there is no parking for them on Broadway; restaurant patrons take parking spaces for longer periods of time. Lori Rutter, partner, The Keeping Room, 1320 Broadway: beginning in 1978 operated for three years as a restaurant, then changed to catering business, interior design of the site has not changed, kitchen and seating are still there; now wish to sell the business and have had offers but with the moratorium buyer cannot operate as a restaurant; if the city wants to extend the moratorium, request amendment be made to allow The Keeping Room sale to go through; would like to point out the updated restaurant survey shows number of restaurants on Broadway has not changed in over three years, yet parking and traffic problems are cited as the primary cause for the moratorium, the parking/traffic problem has increased but if the number of restaurants hasn't changed it is not caused by restaurants; welcome competition, demand for restaurants is there, there are many offices and visitors from the hotels; when the demand is not there the number of restaurants will decrease; suggest definition state "any business which prepares food on site and prepares a broad range of food"; would also request the city consider the difference between catering and a restaurant so that a business such as The Keeping Room could change hands and be allowed to be sold in the future. Mark Movoney, employee of a Broadway restaurant: there are parking problems and an imbalance of food and retail businesses; support the moratorium. Robert T. Quick: opposed to the moratorium, what type of business will be regulated next; the law of supply and demand will regulate. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed at length; comments follow. Have been concerned about the proliferation of restaurants in downtown Burlingame for several years, think we have reached the saturation point; this isn't the first time the city has had to regulate, witness banks and savings and loans; should be a variety of businesses offered to citizens, it's what has kept the downtown areas alive; a "restaurant row" will force people to shop elsewhere; support regulation and feel quota system might be best; special permit procedure could be highly subjective. There is a need for change, support quota system, special permit process too cumbersome. Support free enterprise, note the increase in photo finishing stores at one time has diminished, but this does not appear to be happening with Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 restaurants; quota system would be the easiest to implement and the most fair. Have had no comment from the Chamber of Commerce, merchants have not commented on dead window space in the retail areas caused by restaurants; only restaurant owners have said there are too many restaurants; all restaurants seem to survive, many people who spoke this evening have been in business a long time and we still have parking problems; concern seems to be about increase in competition but this hasn't put any existing restaurants out of business; quota system seems the best procedure but am reluctant to impose an arbitrary number for allowed restaurants on the rest of the community. Have no objection to restaurants, prefer competition; should be prohibited in Sub -Area A and on Broadway because of parking problems, move restaurants out from the main shopping areas; could support quota system but am more in favor of prohibition. Definition of restaurant should include "serving food as a meal, on-site or take-out"; restaurants are dead space for shoppers on a retail street; restaurant rents are higher and then affect rents for other retail establishments; would like to see Burlingame Avenue remain a retail street. Support competition and a free market, government regulation only leads to more regulation, don't think regulation will solve the parking problem, business is good right now even for restaurants; need a parking survey by an independent consultant to determine what the problem really is. Need to protect some retail, could become a city of restaurants and hotels with no retail shopping, support quota system but need a definition, if a customer takes out food he does not park for long, definition should be at least 10 seats and not include ice cream stores, bakeries, etc. Following these comments Commission discussed implementation by the quota system, definition of restaurant and areas that should be regulated. C. Jacobs moved to recommend to the City Council the following: (1) the definition of restaurant to be any place which serves food with seating or standing eating counters for 10 or more people; (2) the areas in which restaurants should be regulated are Sub -Area A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the Broadway commercial area; (3) the method of regulation used should be the quota system. The quota should be based on the existing number of restaurants as defined above plus 20%. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Schwalm and Taylor dissenting. Staff will forward the recommendation to Council. 9. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 9 UNIT PROJECT AT 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE, BY EDWARD DOMINION FOR SARTI & SARTI, INC. (PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 2/11/85 with attached letter from Edward Dominion, January 24, 1985. C. Giomi moved to grant a one year extension of this condominium permit to March 6, 1986. Second C. Garcia; all aye voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 11, 1985 10. CONSIDERATION OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 41 PARCELS LOCATED BETWEEN 301-599 ROLLINS ROAD AND 434 AND 440 DWIGHT ROAD, AREA NOW ZONED R-3 CP Monroe reviewed this item which was a referral from Council to the Planning Commission. She discussed Council's concerns when hearing the issue of rezoning from R-3 to R-2, concern about height limit -of the R-3 zone compared to the adjacent R-1 zone and Council's feeling that setbacks, parking requirements and density of development should be addressed. CP discussed the alternative approaches of creating an overlay zone or modifying the R -3A district regulations to achieve new objectives. Staff recommended Commission consider an overlay zone. The Chair commented he had attended the Council meeting and his notes indicated Council would suggest a new R -2A overlay zone, 30' height limit, four dwelling units per lot, a 50' lot, one curb cut in the front with the balance in landscaping, 20' front setback, 20' rear setback, 7.5' side setback. This would not infringe on Lexington Way or restrict property owners in the subject area. Chm. Graham then opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor of modifying the regulations: Bud Harrison, 376 Lexington Way; Jean High, 306 Lexington Way; Pete Popin, 300 Lexington Way; Glen Roberts, 348 Lexington Way; Kevin High, 306 Lexington Way; Robert Quick, 312 Lexington Way; Alex Thomas, 373 Lexington Way; Helen Cordell, 324 Lexington Way and Virginia Kelly, 308 Channing Road. Their comments: appears this Council position is one of compromise; support 30' height limit, 2,000 SF per unit, 20' rear setback; concern about the passageway to Rollins at the end of Channing and safety of children playing there; if subject area is allowed greater density people will park on Lexington and walk through, Lexington should not be a parking lot for additional units; suggest closing the accessway; support an R -2A zone, would point out the Morrell Avenue highrise is a good example of a multiple family dwelling not being too successful; don't overbuild Burlingame; there are no trees on Rollins to mitigate impact of a 35' structure; support R-2 zoning, parking is a problem on Rollins Road now; one story construction would be acceptable, buildings of two stories would overlook backyards on Lexington; want to keep the area residential, keep 30' height limit and issue no special permits to exceed this height; concern was expressed about the poor condition of the subject area presently. The following spoke in opposition: Max Cologna, owner of property on Rollins Road; Alex Hanson, 1516 Highway Road; Orin Fields, 1901 Davis Drive. Their comments: Rollins Road property owners purchased their property for future development, 35' height limit would be more advantageous for them and would not impact Lexington Avenue; area does need improvement, should stay R-3; residents on Lexington bought their property in spite of the zoning on Rollins, people on Rollins bought because of the zoning; own five lots on Rollins and bought them for development. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Page 12 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 Commission discussed appropriate density, Council's desire that development in this part of Rollins Road be compatible with the single family rersidential area directly behind it, desire to give property owners of this R-3 area the benefit of development but not with detriment to the rest of the area, criteria for an overlay zone. C. Taylor moved that Commission recommend to City Council the establishment of an R-3 overlay zone, development to meet the following criteria: 30' height limit, rear setback of 151, side setback equal to R-1 zone requirements, 50% soft landscaping of the front setback, 2,000 SF per dwelling unit. Staff pointed out R-3 zoning parking requirements would apply. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Staff will forward to City Council. Recess 12:15 A.M.; reconvene 12:22 A.M. ITEM FOR STUDY 11. FUTURE USE OF 325 CHAPIN LANE EXPRESSED BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Reference staff report, 2/11/85; Council minutes, 1/7/85; staff memos, letters from adjacent property owners and Council staff report, 1/7/85. CP discussed this property recently left to Stanford University, neighbors' concerns about its being subdivided into four lots and their request that the zoning be changed. CE has studied the site and concluded the lot is currently legally divided into four lots, no further mapping action would be required to use the site as four buildable lots. Audience comments were requested and the following spoke: Arthur Collom, 310 Chapin Lane; Elizabeth Gunther, 333 Chapin Lane and Lester Gunther, 333 Chapin Lane. Concerns: preserving this attractive house built in 1906 and retaining the aesthetics of the block; would hope there might be a way for the city to prohibit demolition; less concerned about the two lots facing Pepper, now undeveloped, which would be suitable for two homes; would hope this matter could be resolved before someone buys the lot and constructs four homes; everyone on the block shares these concerns. Commission discussion: this is a beautiful house, wish there were a legal way to preserve it; staff pointed out there seemed to be nothing that could be done outside of a change in minimum lot size which would make some existing lots nonconforming. C. Schwalm moved to recommend to City Council that if anything can be done legally to preserve the house at 325 Chapin Lane it be done. Second C. Leahy. Following further discussion about a change in minimum lot size C. Schwalm withdrew his motion, C. Leahy withdrew his second. Page 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 C. Jacobs moved to recommend to City Council they consider a change in minimum lot size in this area to 9,000 SF. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Taylor and Graham dissenting. Staff will forward to Council. PLANNER REPORT CP briefly reviewed Council actions at its February 4, 1985 meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - City Manager memo regarding Commissioner attendance. - League of California Cities Announcement - Planning Commissioners Institute, Santa Clara, February 28 - March 2, 1985. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:55 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary