HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.06.09THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
June 9, 1975
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Francard None City Planner Swan
Jacobs Asst.City Planner Yost
Kindig City Engineer Davidson
Mink Asst. City Engineer
Norberg Rebarchik
Sine
Taylor
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 27, 1975 were approved and adopted.
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 7 AND 8,
BLACK 18, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 1021 AND 1029 EL CAMINO REAL
(APN 026-164-070) ZONED R-3, BY RICHARD EISELT FOR MAX AND JEANNE
EISELT (CONTINUED FROM :-.MAY 12, 1975)
At the request of Chairman Sine, City Engineer Davidson reviewed this
application. He stated that previously the original lot had been 50'
wide. In the 1930's a concrete and steel apartment building had been
erected housing six studio and nine one -bedroom apartments. The
owners had subsequently acquired the adjacent 50' lot and added carports.
They then purchased a third 50' lot, presently vacant, adjacent to
the first two. Coverage for the original two lots is now 45%. It
is proposed to divide the three lots into two - one of 70' frontage
containing the existing apartment house, and one of 79.90' on which a
new apartment house would be built. At the study meeting of April 14
Commissioners had objected to this plan because of excessive lot cover-
age for the original apartment, and Mr. Eiselt had been instructed to
prepare alternative plans.
City Engineer Davidson stated he had just received a letter from Mr.
Eiselt listing alternate plans A,B, and C. Plan A is the proposal
for_ two lots of 70' and 79.901. Plan B is to develop the third 50'
lot as it is, with a maximum of five units. This might not be
economical and could require diagonal parking and cars backing onto
E1 Camino. Plan C is a compromise with the new apartment frontage of
between 60 - 80 feet and with a common driveway between the two lots.
Mr. Eiselt was accorded the privilege 9f the floor and, speaking for
his parents, explained to the Commission that he had not specified a
definite plan because he felt that a compromise could be negotiated
- 2 -
in the matter of frontages.
Chairman Sine requested Staff and Commission comment. City Engineer
Davidson remarked that any change shortening the frontage of the present
apartment would render it non -conforming as to lot coverage. Also
the parking for the existing building is now non -conforming. He stated
there is only a 2" water main on E1 Camino which probably would not support
another apartment. Sewer is adequate but shallow, requiring that building
be at higher grade. He questioned the adequacy of the common driveway.
Chairman Sine requested the City Engineer to develop costs of upgedin
City Planner Swan stated that the ingress -egress easement would erains.
determine where the lot line should be, and this is not shown. He
considered the parcel map could be approved, but without an adequate
recorded easement the new apartment might also be non -conforming..
The 90 degree parking on this lot would leave a 12' wide yard for
backaround where 24' is needed.
Chairman Sine considered that an inadequate amount of information
had been submitted. He suggested this application be continued, and
that. Mr. Eiselt work with staff further. Mr. Eiselt protested time was
of the essence, and guidance was being sought as to what the Planning
commission wished.
Commissioner Mink stated he wanted two legal lots with no exceptions.
Commissioner Taylor objected to Plan C on grounds of insufficient
landscaping. Commissioner Jacobs objected to creating another non-
conforming building. Commissioner Francard suggested that'undergrounding
be thoroughly investigated. It was the consensus of the Commission
that a definite acceptable plan should be forthcoming from Mr. Eiselt.
Chairman Sine announced this application would be continued to July 14
and instructed Mr. Eiselt to work with staff.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1
DISTRICT AT 1017-25 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-240-300/310) BY ALFRED
G. MOLAKIDIS FOR NEUFELD PORSCHE -AUDI INC. (ND -57P) (CONTINUED
FROM MAY 27, 1975)
Attorney Cyrus McMillan appeared on behalf of the applicant. Also
present were Alfred Molakidis, David Neufeld, and Paul Iacono, architect.
Attorney McMillan introduced these principals, and then spoke of the
improvement this development would make over the present site, and its
proximity to other existing commercial uses. He agreed that the
landscaping did not cover the required 10% of the site, but pointed
out this was an impossibility because of the size of the existing
building. However, he stated, the proposed landscaping would cover more
than 10,6 of the present open area, and that only a limited amount of
construction is planned.
City Planner Swan voiced several concerns with the plans. He stated
the Fire Department had checked the building and it must be brought
up to code requirements with extension of the automatic sprinkler system
and the installation of fire doors. Fire Inspector Pearson had stated
that on building plans dated 5/22/75 the doors are not indicated and
that parking is shown on both sides of the exits in the rear.
The City Planner read memo of June 4 from the Park Director on the
subject of landscaping. It stated the landscape plan was inadequate
- 3 -
in several areas, and suggested further consultation. The City Planner
specified that one area in question is next to the Teevan building.
The submitted site plan shows a 50' wide space between the two buildings.
There is a proposed fence next to the Teevan building and then a row
of trees which would take up space. This would not leave the necessary
44' for automobiles and customer parking. He also noted detail plans
scale out at 7' x 18' for parking spaces. Regulations require 9' x
20' and 24' backup space. He commented that the landscaping would occupy
10% of the unimproved property. He suggested Commissioners consider
plans carefully.
Attorney McMillan stated the applicant would cooperate with the Park
Department in putting in the type of landscaping desired. Mr. Iacono
stated original drawings show that space between the showroom and the
Teevan building is 52' which wiil leave ample__space for cars.
(`commissioners questioned de_tai s of-Ian�s�cap ng.__Mr:_ Iacono explained,
cnt
ommeing that a detailed landscaping plan would be presented for
approval. In response to questions on exits, he stated that there are
5 exits out of the front building. There are four auto exits out of
the service areas. He explained method of exiting onto Rollins Road.
There was some discussion.
There was no response to Chairman Sine's request for audience comment.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Mink wanted statement in writing from the applicant that
the space designated as new car storage and future body shop would be
limited to one or both of these services. He commented he would be
satisfied with the landscaping if approved by the Director of Parks,
and if it were no less than that specified on the drawing. Commissioner
Jacobs was concerned about parking in the future if it were insufficient
at the present time. Commissioner Francard disapproved of trees in
15 gallon containers because of insufficient root space and suggested
five gallon containers instead. Commissioner Kindig objected to any
sort of loud calling system outside. Mr. Neufeld stated the outside
system would be eliminated.
Commissioner Mink moved that this special permit be approved -with these
conditions:
1. There be no exterior calling system.
2. Landscaping plans be submitted and approved by the Director of
Parks, and in no case should the landscaping coverage be less than
shown on the drawing.
3. Space marked on plans for new car storage and future body shop be
used for one or both of these purposes. New application to be
submitted for other uses.
4. Any interior or exterior modification to be done substantially
in consistency with drawings submitted. Commissioner Francard
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
3. SIGN PERMIT FOR 223 SF POLE SIGN 35' HIGH, 21 SF POLE SIGN 15'
HIGH, 12 SF GROUND SIGN 6' HIGH AND 15 SF WALL SIGN AT 1017-25
ROLLINS ROAD FOR NEUFE LD PORSCHE -AUDI INS. (CONTINUED FROM
MAY 27, 1975
Attorney McMillan stressed the reduced size of this sign, which is
approximately 1/3 of the existing Coca Cola sign of about 800 SF.
The proposed sign, 35' in height with time and temperature gauge,
is within the sign ordinance. He stressed the need of this agency for
identification. The application is for Sign A, 35' high pole sign
with name of agency; SignA1, , 12' pole sign "Used Cars"; Sign B, 15 SF
wall sign "Service Parts"; ign C, 6' pole sign "Service." Mr.
McMillan stated that only the main sign and the used car sign would be
lighted. He displayed colored renderings of the signs.
City Planner Swan commented that sign exception was required for the
main pole sign, the bottom of which will have only 9' clearance from
the ground instead of the required 101.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and
the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Kindig disapproved of the lighted signs in view of the
nearby residential area. Mr. Neufeld stated they would operate on a
clock and would be turned off after evening business hours. Commissioner
Taylor objected to the expanse of signage provided by the used car
sign being adjacent to the main pole sign. Mr. Neufeld said the small
sign would actually be in front of the other. In reply to a question
from Commissioner Mink, Mr. Neufeld agreed to turn off the lighted
signs at 11:00 P.M.
After some further discussion, Commissioner Taylor moved this sign
program be approved conditional upon the signs not being illuminated
after 11:00 P.M. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried
on unanimous roll call vote.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCKING E STABLI SHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT
189 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (PORTION OF DOTS 7 AND 8, ANZA AIRPORT
PARK, UNIT NO. 2, RSM 65/27,28) BY GLEN HUBBARD OF GLENCO TRUCK
LINES: L. IZMIRIAN, OWNER. (ND -56P) (CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 197 5)
At the request of the Chair, City Planner Swan appraised this
application. Referring to the site plan submitted by Mr. Hubbard to
show parking, the City Planner stated he thought it was dysfunctional.
Rigs are shown parked in a fenced trapezoidal area with a gate at one
end. He also stated Mr. Hubbard was still parking his trailers on
Airport Boulevard which is now illegal.
Mr. Hubbard said he had discussed his parking on Airport Boulevard
with Sgt. O'Brien of the Police Department, who had stated he would
be informed when he had to stop. To date, Mr. Hubbard had heard
nothing. Mr. Hubbard said he would remove the gate and the fence along
the alley side of the parking area. On a question from Commissioner
Jacobs, Mr. Hubbard stated he would use his warehouse for light
maintenance of his rigs.
Commissioner Francard questioned parking in the P.G.E. easement. This
was clarified later in the meeting. Chairman Sine questioned the
private parking stalls shown on both sides of the warehouse building.
Mr. Hubbard stated they were for tenants of the building.
Commissioner Mink questioned Mr. Hubbard if he would be willing to
limit servicing of vehicles to minor servicing and minor maintenance
- 5 -
and agree that it would not include any body work and any major repairs.
Mr. Hubbard agreed.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and
the public hearing was declared closed.
Mr. David Keyston addressed the Commission, stating that when Anza
had recently owned the property, an agreement was reached with P.G.E.
permitting the parking of vehicles under the transmission lines. He
stated he had written verification. City Engineer Davidson questioned
-the property line and if a subdivision map might be necessary. Mr.
Keyston established that Mr. Hubbard was a tenant in a multi -tenant
building and he thought all tenants were on one present parcel.
Commissioner Taylor moved this permit be approved subject to the removal
of the gate and of the fence adjacent to the alley, and with the con-
dition that no major truck repairs or overhaul be conducted on the
premises. City Attorney Coleman read memo of May 19, 1975 from
Building Inspector Joe Heath which reported observation of two rooms
constructed in the warehouse without a permit and not according to
code. The City Attorney suggested a condition that proper building
permits be obtained. Mr. Hubbard remarked that this work had been only
the construction of plywood panels. Commissioner Taylor amended his
motion to include that the building must be brought up to code and that
building permits shall be obtained. Commissioner Mink seconded the
motion and it carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,MINK,TAYLOR,SINE
-L YES C0MMTSSZ0NERS �_JACOBBj-KINDIG NORBERG
Charman' Sine cauoned.:l4r Hubbard ._ that his public image needed
"improvement,--AncT- it -was to be hoped he would keep his rigs off the street.
5. VACATION OF EASEMENT, 10' WIDE, P.U.E. BY 276 FEET LONG, BEING
EASTERLY 5 FEET OF IAT 7, BLOCK 3, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT 5, AND
WESTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT 1, BLACK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT 6,
ZONED C-4.
Commission members reviewed memo of 6/3/75 from the City Attorney
regarding the legal necessity for this vacation of public utilities
easement. The easement will be relocated. The purpose of this move
is to avoid cutting up the property for future development. There was
little Commission discussion. Commissioner Jacobs moved this vacation
of easement be approved. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it
carried on unanimous roll call vote.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 9-75 APPROVING THE SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE
BURLINGAME GENERAL P LAN .
City Planner Swan explained that this resolution is a formal recommen-
dation to Council to approve the seismic safety element. Commissioner
Mink moved approval of Resolution 9-75. Commissioner Jacobs seconded
the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,SINE
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG,TAYLOR (Not present at meeting of
May 27 at which element was
�rrr�e�r� 1
7. DRAFT SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
Assistant City Planner Yost explained that this is the second of four
mandated elements to be completed by September. He stated that
essentially the purpose of this element is to introduce public safety
into the planning processes of the city. He listed the hazards of special
concern as: fires, floods, breakdown of public sdrvices such as water
supply and sewage disposal, and geological hazards such as earth and
mud slides. This element proposes implementation measures to reduce
hazards.
The Assistant City Planner noted that this report does not address
such aspects as civil disturbances, disasters such as plane crashes,
crime prevention aspects of land use development, etc. These aspects
may be reviewed during the coming year.
He briefly listed the summary of findings on safety conditions in
Burlingame, and reviewed ten major recommendations which include
greater structural fire protection for older buildings, requirement that
existing dwellings and other structures have smoke activated fire
alarm devices, measures for large sections of the city which have
combustible roofs, 100 Year Flood Protection Plan, and others. He
noted this element is to be considered within the context of the
County's element which is now being prepared.
Commission discussion followed. Some Commission concerns were: fire
hazards in Mills Canyon area; shake and shingle roofs in the residential
areas; flooding of the Bayfront area.
Chairman Sine set this element for public hearing on June 23, 1975.
8. HEIGHT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
(CONTINUED FROM -:MAY 12, 1975)
City Planner Swan opened discussion of code changes regarding accessory
buildings recommended by City Engineer Davidson by memo of 6/4/75.
The City Engineer's recommendations were:
1. Lower height limit for accessory buildings - possibly to 159.
Plate height of 8' and storage space of less than 7'.
2. No plumbing fixtures to be allowed except hose bibbs. 220V maximum
electrical connection.
3. Swimming pool pump houses to be separated some specified distance
from dwellings because of noise.
The City Engineer also noted a source of citizen complaint is the code
allowance that an accessory building may be built on the lot line in
the rear 30% of the property.
-Chairman; Sine suggested 12' to ridge line instead of the 15'
and pump houses to be 12' from any habitable structure. City Engineer
Davidson stated the reason for allowing 220V was the fact that many
people install power equipment.in their garages. Commissioner Mink
- 7 -
wanted plumbing fixtures such as showers allowed in pool houses for
health and convenience. He also.suggested that acceptable noise levels
be established for mechanical equipment. After further Commission
discussion and in view of staff involvement with the General Plan,
Chairman Sine requested report from staff in 60 - 90 days.
9. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
City Planner Swan reviewed worksheet he had prepared for Commission
study on this subject. This list covered items under the headings of:
A. Location and the surrounding neighborhood
B. Site Plan - orientation, landscaping, etc.
C. Arrangement of units within building
D. Individual living unit floor plans
E. Utilities, building services and facilities, and amenities
He noted there is no specific area that relates to office condominiums
and emphasized several important fadbrs. These are: need for a fire
wall along the property line which is the adjoining wall of the apartment
next door; requirement for control of mechanical equipment installed and
its attendant noise and vibration; mandatory inspection prior to
condominium conversions; requirement of occupancy permit for new
construction.
Commissioners agreed to study the suggested design review criteria
and make recommendations at a later meeting.
10. AVERAGE SETBACK DISTANCE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
The City Planner discussed present code Section 25.62.040(b), "Average'
Setback Distance." He referred to request from the Chief Building
Inspector to delete this section of the code, and commented on the
problems it causes. In the case of new construction near the front
setback line, inspectors must measure all the front setbacks in a block
to reach an average for the new site. Since there is a minimum 15'
setback in the city, the Building Department considers this to be
adequate.
City Planner Swan requested guidance from the Commission in this
matter.
Commission discussion followed, with particular reference to areas of
the city having deep setbacks such as 25', and the effect of new
construction at 151. City Planner Swan remarked the staff has difficulty
with variable setbacks that require field measurements.
City Engineer Davidson confirmed that the problem of averaging comes
up most frequently in remodeling, and inspectors do not go out until
forms are inspected. This can cause problems for the owner who must
move a foundation. The Commission considered that most architects
would attempt to conform with other property in the area, and approved
the deletion of this section of the code. It was Commission suggestion
that staff prepare an amendment to the zoning code, deleting the section
and establishing a general minimum front setback of 151. 'There was a
suggestion that City Attorney Coleman include this in his total review
z of Title 25, and another.suggestion that this amendment be combined
with height and yard requirements for accessory buildings under one EIR.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1
DISTRICT AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY
DON YARBROUGH, BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA FOR KATHLEEN M. DORS, ET AL,
OWNER, and LESSEE, RICHARD GEORGE OF R&R AUTO REPAIR SERVICE
(CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1975)
City Planner Swan reported that staff had negotiated arrangement with
Mr. George to continue this application until July 28 pending removal
of the Covey trucking firm from the warehouse. He also stated that the
Bank of America has agreed to file a tentative subdivision map for this
property, and it should be forthcoming soon.
Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing on July 28, 1975.
12. VARIANCE FROM REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 1220
PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026-094-19) BY DAN AND RITA CROWLEY (CONTINUED
FROM : MAY 12, 1975)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the circumstances of this application.
The applicant plans to build a four unit apartment on his site which
has on it a Distinctive tree, the removal of which the Beautification
Commission has denied. Because of the space which must be allowed for
the tree, Mr. Crowley is asking for a variance from rear yard setback
to allow more room for his construction. The degree of encroachment
would be 3'6" x 35'. In effect 70 SF would be given up for the tree
and the applicant is asking for an encroachment of 123 SF. The tree
dimension of 36" is at a 4' level. At ground level it is 69'x" in
diameter.
Report of May 28, 1975 from Leslie S. Mayne Associates, consultants
in tree care, regarding protection of this tree in construction was
discussed. In this report Mr. Mayne states the building should not be
constructed less than 48" from the tree. The Asst. City Planner noted
that in further consultation with Mr. Mayne he had stated the building
could be 2'' from the tree if the foundations are no deeper than 18".
He stated this report was reviewed with the Park Director, and that he
will receive written confirmation from Mr. Mayne of his latter
statement.
In response to Commission question, the Assistant City Planner stated
amended building plans have not been received, but will be available
by the public hearing. He described conditions by the Park Director
as: 1. Advice of Mr. Mayne regarding"'care of trees be followed
and work be done under his supervision. 2. No trenching deeper
than 18" be done within 15' of the tree. 3. Building permit have
these conditions and be enforced.!, 4. No occupancy be permitted until
Mr. Mayne has certified work on tree has been completed to his
satisfaction.
Commission suggestions were that the lot coverage with the new
construction be checked, and one commissioner suggested the rear yard
remain as it is and have the additional space required as overhang.
This application.was scheduled for public hearing June 23, 1975.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RUMPUS ROOM IN GARAGE AT 21 BANCROFT ROAD
(APN 029-303-090) ZONED R-1, BY KAZIMIERZ AND EMILIA NOWAK.
Assistant City Planner Yost stated this application is to use an existing
small room with attached bathroom which is located in a garage. The
described use is guest quarters during family visits. He explained a
sketch of the unit and commented that the Building Department is con-
cerned that a greater fire separation should be provided between this
room and the remainder of the garage. Extension of sheet rock in this
area is suggested.
At the request of the Chair, the Nowaks' daughter addressed the
Commission. She stated this is not a rental property and is used
mainly for the visits of relatives from Europe. She stated the room
had been in the garage for 10-11 years. It was established there was
no record of a building permit being issued for this unit. The
unit is electrically heated.
Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on June 23, 1975.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CARETAKER QUARTERS IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING
AT 1124 BERNAL AVENUE (APN 026-182-170) ZONED R-1 BY ZINA G.
BA SKETT
Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners Mrs. Baskett had purchased
this property with three structures on it - the main house, the garage,
and a cottage on the rear property line with kitchen and bath. This
cottage had been used as living quarters for her son. He no longer
lives there and she wishes to continue to use it as quarters for her
caretaker who presently inhabits it.
The Assistant City Planner stated he could not determine at what date
this accessory building became a cottage. Assessor's records of 1947
indicate a radio shop there. He distributed a sketch of the site
and explained it.
Mrs. Baskett was given permission to address the Commission. She
stated she had bought the house three years ago on the premise that
someone could live in this cottage. Her dwelling is too small to
share. She cited reasons of her poor health and need for protection
of her property while she is absent.
There followed Commission discussion during which Mrs. Baskett averred
she did not rent the property but wished to let the caretaker live
there in return for services. There was some discussion as to whether
or not this constituted rental. City Attorney Coleman stated he would
research this matter and give the Commission an opinion in writing.
After further discussion this application was set for hearing June 23.
15. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHILD CARE CENTER IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1421
PALM DRIVE BY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME
Assistant -City Planner Yost read excerpt from minutes of Planning
Commission meeting of 7/30/62 which granted a special permit to the
First Baptist Church to use this house as a church school on Sundays.
He told the Commission the church has requested special permit at
this location for a child care center for 20-30 preschool age children.
There would be a staff of four and hours could be from 7:00 A.M. to
6:00 P.M. This could involve some additional traffic in leaving
children and picking them up after the school.
Reverend Wm. Ebling, pastor of this church, was accorded permission
to address the Commission. Reverend Ebling told Commissioners this
application was the first step in an investigation of ways the Church
could help the community. The program may or may not be implemented.
At this point the church is asking guidance.
Commission discussion followed. On a question as to whether State
and local health authorities had been consulted, Dr. Ebling said it
was thought best to do this at the time a final decision was made by
the church about the school. It was noted that the special permit
could be conditioned in this regard.
This application was set for hearing June 23, 1975.
16. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS IN AN R-1 DISTRICT
TO ALLOW SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 3080 RIVERA DRIVE BY CON AND
MARLENE RABOLI.
City Planner Swan distributed sketches of the site which indicate a
small accessory building next to the house and at the rear of the
dwelling only 4'5" from the property line. He stated Mr. Raboli wishes
to build a second story addition over his present two bedrooms and bath.
Since existing building is non -conforming, a variance is required for
the new construction. Since there is no 4' separation from the house,
the accessory building was considered part of the house and there should
be a 5' side yard.
Mr. Raboli stated he had built the small accessory building as a
playroom for his children. It had been built near the property line
three years ago. He had subsequently put in a swimming poor and at
that time had cut off 333' of the playroom which left it in its present
position of 4'5" from the property line,7" short of conformity.
Chairman Sine scheduled the application for hearing June 23, 1975.
17. VARIANCE TO EXCEED IAT COVERAGE AT 1356 DRAKE AVENUE BY ALBERT
RE NNE R
Assistant City Planner Yost told commissioners Mr. Renner wishes to
add a family room and deck to his present dwelling which covers 40%
of his lot. With the addition, lot coverage would be about 50%.
Plans of the addition were distributed.
Mr. Renner explained his plans, noting that one of the reasons for
the large family room was the preservation of a large antique pool
table. This application was set for public hearing.
CITY PLANNER'S REPORT
City Planner Swan reported
Road have been complaining
scrap lumber. He pointed
punitive measures for code
Owner of this property has
that neighbors in the area of 18 Arundel
about an apparent corporation yard of
out that Ordinance 1041 which carries
infractions will soon become effective.
been notified in writing of his violation.
The City Planner commented that the Burlingame Transit System is now
on its second year. New bus schedules and route map were distributed.
He noted meeting of Bikeways Committee scheduled for June 10 and
commented on the agenda. A progress report on the Bike Path and
review of preliminary bikeways plan for San Mateo County were distributed.
The City Planner considered there is a need for citizens' participation
in planning of the bike path, and suggested an ad hoc bike path
committee. He stated interested people should contact the City
Council. He commented on SB 100 and the Collier bill which would
affect bikeways transportation.
The City Planner went on to say the consultant for the Noise Element,
Earth Metrics Inc., has executed a contract with the city and will be
working with staff. The element is tentatively scheduled to be
heard during August. He distributed to Commissioners copies of noise
questionnaire prepared for public use. Methods of distributing this
were discussed.
City Planner Swan reminded Commissioners of the Planners Institute
to be held July 30 through August 1, and asked Commissioners to make
commitment within the next week as to their attendance. Commissioners
Sine and Taylor.indicated they would attend.
Some Commission discussion followed as to whether or not architectural
controls in some areas would be possible.
City Engineer Davidson announced he would be absent at meeting of
June 23 because of vacation.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary