HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.12.13THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
December 13, 1976
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None City Planner Swan
Francard Asst. City Planner Yost
Jacobs City Attorney Coleman
Kindig City Engineer Kirkup
Mink Fire Chief Fricke
Sine Chief Fire Insp. Pearson
Taylor Chief Building Insp. Calwell
Fire Insp. Newell
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Taylor at 7:37 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
C. Francard requested, on page 7 under Item 7, that the minutes show the applicant agreed
to put a pipe railing on the fence. C. Jacobs referred to page 6, under Item 6; she
wished the minutes to indicate that she had stated several times the fence should be
eight feet in height. The minutes of November 22, 1976 were then approved as mailed
and amended.
MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 33, EASTON ADDITION
NO. 2 (PORTION OF APN 026-185-080), AT (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) 1012/1016 BERNAL AVENUE,
ZONED R-1, BY GLEN D. HAGEY FOR TED FARLEY (CONTINUED FROM 11-22-76)
Chm. Taylor, after consultation with C. A. Coleman, announced that notices of public
hearing had not been sent on this item since the public hearing had been closed at the
November 22 meeting; consideration at this meeting was merely a continuation of
Commission deliberation. C. Jacobs suggested Mr. Farley consider the alternative of
two 75 foot lots when subdividing Lots 6 and 7, thus giving a 25 foot backyard to the
lot on which his present dwelling is located. C. P. Swan noted additional information
contained in the staff report sent Commission which showed lot sizes, lot areas, lots
actually served from Bernal and the location of the existing house on Lot 7. The staff
report had stated the Farley house at 1915 Carmelita Avenue had a 7-1/2 foot setback
from Carmelita with a 5 foot sideyard behind the house on Lot 7; and there is a 6 foot
fence around a 50 foot wide portion of Lot 6. The front of the garage is about 12 feet
back of the property line and, upon staff inspection, it was observed that two vehicles
parked up to the closed door of the garage were 5 feet over public property. Staff had
recommended a double garage with a driveway off Bernal.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
December 13, 1976
The C. P. also told Commission there was private storage on public property, and
referred to photographs distributed this evening. C. A. Coleman advised that a letter
received late the afternoon of December 13 from one of the neighbors could not be
accepted because the public hearing had been closed at the November 22 meeting.
C. Jacobs noted the lot next door of approximately 11,000 SF and the lot across the
street of approximately 16,000 SF., and pointed out that the original lot lines for
Lot 6 enclosed a lot of approximately 12,000 SF so that all three lots seemed to be
in conformity. She stated her feeling that anyone should have the right to use his
own property as he wished, but not the right to affect nearby property owners. She
expressed her concern that the applicant was proposing very small lots in comparison
to his neighbors' lots. Replying to a question from C. Francard, C. A. Coleman advised
that the property owner owns to the edge of the right-of-way; the City owns the right-
of-way and can require it be developed by the property owner. C. E. Kirkup stated the
original condition recommended to Commission was that street improvements be put in
by the developer or subdivider, and it was planned that the property owner would pay
for improvements out to the center line of the street. Engineering had proposed that
the applicant extend curb, gutter and sidewalk along Lot 6 and place street improvements
out to the center line of the street. He added that staff had not intended to improve
the entire street frontage, but to require improvements that would tie in with existing
improvements, and would not interfere with.access to the other three lots. C. Francard
commented upon the 158 foot frontage across the street at 1001 Bernal and suggested
the future possibility of someone wanting to divide that property and build over the
creek. It was his feeling all improvements should be done at one time.
C. Mink reviewed his thinking regarding this particular proposal. (1) The lots as
subdivided should be somewhat compatible with the neighboring lots and, therefore, he
would ask for reconsideration by the applicant. (2) In rereading sections of the
General Plan regarding open space, the few remaining creeks in the City of Burlingame
had been discussed with interest in maintaining that kind of open space for the City;
this proposal would lose one more piece of open space. The Commissioner stated that
he would reject this map as an appropriate map for the two preceding reasons. Chm.
Taylor also had concern for preserving open space and particularly the few remaining
creeks in the City. C. Mink added his feeling was that the lot as proposed was not
buildable.
C. A. Coleman told Commission there was not a one year limit on a parcel map and
Mr. Farley could come in again at any time if his present proposal were rejected.
C. Sine remarked that batten boards are up in the creek and was told by Mr. Farley
he had put them up so Commission could see where the piers would be located in
construction of the house. C. E. Kirkup commented that Building Code requires a plot
plan showing the dimensions of the lot, and until these are known the building permit
will not be issued; however, if Mr. Farley were to withdraw this tentative parcel map
application, he could get a building permit to build on the 12,000 SF lot. According
to code and the advice of the C.A., the applicant could build a two-story single family
dwelling at the same location over the creek as presently proposed. The C.E. told
C. Jacobs proper side, front and rear setbacks would be checked before a building permit
were issued.
C. Jacobs moved denial of this tentative parcel map; second C. Mink. C. Kindig stated
he would abstain from voting since he was not present at the hearing. At the suggestion
of C. A. Coleman, C. Mink stated findings for the motion: that the useable lot size as
proposed by this map is not compatible with the useable lot size in the neighborhood,
since it is somewhat under 6,000 SF of useable space; and the concept of building over
the creek is not in general agreement with the General Plan Open Space objectives of
the City of Burlingame. Motion to deny was approved by the following roll call vote:
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1976
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG
2. APPEAL UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 18.08.050 FROM UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEC. 502
(1973 EDITION) PROHIBITING A CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL USE AT
1305 BAYSWATER AVENUE (APN 029-22.3-080), ZONED C-1, BY ADOLPH C. HARRISON, SR.
Chm. Taylor announced this item and determined Fire and Building Department representa-
tives were present. C. A. Coleman told Commission the City Code in Fire Zone I, which
includes C-1 areas, prohibits the use of wood frame buildings for commercial use. The
Code also states that no change of use shall be made in the character of occupancy or
use of any building which would place the building in a different Group of occupancy,
unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of the Code for that Group.
An exception is stated that the character of the occupancy may be changed, subject to
the approval of the Building Official, provided the new or proposed use is less
hazardous. The position of the City has been that the use of wood frame dwellings in
the C-1 Zone for commercial use is more hazardous than for residential use. Mr. Harrison
has appealed this decision.
Chm. Taylor asked the Fire Department for comments and C.F.I. Pearson addressed
Commission. He reviewed the history of this matter. Conversion of wood frame buildings
to commercial use in Fire Zone I has not been allowed since the City Council denied a
similar request in 1964. Following that Council decision Chief Moorby had said that
all C-1 and C-2 Districts had been placed in Fire Zone I or II in order to provide a
high standard of construction as a means of preventing a conflagration in the high value
area that could destroy the business district. C.F.I. Pearson referenced a map which
he had prepared, noting there are 38 non -conforming buildings in the Fire Zone. Some
have been converted to business uses and some are still residences. He said the Fire
Department was not trying to condemn any buildings, but attempting to prevent residences
being converted to commercial use. It was the Fire Department's belief that if this
appeal were sustained it would present a difficult problem, as relaxation of present
policy would _result in other owners of wood frame dwellings - requesting similar
conversions. Additionally, in order to change a dwelling to business use the change
would be from a Group I Occupancy to a Group F Occupancy. This latter classification
includes wholesale and retail stores, office buildings, drinking and dining establish-
ments and other similar uses; therefore, the Fire Department would not be able to
restrict the use to office uses under present code.
Insp. Pearson stated that "fire risk" is an insurance term synonymous with "fire loss";
if a building is lost by fire the City loses the business, the jobs and the customers.
Replying to Chm. Taylor, the Insp. said that the Building Code indicates business use
is more hazardous than residential use. The Code is less strict with regard to
residences, perhaps because of the need for residences which has resulted in there
being so many of them. He noted that the element of life hazard in a dwelling has
been recognized in the new Uniform Building Code which has some residential requirements
such as smoke detectors in hallways leading to bedrooms.
The appellant, Adolph C. Harrison, Sr., addressed Commission_ at the request of Chm.
Taylor. He stated he disagreed with the Fire Insp. and was therefore appealing the
decision of the Fire Department. He referenced pictures of the 1300 block of Bayswater
Avenue. There are six buildings, all of frame construction, one story in height.
Except for his residence, all are now used commercially. The corner building, which
at one time was a dwelling, was removed after the P.C. gave permission to construct
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1976
an office building. Mr. Harrison noted Sec. 502 of the Uniform Building Code which
specifies that no change shall be made in the character of occupancy or use of any
building which would place the building in a different Group of occupancy unless the
building is made to comply with the requirements of that group. He discussed occupancies
which are divided into groups according to the life and fire hazard inherent in each.
Nighttime occupancies such as hotels and apartment houses are placed in a separate
group from daytime occupancies. It is the opinion of the International Conference of
Building Officials that in nighttime occupancy a fire can be started a long time before
it is discovered, which is not so in daytime occupancy. A further opinion of Code
Interpretations by the Building Officials noted Sec. 502 and Sec. 1602(b) of the Uniform
Building Code would not prohibit the change of occupancy provided the proposed use is
less hazardous than the existing use. This opinion stated each change of occupancy
must be judged on its own merits. The appellant referred to Insp. Pearson's memo to
the C.P. dated December 2, 1976, with Exhibits, which stated the Fire Departmen.t's
belief that all Fire Zone I buildings should conform to a strict interpretation of the
U.B.C. He remarked that these decisions were made by Council 10 to 12 years ago, and
over the years changes take place as do opinions.
Mr. Harrison told Commission if his appeal were granted he would be agreeable to having
it take much the same form as a variance, with stipulations as to approved uses. In
further discussion Chm. Taylor referred to the Building Officials' opinion that each
use must be judged on its own merits. He suggested to the appellant that testimony
related to other wood frame buildings in Burlingame was not relevant to this appeal.
Mr. Harrison, in summing up, asked for the same treatment the other people in his block
had received, and stated he did not believe a conflagration on Bayswater would ever
destroy Burlingame's entire business district.
Considerable Commission discussion followed. C. Jacobs determined from C. P. Swan that
the uses in the other buildings in the 1300 block of Bayswater either were permitted
by variance or were in existence prior to zoning code establishment. It was noted
by Insp. Pearson that the area under discussion was half C-1 in Fire Zone I and half
R-3 in Fire Zone III.
C. Mink noted Mr. Harrison's long history, experience and training in the area of fire
safety and said he was personally prepared to accept the appellant as an expert in this
field; some of the appellant's statements regarding land use the Commissioner was not
prepared to accept. He suggested Mr. Harrison's October 27, 1976 letter be accepted
as part of the exhibits in this appeal. In reviewing the exhibits of the Fire Department,
C. Mink found that Exhibit A, actually a memo of the City Council minutes of July 20,
1964, was not particularly relevant to this topic; Exhibits B and C, memos from Fire
Chief Moorby, were essentially statements of general position and did not deal with
specific property.- Exhibit D, a report from the former C.P. on establishment of policy
on change of occupancy in residential districts, the Commissioner found interesting,
but noted it was simply an historical resume. He said he was willing to accept the
following paragraph in Exhibit E (Opinions on Code Interpretations from International
Conference of Building Officials - March 1961) as expert: "A Group F, Division 2
Occupancy is considered a more hazardous use than a Group I Occupancy. Therefore, it
is our opinion that such a change of occupancy, either in whole or part, would increase
the fire hazard and could not be approved unless the building is made to comply with
both the occupancy and the fire zone requirements of the Code." With respect to
Exhibit F (Opinions on Code Interpretations from International Conference of Building
Officials - March -April 1976), he felt the following statement under "Answer" important:
"Each change of occupancy must be judged on its own merits."
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1976
C. Mink suggested to the appellant that his general request for a C-1 type of occupancy
was too broad and asked that Mr. Harrison bring to Commission a specific occupancy and
specific use. Chm. Taylor agreed. Mr. Harrison asked if he could amend his appeal
this evening for use as real estate, attorney's or draftsman's offices. The C. A.
reminded Commission they were making a finding as to whether a use is less hazardous;
he added, it was unfortunate there was no specific proposal, but Commission could find
there were uses for this house that are less hazardous. C. Sine was in substantial
agreement with C. Mink, and requested a specific proposal from the appellant. He was
reluctant to continue the item but thought that might be the only alternative. C. Cistulli
commented that since the appellant had stated he wished to amend his appeal to a specific
proposal this evening, he would rather not continue the item. Mr. Harrison again stated
he would like to amend his request; C. A. Coleman thought making the proposal specific
would receive the same result from the Fire Department.
C. Mink asked the Fire Department if the use of the structure as an attorney's office or
a real estate office would be considered a more hazardous use than residential. Fire
Chief Fricke commented that, in his opinion, the appeal was primarily addressing the
Fire Zone L use and a change from Group I to an F2 occupancy. He told C. Mink that
the two specific uses mentioned were in almost equal categories and "may be a little
less hazardous than a residence." C. Kindig was concerned about adding to the exceptions
granted in Fire Zone I. C. Sine reiterated his concern regarding approval of a "blank
check on zoning." He again asked for specifics, and then moved this item be continued
for one month to the meeting of January 10, 1977. Second C. Cistulli, and all aye
voice vote. C. Mink requested the appellant present a specific use together with a
specific plan. He felt Sec. 502 did appear to give some leeway for Commission to
overrule the Fire Department decision but, in order to consider the matter, specifics
would-be needed.
At this point in the meeting C. Sine spoke of his regret upon learning Chief Fire
Inspector Pearson would soon be retiring from City employment. He emphasized the
Inspector's wholehearted cooperation through the years and told him he would be missed.
These remarks were the feeling of all Planning Commission members.
Chm. Taylor called a recess at 9:00 P.M., after which the meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO STORE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES ON THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION PROPERTY
AT 988 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-214-220), ZONED C-2, BY RICHARD STURIZA AND MARSHALL
PRUETT (APPLICANTS) WITH RAYMOND KLIEWER (OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM 11-22-76)
Chm. Taylor requested review by C. P. Swan. Mr. Swan presented a recent photograph of
this property, noting that few vehicles were stored there at present. It was determined
that the property owner, lessee and tenant were present and the C. P. said they would
have to be the source of information. Staff had asked for further information but none
had been received. This item had been continued because no one had appeared to represent
the applicant at the previous meeting. The building permit for alterations to the
service station building had expired. Mr. Pruett had said he would satisfy all
requirements of the Building Code which indicated a new building permit would be
required for existing modifications and any further modifications.
Marshall Pruett addressed Commission and presented a parking layout. He commented
regarding new permits being required on the existing additions to the building, stating
he had been under the impression these were approved by Commission with no further action
on his part necessary. Chm. Taylor told him this matter could be resolved with Planning
staff or the Building Department.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
December 13, 1976
C. Jacobs and C. Kindig, in discussion with Mr. Pruett, determined that storage is all
that is taking place in this area; however, if in the future Mr. Pruett is engaged for
work by Burlingame Imports, this work will be done at the service station and would
involve no more service than that on a car which comes into the station by a general
customer. C. Sine asked if the applicant had obtained a building permit for the sign
on the corner of Myrtle Road and Howard Avenue, "Pruett's Service Station," and was
told by Mr. Pruett he had not. Richard Sturiza, co -applicant, told Commission the sign
had existed before they acquired the station, it had been knocked down by a citizen,
and was repainted and put back up.
C.s Jacobs and Kindig asked about parking, including employee parking. C. P. Swan
advised the plan showed proposed parking behind the service station for a maximum of
30 cars, between the service station and Myrtle Road there was ample space for a number
of cars and between the building and East Lane there was adequate parking for service
station use. It was his opinion there was ample parking even when adding storage of
new motor vehicles. C. Mink noted the storage appeared to be limited to the rear 28 feet
of the lot and asked if the applicants would be willing to mark that space so it could
be policed. They advised that would be no problem. There being no audience comments
in favor or opposed, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed.
C. Mink stated a finding that in light of the zone and surrounding uses in that zone,
storage of automobiles is an appropriate use. He then moved approval of this special
permit with the condition that the applicant add a painted stripe on the surface of
the parking area 28 feet from the rear property line to indicate vehicle storage area.
Second C. Jacobs, and approved on unanimous roll call vote. C. Kindig agreed that
this area has changed, and commented that approval of this application would be
authorizing something which had been done for quite some time. C. Jacobs suggested
the applicants take out the necessary permits so that the City, the Commission and
the applicants might live in harmony.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 833 MAHLER ROAD
(APN 026-322-160) BY DAVID WEISS (APPLICANT) WITH EARL SWANSON (OWNER) (ND -97P
POSTED DECEMBER. 2. 1976)
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. For 10 years between 1963 and 1973 there
was a restaurant in this same location; since 1973 the 1,800 SF of space has been vacant.
The applicant is proposing to lease this area and to operate a cafe which would be open
from 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. weekdays. In a letter which was circulated to Commission,
Mr. Weiss stated this centrally located space was intended to serve the several hundred
people who work within walking distance; fast service will provide good quality food
at reasonable prices in a pleasant atmosphere. Emphasis will be on health foods with
a varied menu including sandwiches on homemade bread, fresh_ fruit and shellfish salads,
soups and cheeses. The Asst. C. P. reported adequate off-street parking does exist
for this use as shown on the site plan submitted and circulated to Commission. A
negative declaration was posted with the conclusion that this cafe would not have
significant adverse effect on the area. Staff had no objection to this proposal and
could recommend it to Commission for review.
C. Kindig inquired if there would be enough parking for the restaurant use, especially
at lunch time, and Asst. C. P. Yost told him there was enough parking for nine spaces
to be marked. The Commissioner had no concern if these spaces are to be marked. David
Weiss addressed Commission, stating he had talked to Earl Swanson, the property owner
and they were in agreement to mark whatever parking spaces were necessary for the
facility. He added that this space had existing facilities for restaurant use.
C. Jacobs determined the cafe would occupy exactly the same area that the Blue Carrot
had previously used and commented there did not appear to be a problem when the Blue
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
December 13, 1976
Carrot was in that space. There being no audience comments in favor or opposed, Chm.
Taylor declared the public hearing closed.
C. Kindig moved approval of this special permit to David Weiss, the applicant, for a
restaurant to be operated by him and nontransferable, and that the nine parking spaces
allotted to the business be marked. Second C. Jacobs, and approved by unanimous roll
call vote.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD
(PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY JOSEPH C. WHITE (APPLICANT) WITH KATHLEEN DORE
ET AL (OWNERS)
C. P. Swan reported two conversations by telephone the afternoon of this meeting. One
was with John Beatty, Don Yarbrough's successor at the Bank of America Trust Department;
Mr. Beatty was not familiar with this matter as yet and nothing had been done by .
the trust officer during the past month. The C. P. had also talked to Richard Ambrosio,
representative for Joseph White, who indicated they would like the Commission to
consider continuing the matter. He noted both Mr. Ambrosio and Mr. White were present.
Secy. Sine read into the record a letter dated December 13, 1976 signed by Joseph C.
White advising he had talked to John Beatty at the Bank of America and stating both he
and Mr. Beatty requested Commission postpone this item until June 24, 1977.
During Commission discussion Mr. Ambrosio said at present they have two tow trucks and
are doing some towing, but no mechanic work; the applicants are paid for the towing
service; there are 15 vehicles on the:premises, these being Richard George's (ex -partner
of Mr. Ambrosio) cars which have yet to be repaired. C. Cistulli questioned whether
the applicants had a permit to do any business at that location; Mr. Ambrosio informed
Commission it had taken him some time to get the money for the special permit application
fee.
C. A. Coleman stated his belief that nothing would be done about this area by the Bank
of America until Commission starts denying permits. C. Cistulli suggested granting
the applicants a 30 day stay to give the bank time to prove its cooperation with the
City. C. Kindig suggested 60 days, and C. Cistulli indicated 60 days would be agreeable
to him. C. Jacobs felt that C. A. Coleman's statement regarding denying special permits
was perhaps what Commission should be doing, and determined from Mr. Ambrosio his lease
was contingent upon getting a special permit from the City. The C. A. commented this
was month to month tenancy. C. E. Kirkup told C. Francard the tentative map had been
granted an extension, improvement plans are complete and an agreement drawn up ready
to be signed. If the bank does not install improvements by March 13, 1977, they would
have to apply for another extension.
C. P. Swan commented that the Commission could conditionally approve the special permit
for a short period of time, e.g., for 90 days until March 13, 1977. Chm. Taylor was
agreeable to continuing this matter until the second meeting in March. C. Jacobs
questioned exactly what business would the Commission be approving for this limited
time period. C. Mink thought a better option might be to issue a short term special
permit which would terminate with the March date; then, if the Bank of America did not
improve the property, Commission would be in a position to deny a continuation of the
permit.
Motion was made by C. Mink to approve this special permit for an auto repair establishment,
subject to review on March 14, 1977, the conditions of review to be that the Bank of
America construct site improvements and that the housekeeping related to the use be
acceptable to Commission. Second C. Cistulli, and approved by unanimous roll call vote.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
December 13, 1976
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A DELICATESSEN AND CAFE IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1501 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY (APN 026-321-440) BY.DANIEL FRANKO AND DANIEL OLIAN (APPLICANTS) WITH NEW
ENGLAND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (OWNER) (ND -98P POSTED DECEMBER 3, 1976)
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application, advising 1501 Bayshore Highway is part of
a very large parcel of land, approximately 2.2 acres. There are three buildings, each
with about 11,400 SF of gross floor area, and between 90 to 100 cars can be comfortably
parked to code dimensions behind the buildings. The applicants are proposing a
delicatessen and cafe in a portion of one of these buildings, which is indicated on
the site plan circulated to Commission. The total area involved is about 2,300 SF
which suggests a parking requirement of 12 spaces; Mr. Franko has stated that nine
parking spaces will be allocated to the cafe. The Asst. C.P. noted a parking survey
of the property made December 3, 7 and 8 which suggested approximately one-half of the
available off-street parking spaces are not in use by existing tenants on this parcel.
The plot plan accompanying this parking survey by Earthdata, Inc. suggests: (1) much
of the parking on this parcel is quite distant from the buildings; (2) the proposed
location of the cafe has very limited parking adjacent to it and this is shared with
a number of other tenants; (3) if the occupancy rate of the three buildings improves,
there will be little surplus employee parking conveniently available to the principal
tenants; (4) an attempt by one tenant to reserve for his -exclusive use those spaces
adjacent to 1501 Bayshore will cause customer parking problems for tenants in all three
buildings. Letters have been received by the Planning Department which address these
points and others, the main objections being those of extra traffic and parking. The
applicant has indicated he expects his range of customers will be between that of a
hotel coffee shop and the more sophisticated dinner and lunch houses. Earthdata has
estimated 175 customers per day, 40% of whom would be in cars. A negative declaration
was posted for this project; Mr. Yost suggested Commission review operating details of
the proposed deli with the applicants and consider comments received from adjacent tenants.
Mr. Franko told Commission that originally he had been allocated nine parking spaces,
but now had an agreement for three more, for a total of 12 allocated spaces. At the
Chairman's request, Secy. Sine read into the record three letters of protest from the
following adjacent tenants: D. S. Lehmann, Lehmann Graphics, 1521 Bayshore Highway;
George W. Savary, Owner, Westflow Company, 1535 Bayshore Highway; Deane Huckaba,
Administrative Assistant, Western Region, U. S. Plywood, 1545 Bayshore Highway (all of
these letters dated December 8, 1976). Objections were raised to a retail store and
restaurant adjacent to their office complex and they were concerned about parking,
traffic congestion and possible littering.
C. Jacobs asked the applicant if he had considered a restaurant without the deli; and
Mr. Franko replied he thought the deli would be more advantageous for everyone in the
area. He advised Commission they would employ two to three people and planned to use
only one car no matter how many employees they had. It was planned to open at 9:00 A.M.
but the main business would start at 11:00 A.M. In discussion with C. Cistulli,
Mr. Franko said the deli/cafe would be more oriented to customers who came in to pick
up food; however, he would like to display the cold cuts and planned to serve wine and
beer on the premises io addition to sandwiches. The business would be oriented to the
lunchtime trade and would close about 4:00 P.M. Mr. Franko stated he could not foresee
any impact on the businesses which were protesting.
Chm. Taylor requested audience comments, and David Keyston of Anza Shareholders'
Liquidating Trust, 433 Airport Boulevard addressed Commission. He said he had been
approached by several of his tenants who are across the street from this proposed project
and who have special concern about the parking problems. He pointed out the provisions
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1976
in the city code for restaurant parking and noted other restaurants along Bayshore
Highway whose parking lots are generally completely filled. His special concern in
this area might be that at times 10 to 20 cars were parked across the street in his
office building parking area, and he felt as this area gets fully developed the effect
of the lack of parking would begin to hurt everyone. He asked that Commission charge
the applicant with parking requirements of the area and not grant a special permit which
would hurt other tenants. Don Lehmann, Lehmann Graphics, 1521 Bayshore Highway also
spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He discussed at length the parking
arrangements at present and said he was representing every existing tenant in the
complex. He expressed the concern of all that when the facilities are entirely filled
there would not be adequate parking for everyone. Chm. Taylor was told by Asst. C. P.
Yost that off-street parking requirements for restaurant use in C-1 are one space per
200 SF of gross floor area; however., across the street from the area under discussion
in the C-4 District one parking space per 100 SF is required plus an additional space
per"1,000 SF for employee parking. In the case of this applicant 12 spaces would be
required in C-1; C-4 would require 26 spaces. Mr. Yost noted copy of Norris, Beggs &
Simpson letter (agents for the property owner) dated December 2, 1976 which advised
that although they were willing to consider a restaurant in this location, a check
would have to be made with the City regarding parking, zoning and -other permit requirements
before proceeding with serious negotiations.
Chm. Taylor asked for any additional audience comments; George W. Savary of Westflow
Company stated he concurred with Mr. Lehmann's remarks. Richard Lavenstein of Lavenstein
& Co. spoke in opposition also, telling Commission he was located across the street
from this property at 1499 Bayshore Highway. He said he was an active realtor specializing
in leasing this type of space and was familiar with the parking situation in this area.
He had serious doubts, if the property owner, New England Life, knew how Mr. Lehmann
and the other tenants felt, they would lease for this use. There being no further
audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed.
C. Sine remarked it was interesting and refreshing to see the affected businessmen
protecting their businesses and parking rights. He added that he was familiar with
Mr. Franko's excellent operation in San Mateo, but advised the applicant to find another
location in view of so much opposition. C. Jacobs also suggested Mr. Franko find
another building. It was the feeling of C. Kindig that.parking would-be a problem
when the buildings were filled, and he would not want to see this particular deli/cafe
allowed in the M-1 District. C. Mink did not think this an incompatible use in an
M-1 District but did feel it was in the wrong location. Chm. Taylor said he thought
the applicant should meet parking regulations for restaurants, and agreed at another
location it might be a compatible use in the M-1 District. C. Mink moved to deny this
special permit. Second C. Cistulli, and motion to deny approved by unanimous roll call
vote.
7. APPEAL OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO ATTACH A METAL
AWNING TO A BUILDING IN THE M-1 DISTRICT, PER MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 18.08.240,
AT 1761 ADRIAN ROAD (APN 025-169-060), BY JAMES WOODS OF AIR VENT AWNING COMPANY
WITH BAY CITIES WHOLESALE HARDWARE COMPANY
C. A. Coleman told the Chairman this item could best be described by Chief Fire Inspector
Pearson; Asst. C. P. Yost distributed Exhibits A, B and C. Insp. Pearson explained
that Exhibit A was from the Ordinance Code, dated February 17, 1941 and stated: "The
use of galvanized iron for an outer wall or roof covering shall not be allowed under
any circumstances." Exhibit B, from an ordinance adopted March 5, 1951, states:
"The use of metal for roof or wall covering is permissible in the industrial and
commercial areas . . . . if in other respects it meets the requirement;of the fire
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 10
December 13, 1976
restrictions of this code; and provided such metal covering is over a metal or concrete
frame, and the architectural design and treatment of the building to be covered with
metal shall receive the approbation of the Planning Commission." Exhibit C, from the
present Building Code, requires architectural approval from the Planning Commission
for all metal roofs or wallcoverings. The Insp. discussed the history of these
regulations, noting a bad fire around 1940 in a metal building. There was much concern
at that time about these buildings and finally an ordinance was passed. The Fire Dept.
considered this 10' x 20' wide metal awning over the customers' receiving dock to be a
projection of the building, i.e., a metal structure.
Commission discussion determined that the building itself has concrete exterior walls
with a fire retardant roof; the metal canopy would be used for shelter when customers
were picking up materials; the Fire Dept. considered this structure a roof or metal
building as opposed to an awning which is a collapsible structure. The Fire Dept. was
concerned about future requests if this were approved. C.B.I. Calwell stated the
Building Code says that exterior walls shall be of one hour construction.
James Woods of Air Vent Awning Co. and Hugh Laymon of Bay Cities Wholesale Hardware Co.
addressed Commission. They felt they were protecting the outside of the building and
that the canopy would be attractive with enamel finish, and it would be sprinklered
underneath. Chm. Taylor noted that the question before Commission was whether the Fire
Dept. denial should be sustained; Insp. Pearson's testimony brought out his opinion that
this structure is a roof and prohibited; Mr. Woods had stated the proposed structure
would be sprinklered and, if anything, he felt it would reduce the fire hazard.
C. Mink noted Sec. 18.08.240 and asked if there were any substitute materials which
the Building and Fire Departments would consider under any circumstances. C.B.I. Calwell
said if the canopy were made of one hour construction it would be approved. C. Mink
inquired if the applicant's offer to sprinkle would in any way change the Departments'
opinion, and asked if the materials proposed by the applicant were ever approved for
other uses. Insp. Pearson commented upon the case of American Can Company where metal
panels outside the building with full fire protection beneath had been approved.
Replying to Chm. Taylor, the Inspectors said that there were substitute materials which
would be approved by them. If the applicant wanted to use the metal canopy, protecting
it with one hour construction, this would be approved.
Mr. Woods told Commission his company does not deal in anything other than aluminum
products, and believed there was nothing combustible about the aluminum, especially
when used in conjunction with a concrete building. C. Jacobs felt that perhaps with
a concrete building the fire hazard was greatly diminished. The applicant stressed the
need for this canopy when loading and unloading during the rainy season. Insp. Pearson
remarked that if a truck caught fire while under the canopy it could cause the metal to
buckle. C. Sine asked if the applicant had considered cooperating with the Building
and Fire Departments to the extent of making this structure one hour construction.
The applicant told Commission canopies similar to this had been put up in other cities
even on the main streets. C. Sine again attempted to find out why the applicant was
not cooperating with one hour construction, and was advised they manufacture only
aluminum and thought that wood would be more hazardous. C. Sine moved that Commission
sustain the Fire Dept. denial of this building permit. Second C. Kindig, and motion to
sustain approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, KINDIG, SINE
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, MINK, TAYLOR
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Page 11
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1976
Chm. Taylor announced that this was a final decision with no recourse to City Council.
He then called a short recess at 11:15 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at
11:20 P.M.
OTHER BUSINESS
8. STAFF REPORT ON VIOLATION OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS LICENSE
ISSUED TO D. C. MILEY, JR. TRUCKING AND EXCAVATING, 2531 POPPY DRIVE (APN 027-172-
290), PROPERTY ZONED R-1 (HOME OWNER'S PETITION REVIEWED AND REPORTED TO PLANNING
COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 1976)
Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed this item for the Commission. In August this year the
Planning,Dept. had received a petition signed by 28 property owners alleging that
Mr. Miley was running a trucking business from his home which was in violation of Home
Occupation regulations. He owns 27 vehicles and has employed over 48 men during a three
month period in early 1976. After discussing this matter with the Commission, a first
warning was sent by the Planning Dept. on September 18 which stated any future violations
would be reported to the City Attorney. Mr. Yost reported that further violations have
been observed and that it is believed the investigation has reached the point for a
hearing by City Council; C. A. Coleman stated it will be brought to them in January, 1977.
9. STAFF REPORT ON COMPLETION OF SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITION THAT A COVERED PARKING SPACE
BE PROVIDED AT 1340 EDGEHILL DRIVE (APN 029-011-190), ZONED R-1, BY GEORGES KURTH
(SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED NOVEMBER 24, 1975)
Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item fo
Georges Kurth on November 24, 1975 to
permit had been approved with the cond
the property within 12 months. Subseq
cantilever a roof off the side of his
lot that parallels his 30' wide strip.
ownership of the 10' wide strip. Staf
from William W. Penaluna, an attorney
hearing is scheduled in Superior Court
Decree specifically recognizes the eas
culvert in this 10' strip of land. Th
for three months in order to allow cou
continue was approved by unanimous voi
r Commission, noting the special permit granted
use an existing garage as a hobby room. This
ition that a covered parking space be provided on
uently Mr. Kurth obtained a building permit to
accessory building which would overhang a 10' wide
He has initiated a quiet title action to obtain
f has received a letter dated December 10, 1976
representing the Kurths,who advised an uncontested
for the week ending December 17, and that the
ement of the City to maintain a storm drain box
e Asst. C. P. suggested this item be continued
rt proceedings to be finalized. Motion to
ce vote of Commission.
10. DRAFT 1977 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
C. P. Swan pointed out that the two meetings in October have been scheduled for Wednesday
nights due to Monday holidays in that month. C. Mink moved adoption of the 1977 Planning
Commission schedule of meetings as submitted by staff. Second C. Cistulli and all aye
voice vote.
ADVANCE PLANNING
It was suggested by C. P. Swan that the items under Advance Planning be scheduled in
January.
11. PROGRESS REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES
This matter was scheduled for review on January 10, 1977.
Page 12
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1976
12. PROGRESS REPORT ON CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT
C. P. Swan reported that at a special City Council meeting Saturday, December 11 a
motion was passed authorizing moving ahead with the Draft EIR and the Economic Feasibility
Report for the convention center project. The matter will be on the Council's agenda
December 20. Mr. Swan showed a map of the area and noted 17 acres of Anza property
had been added to the previous plan.
13. AD HOC COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND A HOUSING ELEMENT
The C. P. advised the first meeting of this committee would be held Tuesday,
December 14 in Conference Room B at City Hall.
14. ADMINISTRATION OF ON -STREET PARKING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, AND
15. PROGRESS REPORT ON ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES STUDY
These items were dropped from the agenda and will be reported upon at the January 10,
1977 meeting of the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary