Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.11.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard City Planner Swan Jacobs Mink Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Kirkup Sine City Attorney Coleman Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL The above -listed Commission members and staff were present. Commissioners Francard and Mink were necessarily absent. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1977 were approved as mailed. Before continuing with the agenda, the Commission discussed the scheduling of December meetings. It was moved by C. Sine that the Commission hold a regular meeting on Wednesday, December 21, 1977 which would include study and hearing items. The motion was seconded by C. Cistulli and carried unanimously (5-0). C. A. Coleman noted that technically the meeting of December 12 would be continued to the 21st and the meeting of the 28th would be cancelled. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO PERMIT A 990 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING REAR YARD; PROPERTY AT 144 CHAPIN LANE (APN 028-314- 400), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. NORMAN BROD Chm. Taylor read the item and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application and the history of the development of 144 and 146 Chapin Lane. He explained that a house was built on the front portion of the property (now 146 Chapin Lane) sometime after 1900. The back portion of the property (144 Chapin Lane), which is separated from the front portion by a creek, was developed with a cottage sometime during the 1930's. He noted that the proposed addition to the cottage, which now sits on a separate lot, would almost double its present floor area. He stated the proposed addition fully meets code with the exception that the original cottage was constructed with only a 5 foot rear setback, making the building non -conforming, and present code requires buildings may be extended only if they are first brought to code. In deciding to ask for a variance, the rear of the cottage would be left as it is presently and two new rooms would be extended forward over the creek. He stated that the findings of fact in Chapter 25.54 of the Zoning Ordinance must be made and noted that staff feels those requirements are met by this property. He then stated that the applicants were present to anwer any questions. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 Mr. Brod stated that they had approached the surrounding neighbors and there appeared to be no objections. C. E. Kirkup advised that his department had no conditions for this application. Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Secy. Sine read a letter from John K. Poland of 146 Chapin Lane dated November 14, 1977 which stated the application was totally acceptable. The property owner from 141 Occidental Avenue addressed the Commission, noting that his lot is behind the subject property and stating that the application is acceptable. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. C. Sine asked C. E. Kirkup, since the proposed addition is to go over the creek, would all flood requirements be met? C. E. Kirkup stated that the existing bridge is in good condition and there was nothing to worry about from this aspect. Asst. C. P. Yost confirmed that a building permit had been obtained (Permit No. E565) for the cottage in the 1930's. C. Jacobs stated that she had inspected the property and found it to be very unusual; she felt under the circumstances a variance would be necessary. She noted that approval of the variance would not affect the neighbors or the General Plan or City Codes, nor would it be a threat to the health and safety of the community. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variance. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote it carried unanimously (5-0). 2. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO ADD A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH A 17'6" WIDE GARAGE; PROPERTY AT 1608 MARCO POLO WAY (APN 025-202-180), ZONED R-1. BY WEYLAND LUM Chm. Taylor read the item and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application; he noted that the Lums proposed to add a bedroom and a family room to their present house. A variance is required because the two -car garage is only 17'6" wide and current codes require a full 20'. There is a full 20' between the front property line and the face of the present garage, providing sufficient room to park an additional two cars off street. C. Cistulli stated there is some sort of a storage shed in the side yard of the neighboring property; he felt this item should be postponed until such time as the neighbor's yard is cleared. Because the storage shed is on a neighboring property other Commission members believed this property owner should not be penalized for something -over which he has no control. C. Cistulli moved that this item be continued until December 21 so that staff might contact the neighboring property owner about this. The motion died for lack of a second. There being no further Commission discussion, Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Joseph Gilmore, property owner of the lot directly behind the subject property, stated that he felt his privacy would be violated if the variance for the addition is granted. He suggested that the addition be made to the front of the property and face the street. Mr. Gilmore felt that his objection could be addressed to the third and fourth findings of fact required for variance approval. Ronald Casassa addressed the Commission, noting that he lives adjacent to Mr. Gilmore; he stated he also feels he would lose privacy. There being no further public input, the public hearing was closed. The applicant, Mr. Lum, explained there is a rather large oak tree in the rear yard which would obscure the view into the neighbor's back yard. Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the design of the addition but little objection to the variance. C. Sine moved the item be continued to December 21, allowing the applicant time to have new plans prepared. C. Kindig seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (5-0). C. Sine noted if more time was required the item could be continued again. C. Cistulli reca mended staff contact the Fire Dept. and check into the matter at 1604 Marco Polo Way that was discussed earlier. Page 3 Burlingame.Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040 TO PERMIT A 15' ADDITION TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 925 LAGUNA AVENUE (APN 026-221-060), ZONED R-1, BY JOSEPH M. MORAY Chm. Taylor read the item and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application. He explained Code Sec. 25.62.040 which establishes the minimum front setback for this property at 20.5'; the proposal is to extend the present house forward to within 15' of the front property line. The addition could be made without a variance, but the proposal is the simplest solution. He then explained his concerns about the character of the proposed design, noting that it would not be related to the style of the present house. He added that staff feels there are alternatives to the proposed design. The public hearing was then opened, and James Caroline of 909 Laguna Avenue asked if the applicant would consider landscaping the front so that it would blend in with the other houses. Mr. Moray stated he plans to landscape to hide the property as much as possible. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. C. Kindig stated he felt the home is very attractive now and would hate to see it changed; he added, however, that this is a personal opinion and he simply wanted to express that this is an older, well kept neighborhood which is attractive. C. Jacobs observed that when alternatives are available to a property owner the Commission has requested those alternatives be researched. She felt additions should blend in with the existing house as well as the surrounding neighborhood as much as possible. C. Sine agreed there are a number of alternatives which had not been explored. C. Sine moved this item be continued to December 21. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (5-0). 4. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO CONVERT ONE BASEMENT PARKING SPACE INTO A WORKSHOP, AND REDUCE TWO ADDITIONAL SPACES TO A 17' LENGTH; PROPERTY AT 500 PENINSULA AVENUE (APN 029-294-290), ZONED R-3, BY ROBERT AND SYLVIA PISANI Chm. Taylor read the item and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application. The application was sent back to the Commission by City Council because the applicants had submitted revised pians. He explained the new proposal, noting that it would allow a deficiency of one basement parking space, to be offset by a tandem parking space in the side yard for the owners' personal use. Also, two additional basement parking spaces would be reduced to 17' in length, and a new storeroom built to code standards. He noted that when the application was denied previously Commission had found there were no unusual circumstances in the property to justify approval of the application. He concluded this was the central issue and although the details of the application have changed, the property has not and, therefore, the original findings would appear to still be valid. Chm. Taylor asked if the temporary structures had been.removed from the property. Mrs. Pisani stated no, because they had no place to store the equipment contained in the storage areas. She said no more than 11 of the 17 spaces are normally used by the tenants, and added that the driveway is long enough for two cars. It was her feeling that she and her husband should have the same rights as a single family homeowner to use tandem parking space. She stated that the workshop is essential to the maintenance of the building. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 28, 1977 C. Jacobs had no objection to the compact spaces, but thought it might create problems for future tenants. She stated that parking requirements are constant even if all spaces are not currently used. C. Sine observed that the Commission was conducting a public hearing, noting that since the application has been revised perhaps a study meeting should be scheduled. C. Kindig agreed with C. Sine but felt the Commission was somewhat familiar with the application. C. Cistulli felt that since the City requires "x" number of parking spaces for "x" number of units that a shop should have been planned. Chm. Taylor commented that although the plans have changed the arguments are the same and do not address the requirements of variance approval. It was suggested the applicant contact staff, and the item was removed from the agenda. 5. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 5' FENCE AT THE CORNER OF SANCHEZ AND DRAKE AVENUES; PETITION BY JOHN AND LUPE TORRES OF 1004 DRAKE AVENUE (APN 026-184- 090), ZONED R-1 Chm. Taylor read the item and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application. Mr. Yost noted that the present fence meets the requirements of Code Sec. 25.78.040 which specifies fences and hedges on corner lots shall be not more than 3' in height (measured from curb level) on that portion of the property within 15' of the external corner of the lot. He stated that the present owners would like to construct a 5' fence so that the home would be easier to sell. He noted that the applicants suggest in their letter to the Commission that the City could make the corner safer by either installing a stop sign or making Drake a one-way street. He referred to a memo from the City's Traffic Engineer dated November 23, 1977 which states that neither the one-way street or stop sign recommendations would materially improve the existing conditions and could make conditions worse; further, that any additional obstruction to sight distance should be avoided. Mr. Yost read the required findings for fence exception approval from Sec. 25.78.070 and noted in light of the required findings and the Traffic Engineer's report staff would recommend denial of the application. C. A. Coleman noted that "warranted" in the Traffic Engineer's memorandum means "not justified by traffic counts." Mr. Torres stated the exception requested was to provide more privacy. There being no further questions of the applicant, no correspondence and no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs felt that with the statements from the Traffic Engineer, Commission would have no choice but to deny this item. C. Sine added that installation of stop signs does not help with problems of traffic circulation and in some cases increases the problems. C. Sine moved for denial of the application since the four required findings could not be made and in light of the statements from the Traffic Engineer. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote the motion carried unanimously (5-0). A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 6. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-44P, FOR BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS; PREPARED BY TORREY & TORREY INC. FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME Chm. Taylor read the item. City Planner Swan reviewed the project for which the EIR was written, noting that the EIR discusses the impacts of a 336 unit condominium which includes two 146 foot high towers over a two level parking garage and six tennis courts on State-owned land leased to the developer. He stated that total land area for the project is 6.6 atres located in the Waterfront Commercial, C-4 District; the Draft EIR was prepared for the City by Torrey & Torrey Inc., a San Francisco planning consultant. Mr. Swan indicated the project location on the General Plan Diagram, noting that the pattern for the area shown on the General Plan is industry and office uses. He pointed out that if the proposal is to be approved for a change to residential use it would require an amendment of the General Plan and a reclassifi- cation of zoning. He stated that the EIR points out that several additional permits would be required, those being a special permit to exceed 50 feet in height, which is a review limitation; a variance to cover more than 50 percent of a residential lot; and a condominium permit which is for the specific design. He made reference to the summary of the EIR on page 24, noting it states that rezoning of this single site is considered to have significant adverse impact. He noted that the John Biayney Report No. 1 posed a number of questions. Should any residential development be permitted? If so, how much would be necessary to form a viable community? Should it be restricted to adults? Should a decision be made prior to City Council decision as to whether the Bayside Redevelopment Project is to go forward? City Planner Swan noted that a special meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, November 30, to consider the Bayside Redevelopment Project. After a decision is made, he thought the John Blayney consulting firm would proceed with or without the convention center. The C. P. pointed out that the Draft EIR clearly states what the impacts of such a project would be, noting that even with changes in design the impacts would still exist, possibly to a lesser degree. In conclusion, C. P. Swan stated that comments could be made at this meeting and responses to the comments received could be prepared and included as part of the Final EIR for recommendation to City Council for certification at the Commission's December 21 meeting. He then introduced Mrs. Torrey who was present to give a presentation on the EIR and answer questions. Responding to the concerns of C. Cistulli and C. Jacobs, C. P. Swan stated that the total area of the project would be 6.6 acres and that the Draft EIR was based on a 336 unit project with a density of 50 units per net residential acre. He said that staff had not received a changed plan. Mrs. Torrey stated that she would simply tell the process by which the ideas in the DEIR were developed. She explained that her first-hand impression of a residential use on the site was not negative, noting that the site does have attractive characteristics, particularly the Bay view. She also noted that there is a regional need for housing and that the idea of balancing commercial and residential uses is desirable. She said there are three major issues which would have to be dealt with: (1) land use and public policy - is this proper use for this land and what is the existing or evolving public policy; (2) traffic - there is already a problem in the area; (3) aesthetics - because it is a bayfront site, aesthetics are important. Mrs. Torrey continued, noting that determinations would have to be made as the project does not conform with Burlingame's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. It raises the question: what does the City want this site to be and what does the City want the bayfront area to be? She emphasized that this is the crucial question in deciding if this is appropriate land use. She noted that other agencies were concerned with Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 the project, specifically San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the U. S. Army Corps of'Engineers, State Lands Commission, among others. She said that letters were received from the Corps of Engineers and BCDC that show even though it was believed this was a grandfathered project, it is now felt the grandfather clause relates to C-4 uses and a specific plan, the Anza Plan, and that is being changed. Their criteria are for recreational uses with a minimum of bay fill, retention of the lagoon, Airport Boulevard as a scenic drive and the need for a specific plan in the area to assure public access. Mrs. Torrey explained that these are points brought out by the mitigation measures in the EIR. She emphasized that these are public policy issues, some of which could be resolved at this stage and some at a later date when Burlingame establishes a policy for the area. She continued, stating that in looking at the site and its suitability for residential use there are various important factors to consider, some negative and some positive. What are the uses surrounding the site? She noted there is an office tower, nightclubs to the north, a parking facility on the other side of Airport Boulevard which is a temporary use, and on a vacant site to the west a skateboard park is being proposed. She stated it would appear these uses are not compatible enough to secure a proper environment for residential living. In looking at the uses planned for the area as a whole, Mrs. Torrey noted one finds commercial and commercial recreation uses with no other residential areas planned at this time. Community facilities was another important consideration and she noted that the City is well-equipped with underground facilities to handle a residential use in this area. There are not any convenient retail facilities; this would have to be considered an important factor. She said that the view is the site's strongest asset and noted that there is a lack of aesthetic amenities around the site, i.e., bikeways, walkways, etc.; although there are some provisions, they are minimal. Isolation from other residential areas of Burlingame was pointed out as being a main negative point. Mrs. Torrey commented that with the present uncertainty of the policy for the surrounding area, the site presents many adverse impacts for residential use. She stated that traffic is a major problem now and the congestion at two major inter- sections would be aggravated by any project. She further stated that this could be handled through mitigation measures. With regard to aesthetics, she stated that there are many adverse impacts, most of which could be mitigated. In conclusion, she said that if the developer were to utilize the suggested mitigation measures contained in the EIR, he could submit revised plans for consideration. Commission discussed the EIR at length. Several Commissioners expressed concern about the retail requirements for a residential development. Commissioner Cistulli felt something should be planned to serve the residential area and asked how many people might live in the project, noting that no grocery store is planned. Mrs. Torrey stated that she could not give specific figures as to the number of residents; however, the EIR does state that retail services are not immediately accessible. Commissioner Sine felt the EIR was well done; however, he expressed concern about retail services and questioned demands on the school system. He felt the proposed development would encourage a series of requests for R-4 zoning in the surrounding area which would have a great impact on retail and school services. Mrs. Torrey explained that few children would be placed in the school system with this type of project, if condominium residents were limited to adults. She made reference to a conversation she had with a representative of San Mateo High School District in which it was stated that most condominium developments do not generate significant demands on school facilities. She said it was not her feeling that this one request would bring an onslaught of rezoning requests. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 Chairman Taylor discussed the mitigating measures, noting that some of the adverse effects could be alleviated. He pointed out that BCDC recommends specific modification to the project. Mrs. Torrey stated that this modification could be reviewed with the developer and a commitment could be required for certain mitigation measures. C. Jacobs noted that this EIR was being done prior to the geologic report, and questioned this procedure. Mrs. Torrey explained that the procedure depends on the specific site, stating that in this case earth questions were not the most critical. She emphasized that other reports with detained information have been done in the area and are referred to in page 2 of the EIR; she added that this could be enlarged upon in the Final EIR. She further explained that other EIRs have dealt with geologic problems in the area and it would be an unnecessary step (and expense) to repeat work that had already been performed. She did note,however, that in order to get a building permit the builder would have to have a specific soils study prepared on this particular site. Commissioner Sine requested clarification on the statement that "traffic can be mitigated. Mrs. Torrey stated that traffic always creates more traffic. Such mitigation measures as wider ramps, signalization, changes of right-of-way, etc. would not eliminate the traffic, but would reduce the adverse impacts. She could not give a specific solution to all the traffic problems. Responding to Commissioner Jacobs' questions on the broadening of Peninsula Avenue ramps and use of those ramps (page 28, paragraph 2 of the EIR), Mrs. Torrey explained that the assumption was made that half of the project':s southbound peak hour traffic would travel to the north on Airport Boulevard and then half to the south; then, with a further breakdown, that 20 trips would use Bayshore/ Broadway and 30 would use Airport Boulevard/Coyote Point. She believed that there is already a problem and people would choose alternative routes. Chairman Taylor said that the EIR was prepared in the context of what is in the area now, adding that he realizes it is impossible to write a report based on how the land might look five years from now. He stated, however, he has trouble seeing how this six acre site could be evaluated with any degree of realism without knowing what the City will plan around it. He expressed concern about the adequacy of the report and its usefulness to the City. He stated that the report does not help him in drawing a conclusion as to the value of the project, good or bad. Commissioner Jacobs felt timing was the problem. If the Blayney Report were available and then this EIR, it would seem a more logical order. She asked if the parking requirements had been addressed if the tennis courts are leased out and, since it is State land, would it be opened to the public and what this might do to the parking requirements. Mrs. Torrey stated this was not included as the developer had not said it would be open tothe public. She added that if the area is open to the public there would be a need for more parking. It was felt, since the courts were proposed to be on State land, that it would have to be open to the public and the developer may not have been aware of this. Mrs. Torrey said one mitigation measure was that this be open to the public. It would be up to the developer to redesign to provide more parking. She said State Lands Commission staff indicated this would be an acceptable recreational use. Commissioner Jacobs felt that the report was well done considering the circumstances, that is, no specific area plans for the surrounding area. Mrs. Torrey stated that the EIR attempts to give the City an idea as to what the proposed development on this particular site would involve, covering all the impacts as much as possible with the information available. Commissioner Kindig noted that Commission is worrying about the entire area and the consulting firm can only utilize the information on this project. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 Responding to Commissioner Jacobs' questions regarding BCDC decisions on the project, Mrs. Torrey explained that all the projects in that area should be checked against BCDC approval. Chairman Taylor added that BCDC would not approve a project that the City has not essentially approved. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned that EIRs were possibly being done just as an exercise. City Attorney Coleman felt she might be confusing EIRs with actual permits. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, said that the exemption received was conditioned on "not having a substantial change in the master plan." He felt it could be argued if this was a substantial change. He also felt it should be remembered that BCDC's jurisdiction is to provide a maximum feasible public access within the 100 foot strip from the shoreline. Mrs. Torrey stated that BCDC's comments would be responded to in the addendum to the draft and would become part of the Final EIR. There being no further discussion, Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. Ed Taylor, 701 Burlingame Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating he felt the EIR was not adequate or was incorrect in the following areas. (1) Page 3, reference to reduction in commuting with the rezoning. He felt if the property were developed in its present zoning that the number of commuters generated from the project would be less than with the proposed development as 336 units could produce twice that amount in commuters. (2) Page 2, second paragraph from the bottom, it is stated that the proposal is not in conformance with the General Plan. He felt much work had gone into the General -Plan and that the General Plan should be adhered to. (3) Page 23, should include references to noise across the water and fumes. He felt this was an important problem that was not addressed. (4) Page 31, bottom paragraph about traffic should be changed to read this development "together with others like it" would cause serious traffic problems. (5) Page 45, paragraph 2, item 3, Air Pollution - again, along with other similar projects, there would be a serious impact on the quality of the air. (6) Page 48, where increased traffic is discussed, he felt three "only Us should be struck out and, again, felt other similar projects should be mentioned. (7) Page 53, he felt the first and second paragraphs were in conflict. In summary, Mr. Taylor stated that he felt the City should stick to the current General Plan. David Keyston addressed the Commission. Referring to Mr. Taylor's comments, he stated that the EIR is describing a specific project at this particular time. He said that not just a rezoning is being requested, but instead a conditional rezoning, conditioned on a specific project. He emphasized that this rezoning would apply only to this project. With regard to the Commission's concerns about the lack of soils information, he stated that a complete seismic study was done on the site. He also stated that the project is one that is proposed not to permit children. With regard to commuter traffic, he stated that already about 25 people who are working nearby would like to be notified when units would be available because they work in the area. He did not believe that direct air blast and fumes would be a significant problem. With regard to air blasts, he noted that any problem could be mitigated through proper construction of the units. He said that the area is outside the 65 CNEL line in the Airport's Noise Study. It was his feeling the traffic generated from the development should be compared with the traffic that would be produced if the site were developed in the present zoning; he felt the traffic would not be greater. He noted the State of California has three projects under consideration for the Peninsula Avenue overpass; two are modifications of the off -ramp on the easterly side and the third is a more major proposal that includes another structure at the foot of Airport Boulevard that would provide access'to the southbound lanes of Bayshore Freeway both in and out of the property. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 Commissioner Sine questioned Mr. Keyston on the priorities for the Peninsula Avenue overpass. Mr. Keyston stated that the two smaller projects could be accomplished on an interim basis and the overpass is not on a priority list. Commissioner Sine felt this could mean a number of years before anything is actually done. Larry Getz, project sponsor, felt the report was interesting and basically thorough. He stated that the developers would like to work together with staff to create a fine development that the City would be proud of. He emphasized that the report was thorough in that a specific project was assigned and,togethe r with the Blayney Report, the pieces of the puzzle would fit together into an overall area report. David Keyston advised that Clifford Moles, architect, had been contracted to modify the project as much as possible to meet mitigation measures and added that Mr. Moles could work with staff on this. Chairman Taylor requested that the applicant discuss mitigation measures and other concerns with staff. John Raiser of Raiser Construction Company spoke briefly, stating that he would like to see this project take place. He said that cities all over the world have highrise residential towers on waterfront property and this would be a first for the area. He felt residential development in this location would be desirable and noted that accessibility to retail shops would be no further than for people presently living in the Mills Estate or in Burlingame Hills. He stated he hoped the Commission would look favorably on the project and the EIR. He felt the EIR was a good one considering the information available. Commissioner Sine requested, with reference to 117 construction jobs mentioned on page 10, last paragraph of the EIR, that it be clarified those jobs would be short term. There being no further public input, Chairman Taylor instructed staff and Mrs. Torrey to respond to the concerns brought out during the public hearing and return to the Commission on December 21 with an addendum to the EIR for possible recommendation to City Council. The item was continued to the meeting of December 21, 1977. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUE LEARNING CENTER, INC. TO HOLD CLASSES IN COOLIDGE SCHOOL; PROPERTY AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026-073-110), BY LARRY KRUSEMARK (APPLICANT) WITH BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -142P POSTED 11/18/77) Chm. Taylor read the item and C. P. Swan reviewed the application, noting that the applicant first came to the Commission September 12, 1977 and staff had raised questions about the policy of Burlingame School District. He made reference to a letter dated October 19, 1977 to the City Attorney from James E. Black, District Superintendent, Burlingame School District, noting it was the Board's intent to keep the building as occupied as possible. He read portions of this letter which explained District policy and the proposed operation (letter incorporated in these minutes by reference). Mr. Swan requested Commission consider the special permit and recommended approval. Chm. Taylor observed that Glenn Stewart of the Burlingame School District was present. Mr. Stewart confirmed that the letter expresses the intentions of the Board and that the application is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Board. C. Sine felt it should be noted the property is zoned for single family residential development and should the property be sold the building could not be made into apartments. Mr. Stewart commented that anyone who might want to buy the parcel would have to deal with the City in this area. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 November 28, 1977 Larry Krusemark was present to answer questions and confirmed that the enrollment is currently planned for 31 students; they would hope to increase that number by five or 10. He also stated he would not anticipate a great enough increase to hold two sessions, and confirmed C. Kindig's statement that classes would be held 9:00 AM to 12:45 PM, four days a week. There being no further questions, the public hearing was opened. Joe Mastainich stated that although he is not a resident of Burlingame, he would like to speak in favor of the school. Martha Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue, did not speak in opposition to the application but asked what age children would attend as she was concerned with traffic and parking. Mr. Krusemark advised that it would service Kindergarten through 8th grade (no high school students) and the students would arrive by car pools. He added that three cars would be there on a permanent basis. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. C. A. Coleman, responding to C. Kindig's question, stated that the school is responsible for limiting the use of the school grounds. C. Jacobs moved approval of the application with the condition that the special permit be coterminous. with the term of the lease and that the statements contained in Mr. Krusemark's letter rec'd. September 12, 1977 be adhered to; use of Coolidge School only for Kindergarten through eighth grade, hours to be 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM instead of two sessions, use of three part time teachers and enrollment to be 30 children. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried upon roll call vote, 4-1, C. Sine voting 'no' because this is a commercial use in an R-1 zone. A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 11:_10 P.M. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 1.700-1880 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (PORTION OF APN 024-380-080), ZONED C-4, BY JESSE D. YOHANAN (CONTINUED FROM 11-14-77); REFERENCE DRAFT EIR-46P RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-77 Chm. Taylor read the item, noting that he had read the minutes of the previous meeting and, based on C. A. Coleman's advice, could vote on this item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application, stating that the public hearing had been opened and continued at Commission's meeting two weeks ago. He noted that the central issue was first to determine if the proposed commercial parking lot and a shuttle bus service to the airport are acceptable uses in the C-4 zoning district. He further noted if the project is found to be acceptable, then specific conditions should be established to mitigate the adverse impacts identified in the environmental impact report and the Director of Public Works' memorandum dated October 20, 1977. He referred to Commission Resolution No. 17-77 adopted November 14, 1977 which recommended EIR-46P to the City Council for certification, and stated that this resolution matched impacts with mitigation measures. He added Commission could use the resolution and require the applicant to meet its suggested measures as a condition of the special permit, if approved. He then stated that Dermot J. FitzGerald, attorney representing Mr. Yohanan, was present with new information and more detailed plans. Mr. FitzGerald made a presentation to the Commission, referring to renderings and diagrams of the proposed structures as well as a diagram of the parking lot with detailed landscaping plans. He noted the parking had been reduced from 810 to 560 stalls. Mr. FitzGerald addressed the previous concerns of the Commission and noted the initial special permit was in three phases; however, it is now proposed that phases 1 and 2 be combined with the airport parking being phased out in 10 years. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 He said the applicant would enter into an agreement that the parking operation be limited to 10 years. Mr. FitzGerald advised that no application would be made for variance from the required parking for the restaurant or any of the other uses. He further stated the amount of landscaping would be well in excess of the City's requirements and there would also be a 25 foot recreational easement along the waterfront. He noted that the parking area would be screened from Bayshore Highway by extensive landscaping on top of a berm. He felt this would effectively answer the concerns of Commission. He further stated that the applicant would be willing to contribute a fair share of the cost of a traffic light in the area of Mitten Road. Mr. FitzGerald noted the applicant is a resident of the area and not a developer; he plans to have his own office in the development and would not construct "ticky-tacky" buildings. He referred to architectural renderings of the proposed buildings, and emphasized the reason the parking service is being requested is to help finance long-range development plans. He noted George Sinclair, the architect and Peter Callander, the landscape architect were present to answer any questions. Responding to C. Jacobs' inquiries, Mr. FitzGerald confirmed that the 560 stalls included some of the required restaurant parking. He emphasized that this is a conceptual idea at this time. He further noted that the bayfront easement might be greater than 25 feet in some areas, but in no area would it be less than 25 feet. This would be in compliance with specifications contained in the EIR. Commission briefly discussed parking with Mr. FitzGerald. Mr. FitzGerald emphasized that the 560 figure might change depending on the requirements of the uses in the project. He also stated he was not asking for approval of the restaurant or the office building at this time. Responding to C. Jacobs' questions about the berm, Mr. FitzGerald confirmed that property drainage would have to be in conjunction with the requirements of the Public Works office and BCDC. C. Sine referred to a letter dated November 22, 1977 from ABAG, specifically the second paragraph, and expressed the concern that there would be a sea of asphalt. Mr. FitzGerald stated that it would not make sense to leave the property unused; it would not be economically feasible. Chm. Taylor noted that since this was a continuation of a public hearing anyone might speak. He asked that testimony be limited to additional remarks which were not made November 14. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. C. Kindig stated he appreciated the applicant's compliance with Commission's request for more detailed plans; however, he felt the main objection was still present, that is, the proposed park -and -fly use. C. Jacobs agreed with C. Kindig, stating that she has tried to keep an open mind but felt that even 10 years was too long. C. Kindig moved for denial of the special permit and C. Jacobs seconded the motion; the motion carried upon roll call vote (4-1), C. Cistulli casting the negative vote. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FROG POND, A HOT TUB AND SAUNA CLUB, TO OPERATE AT 1302 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-480), ZONED C-4, BY BRUCE R. QUIE (APPLICANT) WITH DAVID H. KEYSTON (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -143P POSTED 11-18-77) Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application, noting that Mr. Quie proposes to lease 5,700 square feet of office space in the Hyatt Cinema building and subdivide the area into 17 smaller rooms, each with a hot tub, sauna, shower and sun lamp deck, and to provide a reception/lobby area on the ground floor for club members, possibly with a large screen T.V. and food vending machines. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 November 28, 1977 Mr. Yost noted that members would be mainly employees and customers of Burlingame business firms, guests staying at nearby hotels and restaurant patrons; the rooms would be rented to members on a reservation basis at rates ranging from $10.00 to $15.00 per hour; operating hours would be from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. seven days a week; there would be three employees during the 11:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. shift and four employees from 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. It is estimated that normal use would be two persons per room so that at full occupancy there would be 34 customers and three to four employees. He further noted that ND -143P was posted November 18, 1977 with the conclusion that the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment if adequate parking is available. Other issues are water consumption and membership rules for the club. It was suggested that if the application is approved such approval might be conditioned to require review in 12 months and that the permit be limited to Mr. Quie only. David Keyston addressed the concern of parking, noting his letter dated November 14, 1977 and stating that Star Rent-A-Car is making other arrangements which would free up 10 of the parking spaces which were allotted that agency. He referred to a diagram of the area where the. parking would be available. Bruce Quie, 600 Edgewater, Foster City (the applicant) addressed the Commission and noted that the 17 hot tubs would average 275 gallons of water per tub, totaling 4,675 gallons. He stated that the water would be filtered and recirculated. He further noted the 17 showers would require about 2,500 gallons of water per day. Commission briefly discussed the membership arrangement. Mr. Quie confirmed that although membership would be required, they would like to get additional business from patrons of the hotels in the area. He emphasized .that with a membership requirement he could control those using the facility and keep it a proper, high class operation. He stated the club would be open to men and women and the rooms vary in size from about 12' x 12' to 12' x 20'. He noted that a minimum would be charged for the use of the room and that one or more persons could use the room. C. Jacobs expressed concern about legal problems. C. Cistulli felt, based on Mr. Keyston's reputation, there would not be a problem. Mr. Quie stated he would have an investment in excess of $150,000 to protect and he would not want to jeopardize his business. In continuing the discussion on membership, Mr. Quie stated there is some question about how members would be accepted, and noted they would like to take advantage of the additional business from hotel patrons. C. Jacobs asked if an undesirable person came to utilize the facilities or someone created problems, who would remove them. Would the Burlingame Police be called? Mr. Quie responded 'yes.' C. Jacobs felt the Commission should receive comments from the Chief of Police on this. C. Sine asked the terms of the lease. Mr. Quie stated the lease was for five years with an option for a further three years. There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. Len Gordon, Los Angeles, manufacturer of sauna equipment, addressed the Commission expressing his concern about the Commission's comments relating to the proposed use and the sexual overtones expressed during the discussion. He stated that whirlpools are therapeutic devices used by hospitals, prescribed by doctors and therapeutists. He emphasized whirlpools have a tranquilizing effect rather than a stimulating one. He spoke in favor of the application. C. Jacobs commented that she is a nurse and is well aware of the intended uses; however, such a facility in the hands of the public has been misused in the past and this was her. concern. Page 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1977 Chm. Taylor observed the main concern is whether this is an appropriate use for this specific location. Mr. Keyston said that Mr. Quie would have automatic access to Anza Patrol and unless something were to get completely out of hand the Burlingame Police Department would not be called. He further stated it was true this type of facility could be misused and it is up to the management to'see that this is not permitted. Richard Lavenstein, commercial realtor in Burlingame, addressed Commission, noting that this location offers great advantages; it is in a commercial area, it is well policed and it is within walking distance of many hotels. He felt this was the best location for the proposal and that the concerns could be alleviated to the greatest extent at this location. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. C. Sine questioned the adequacy of parking. C. P. Swan stated that unless it is specifically reserved he could not say that there is adequate parking. Mr. Keyston confirmed that parking was available. C. E. Kirkup advised that the water for the initial filling of the hot tubs would have to come from private sources outside the area but that maintenance could come from the establishment's water allotment. He stated that this would be treated as a swimming pool. C. Cistulli felt this was not a concern; if they could not.get,the water, they would not operate and if they used an excessive amount, there would be penalty fees. He stated his main concern was keeping the City clean and agreed that the applicant would protect his investment. C. Sine moved the application be approved subject to approval by the Police Chief and with the stipulation that the special permit be issued only to Mr. Quie and not be transferable. C. Kindig seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote it carried (4-1), C. Jacobs voting negatively. It was noted that the water requirements were automatically effective and did not have to be stated in the motion. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A.COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD (APN 026-111-120), BY JOHN SWANSON OF LOOMIS COURIER SERVICE, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FUND LTD. (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -144P POSTED 11-18-77) Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed the application, referring to a letter dated October 21, 1977 from John Swanson of Loomis Courier Service which described the proposal. (This letter is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) Mr. Yost noted two points of possible concern: (1) four of the 11 offices leased by Loomis at 808 Burlway Road are presently vacant and additional employees would probably need additional parking, and (2) if more than four vans were based at this location there could be a problem as the parking lot is already full much of the time. Although these concerns are not presently a problem, Commission should consider a conditional approval with review in six to 12 months. The public hearing was then opened, and Mr. Swanson, responding to C. Sine's inquiry, stated the company has been leasing the facilities since 1972, that it was used as an accounting office until 1975, and it was vacant from 1975 to early 1977. He added they have been using the facility for this particular type of operation since early 1977. He confirmed that no money would be handled. Responding to C. Kindig's questions about parking, Mr. Swanson stated that they did not plan to fill the office space and did not feel parking would be a problem. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved approval of the application with the stipulation that the operation be reviewed in 12 months. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously upon roll call vote (5-0). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 November 28, 1977 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A QUICK PRINT SHOP IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1530 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-321-490), BY RICHARD HSIEH OF BURLINGAME SUPER PRINT (APPLICANT) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF MAHLER GILBRETH PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -145P POSTED 11-18=77) Chm. Taylor read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed this application, noting that a quick print shop is different from a xerox copy center. A special permit is required because it is a retail business. He noted the applicant proposes to lease about 1,400 square feet of office area and use about one-fourth as a reception area and office work space; the remainder would be used for photographic work and printing, with two employees (one making deliveries of completed work using a stationwagon rather than a van). There should be adequate on-site parking for both employees and up to two customers at any one time. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public comment and the hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved approval of the above -noted item since there is adequate parking and no other problems. C. Kindig seconded the motion and it carried unanimously upon roll call vote (5-0). It was noted that the motion was made specifically to the applicant and therefore the permit is not transferable. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP WITH TOWING SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY DONALD STEIN OF ARC AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE (APPLICANT) WITH KATHLEEN DORE,ET AL (PROPERTY OWNERS) (ND -146P POSTED 11-18-77) Chm. Taylor read the item and C. P. Swan briefly reviewed it and updated Commission on the situation. He stated that he drove to the site and 11 vehicles (most inoperable) were stored in the easement area. He suggested that this item be continued in the hope that completion of the improvements can be accomplished. Mr. Stein was present and answered C. A. Coleman's question about the length of the operation, how long he has been operating at this location. He stated he had been renting the property since August with another gentleman, but the partnership was not working. He explained the circumstances of the partnership and indicated that much of the problem is with the partner who owns the vehicles. They are leasing on a month-to-month basis until it is properly paved and marked. Mr. Stein said that he did not know what inspections have been made of the paving. Commission felt the property owner could be contacted to help clear up this matter since much of the problem (cars in the easement) was not the responsibility of Mr. Stein. This item was continued to the meeting of December 21, 1977. 13. RECOMMENDED TITLE 25 CODE AMENDMENTS (CONTINUED FROM 10-12-77) This item was removed from the agenda. V. CITY PLANNER REPORT 14. VARIANCE TO ENLARGE A HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING SETBACK AT 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD C. P. Swan noted he has heard nothing from Mr. Simmons although work is going along quickly. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 November 28, 1977 C. Kindig asked the status of the procedure on condominium projects. C. E. Kirkup advised his office was operating as though procedures had been approved. C. Kindig felt something formal should be done on this. Commission discussed the length of meetings. Chm. Taylor felt only a certain number of items should be scheduled and any items beyond that number postponed until time was available. Commission generally felt it was their responsibility to hear any applications coming before them and the City could not deny the right of hearing. It was noted that postponements make a difference in cost of materials and financing. C. Sine specifically felt that anyone making application has the right to be heard. Most of the Commissioners felt that extra meetings might be a solution. C. P. Swan briefly reviewed some upcoming items. One specific item was a proposed skateboard park on two acres on Airport Boulevard. He noted this would invite people from all surrounding cities. An.i(111RNMFNT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary