Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.02.28THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER February 28, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT None City Planner Swan City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES Minutes of the February 14, 1977 meeting were approved as mailed. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION Chm. Taylor requested and received unanimous consent of Commission to hear Item #11 on the agenda first. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APARTMENT BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT; PROPERTY AT 1860 OGDEN DRIVE (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) (APN 025-121-200), ZONED C-3, BY TERENCE O'NEILL (OPTIONEE), WESTERN CONFERENCE TEAMSTERS (OWNER).(ND-104P POSTED 2/18/77) Secy. Sine read into the record a letter dated February 28, 1977 from Banker & Marks, Real Estate Investments, San Francisco, owners of 1840 Ogden Drive. This letter voiced objections to a residential use in this area which would be a complete change of character. They also felt problems would be created in the interior parking lots which might be used for children's playgrounds. Commission was asked to study the situation and enact an ordinance which would disallow residential construction in a C-3 area. The letter stated both International Paper and Alcoa joined him in this request. C. P. Swan noted the present regulations for C-3 Districts which allow,"All uses permitted in R (residential) districts . . ." He then directed Commission's attention to another letter from Onorato Associates, Inc. dated February 25, 1977 which requested this application for special permit be withdrawn from the agenda. Revised plans have reduced the height of the building; therefore, no special permit would be required. He noted that Mr. Marks was taking exception to a code regulation. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 28, 1977 Before accepting withdrawal, Chm. Taylor asked Mr. Marks for comments. Fillmore C. Marks told Commission he felt this area was one of the finest business parks in the city, and noted this one block only has office buildings on it. He restated his opinion as expressed in his letter that an apartment house at that location would be out of place. Chm. Taylor suggested Mr. Marks attend the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee to Recommend a Housing Element on Tuesday evening, March 1 since his remarks might be more appropriately received by that Committee; Mr. Marks appeared interested in doing so. C. Jacobs indicated her understanding of Mr. Marks' concern but wished him to recognize there was nothing Commission could do as long as the building were constructed according to code regulations. Mr. Marks suggested an emergency ordinance, and stated there was a possibility they would lose their tenant, Alcoa, if the apartment house were built. At this point in the meeting Chm. Taylor recognized in the audience Mr. Les Simonds, former Mayor. C. P. Swan requested Commission action on this request to withdraw. C. Jacobs moved approval of the applicant's request to withdraw his application for special permit. Second C. Kindig and approved by unanimous voice vote. 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 33, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 (APN 026-185-080) AT 1915 CARMELITA AVENUE AND 1030 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY GLEN D. HAGEY FOR TED FARLEY C. P. Swan referred to memorandum dated 2/25/77 from the Director of Public Works recommending that Commission approve this tentative map subject to the street and utility improvements being completed prior to filing of the final map. This property is in one ownership; a 2 -story house is under construction on Lot 6 and the Farley residence at 1915 Carmelita Avenue is located on Lot 7. This new tentative map would create Parcel A with 70' of frontage and Parcel B with 80' of frontage. Secy. Sine read into the record a letter dated February 28, 1977 from Mr. and Mrs. Robert D. Shafer, 1008 Bernal Avenue, expressing their thanks to Commission, staff and Mr. Farley for their handling of this property and preservation of the creek area. Replying to Chm. Taylor, C.E. Kirkup stated this tentative parcel map was ready for consideration subject to the conditions as stated in his memorandum. Mr. Farley indicated his understanding of the required improvements. He told C. Jacobs the ditch coming from Carmelita would be filled in when the sidewalk is completed on that side. This had been put in for a water line which has since been completed in Bernal. C. Sine questioned a loaded contractor's truck which has been parked on the street for some time and was told by Mr. Farley that it would be moved this week. C. Jacobs determined from the applicant that the fence on Bernal would be brought down to five feet to conform to code requirements. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in favor; there were none. Dan Powell of 1009 Drake Avenue spoke in opposition, requesting additional information. He was assured there would be no additional parcels; there is a house on one parcel now and one under construction on the second parcel. This map is merely to create two parcels of approximately the same size; the house under construction does not encroach on the creek. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. There was some discussion concerning location of sewer lines. C. E. Kirkup recommended, if at all possible, that a sewer be constructed in Bernal Avenue to serve Parcel A so that the sewer main in the easement could be abandoned as well as the easement. Further, if the easement is not abandoned, Engineering would require the fence encroaching on the easement be relocated. Mr. Kirkup told C. Jacobs the trees in the street right-of-way would be saved. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 28, 1977 C. Mink moved approval of this tentative parcel map for resubdivision with the following conditions: the fence across the sewer easement be removed; curb, gutter, sidewalks, street and utility improvements be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works before filing the final parcel map. Second C. Cistulli and approved on unanimous roll call vote. C. E. Kirkup noted that since improvements are required this map will go to City Council at their next meeting, March 7, 1977. C. Jacobs thanked Mr. Farley for his cooperation in this matter. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2B, 2C, 3A., 3B and 3D, BLOCK 3, TOWN OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-223-010/020/100/110/120) AT 33 PARK ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY WM. A. BARTLETT FOR TED FARLEY C. P. Swan referenced 2/25/77 memorandum received from the Director of Public Works which describes this resubdivision of five parcels into three parcels. Parcel 3 does not have access to Park Road and easements would be required for Parcel 3 access to Park Road through Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. Swan stated that in his opinion easements should provide access to each of the individual living units which would be built at a future date, and should be wide enough to provide access to a garage. The Director of Public Works would require new sewer laterals as well as new water services at the time of development. It was recommended that Commission approve the tentative map subject to conditions that access be prohibited to E1 Camino Real, and that access easements be granted to Parcel 3 across Parcels 1 and 2. Chm. Taylor requested review of this particular property by the C. P. C.P. Swan stated this vacant land is composed of five lots, two fronting on E1 Camino Real and three fronting on Park Road. There had been an application for a project with one building and a tentative map had been approved to combine all five lots into one parcel. The final parcel map was never adopted. This new map is to combine the lots into three parcels because zoning regulations limit each parcel to having one residential building. The applicants have a design in mind whereby one residential building would be located on each of these three parcels. The C.E. had recommended there be no access to E1 Camino. Mr. Swan noted that Commission packet included a letter from Fire Chief Fricke regarding townhouse type condominiums. In the opinion of the Fire Dept. this type of project should be classified as Group H (apartment house) occupancy. Tonight's application, however, is simply consideration of the tentative parcel map. C. E. Kirkup explained that tentative parcel map procedure is to approve the lot configuration with P.C. requiring conditions, if any, which should be placed on the final map. In response to the question, could apartments be built on each lot, staff replied yes but in order to issue a building permit there must be a location on a particular parcel. The parcel map must be approved first. The C. E. pointed out that in this particular case, since there are five lots at present, the applicants could not build across lot lines. C. Kindig suggested Commission condition the tentative parcel map with a requirement for easements. Mr. Singer told the P.C. their attorney was working on all cross easements necessary but they had not thought this would be necessary for tonight's meeting. C. Sine suggested continuing this item to the next study meeting in March if the applicants felt they had adequate time to do so. Mr. Farley indicated it was their plan to submit full plans for the March 14 meeting. C. Kindig thought Commission could continue the map to March 14 and plans could be heard for study at the same time. C. Mink determined there were two existing curb cuts on E1 Camino Real, and C. E. Kirkup commented that according to code the driveways on El Camino must be closed before establishing new driveways. Discussion continued regarding procedure after which Chm. Taylor announced this tentative parcel map would be continued to the meeting of March 14, 1977. It was noted the lots in question are all R-3 lots at the present time, having been rezoned in the recent past. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 28, 1977 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.41.040 WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 20,000 SF; l PROPERTY AT 850 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-342-250), ZONED C-4, BY ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST C. P. Swan stated this application is required because there are two buildings on one parcel of property. The applicant wishes to subdivide in order to legally sell the building located at 828 Airport Boulevard. This variance is requested to create a lot that is less than 20,000 SF, specifically 17,177 SF.' The C. P. said the small building would have adequate parking to serve its needs; however,'_there is need for cross easements so that people parking there could traverse the adjacent property. The new lot line would be in the middle of the driveway. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, told Commission the property had been developed and the buildings constructed prior to the adoption of the present lot size requirement of 20,000 SF in this area. He stated the variance is necessary in order to file a parcel map and comply with State Map Act requirements. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor or opposed; there were none, and he declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink moved this application for variance be approved with the following findings of fact: from the evidence that has been presented as part of the attachments to this particular application, there is a hardship because this building was constructed before the code requirement for minimum lot size was established and the necessity of filing a map in order to complete sale of the building; further, in no way does this adversely affect the overall zoning plan of the City or use in C-4; it is not detrimental to any of the surrounding property owners. Chm. Taylor. requested Commission adopt findings of fact as a separate motion, and C. Mink moved the adoption of his previously stated findings of fact. Second C. Cistulli and approved by unanimous voice vote. C. Mink then moved the granting of this variance; second C. Cistulli and approved by unanimous roll call vote. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 4 (APN 026-342-250/260) AT 828 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND 850 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, BY HOWARD HICKEY FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST C. E. Kirkup referenced his memo of 2/24/77 recommending approval of this parcel map subject to granting of the variance for lot size, and subject to the map showing easements for driveway access in each parcel to the other parcel, in addition to drainage easements from Parcel A through Parcel B. He noted the tentative map does show the easements requested for access and drainage. The final parcel map will grant these in the dedication and in the certification on the map; this map is already in the City Engineer's office. C. Jacobs moved approval of the tentative parcel map subject to the map showing the easements for driveway access in each parcel to the other parcel and the drainage easements from Parcel A through Parcel B. Second C. Kindig and approved by unanimous roll call vote. David Keyston requested the final map be on the March 14 agenda to facilitate this sale. With concurrence of the C.E., Chm. Taylor scheduled the final parcel map for March 14, 1977. 5. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030(a) WHICH REQUIRES THAT THERE BE ONE GARAGE OR CARPORT FOR EACH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING; PROPERTY AT 2616 HALE DRIVE (APN 027-172- 180), ZONED R-1, BY ALBERT AND KATHLEEN THUESEN C. P. Swan briefly reviewed this application to remove the existing garage and carport in order to build a deck adjacent to the swimming pool in the backyard. The applicant Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 28, 1977 would plan to park automobiles in the driveway. Mr. Thuesen purchased the property about 2-1/2 years ago and at that time there was an existing carport which had been built without benefit of a building permit. Storage of pool equipment in the small garage made it unsuitable in depth for parking an automobile; additionally, the garage floor had been raised 12" above the driveway grade level, making it:unusable. The C. P. remarked that one possibility might be to ramp up to that level and still have one covered parking space. The applicant wished to use 100% of his rear yard for his own enjoyment and it was noted this might pose a problem should other residents ask a similar favor. An inspection of the property this evening indicated three cars parked in the.driveway. Mr. Swan questioned if the proposal by the applicant was the best possible solution to the problem and mentioned there might also be a problem with the proposed fencing between the driveway and the property next door. There were no Commission questions at this time. Mr. Thuesen addressed the P.C., stating Mr. Swan's review had indicated the conditions as they were. He felt ramping up to.the present garage would be aesthetically detrimental. He added that he had discussed the matter of the fencing with his neighbors and that it would be basically what is there now, constructed of wood and at the same height. One of the problems was the present carport must be -brought up to code in order to do anything at all. He felt the covered carport requirement would be a hardship on his neighbors as it would block off light. During Commission discussion it was brought out that the applicant is presently parking three cars tandem; his lot is large, approximately 122 feet in depth; with the extra space from the carport area the applicant's proposal would produce 100% enjoyment of the backyard; there is very little space around the pool at the present time; the house now contains three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths which, according to code, would require two covered parking spaces; the applicant planned to extend the decking, move it over to the property line, and.then place a fence on top of that deck; with the neighboring yard about two feet below Mr. Thuesen's driveway, it would appear his neighbors would be faced with close to a nine foot wall. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application; there were none. He then asked for audience comments in opposition. Mrs. Flora Stamp of 2614 Hale Drive stated she was not against the Thuesens improving their property but was concerned about being blocked off by the proposed fence. She stated if it should go up nine feet it would darken one end of their kitchen, with no sun at any time. C. P. Swan commented that pools must be enclosed by a four foot fence, and the permitted height of a fence along the side property line is six feet. Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed and -asked for further Commission questions. C. Mink stated his feeling that it would be to the detriment of the City to establish a principle of not requiring a covered parking space for each residence. Chm. Taylor suggested the applicant see an architect in order to solve the problem and still maintain privacy. C. Sine wished to give the applicant every possibility to solve the problem since the garage was unusable as such. He was in agreement with C. Mink but suggested, with the permission of the applicant, that this item be continued for 30-60 days to enable Mr. Thuesen to explore alternatives. The applicant questioned the belief by some Commissioners that granting this exception to the zoning requirements would set a precedent in Burlingame. He noted that under present City building regulations he could tear down the two structures and construct a cantilevered covered carport; a cantilevered carport would cut off his neighbors' light and constitute a hardship to them. The C. A. reviewed code requirements for granting of a variance and added that legally the hardship concerned was the hardship to the property owner, not Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 28, 1977 to the adjacent property owner. C. Kindig agreed with C.s Mink and Sine that alternatives should be pursued -and also suggested'Mr. Thuesen pursue the possibility of a cantilevered carport. Chm: Taylor stated his feeling that Commission should continue to require that each house in Burlingame maintain covered parking. It was the consensus of Commission to table this item in order to allow the applicant time to redesign. A short recess was declared at 9:15 P.M., after which the meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M. 6. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO ENLARGE A BUILDING WITH NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD; PROPERTY AT 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APN 028-285-300), ZONED R-1, BY ZEV BEN SIMON C. P. Swan stated that Commission had received information on this application in its packet of material; the C.P. and the applicant were available this evening to answer any questions. Mr. Ben Simon told Commission they wished to enlarge their home by adding two bedrooms and a bath upstairs. The applicant owns the adjacent property also and had remodeled both properties about a year ago with no addition to the structures. There is a common driveway with two -car garages for each property located in the rear. C. P. Swan discussed these properties, stating that the vacant lot had received a relocated house. In order to gain access to the garage at the rear of 1517 Burlingame Avenue an easement was required. He noted that in addition to a two car garage there would be space in the back driveway for two cars. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor or opposed; there were none and the public hearing was declared closed. C. Jacobs felt that the applicant did have a hardship and that his proposal would be an improvement to an R-1 property. Chm. Taylor noted the available parking and did not feel Commission would be inconsistent with its requirements for covered parking if this variance were granted. C. Kindig moved that this variance application to enlarge an existing building be approved. C. Mink proposed findings of fact: that Commission in its collective opinion found the requirements for a variance had been met, specifically, without this variance the applicant would be denied full use of his property and thereby suffer a hardship, the granting of the variance would in no way be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood, and it is in conformance with .the General Plan. Second C. Cistulli and findings of fact adopted unanimously by voice vote. C. Kindig moved approval of his previously stated motion; second C. Sine and approved unanimously on roll call vote. 7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO ENLARGE A BUILDING WITH NONCONFORMING FRONT SETBACK; PROPERTY AT 110 BLOOMFIELD ROAD (APN 029-273-190), ZONED R-1, BY ROBERT J. SIMMONS It was determined Mr. Simmons was present this evening. C. P. Swan explained this application to enlarge an existing nonconforming residence; the front yard is only eight feet in depth and code requires a 15 foot front setback. To require the building be cut off in front would be a definite hardship. The C. P. saw no reason why this variance could not be considered favorably. Replying to C. Jacobs' question, the applicant told her he needed to obtain a debris box in order to clean up the property as requested at the study meeting. He stated he planned to live in the house himself. C. A. Coleman wished to know when the proposed work would be completed as staff had received complaints regarding this property. Assuming the variance were granted, the applicant believed work could be completed in four to six months. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 28, 1977 Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application. Mr. Joseph Machado, 114 Bloomfield Road (next door), said that his comments were essentially in favor of this application and that he was speaking on behalf of two other neighbors also. Mr. Machado's concern was that the work be completed as soon as possible as this property had been an eyesore for quite some time. There being no audience comments in opposition, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs. felt the neighborhood would be improved by the granting of this variance. C. Cistulli suggested a time limitation be fixed on the variance, and the C.A. thought this would be wise. The applicant again stated it would take four to six months to complete work on the exterior of the house and the yard work. C.s Cistulli and Kindig were concerned mainly with the exterior appearance of the property. Mr. Simmons told Commission there is no covered parking at present but he is planning to construct a garage at the back. Chm. Taylor stated findings of fact which indicate removal of that portion of the building which encroaches on the setback line would cause hardship; the proposed improvement would not interfere with the rights of any adjoining property owner; the proposed additions would allow the applicant to increase his enjoyment of his property, and would not interfere with the General Plan. C. Jacobs moved adoption of these findings; second C. Cistulli and adopted by unanimous voice vote. C. Jacobs then moved approval of this variance with the stipulation that the exterior and yard improvements be completed within six months. Second C. Cistulli and unanimously approved on roll call vote. 8. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030(i) WHICH SPECIFIES STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING; PROPERTY AT 330 BEACH ROAD (APN 026-332-080), ZONED M-1, BY GEORGE S. KUJIRAOKA (LESSEE) WITH CLARENCE A. PHILLIPS (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -101P POSTED 2/18/77) C. P. Swan reviewed this application which concerns proposed remodeling of an existing office/warehouse building and adding office space within the building which would require increased parking. He stated that TPS Aviation had been in business since 1963 across the street from 330 Beach Road. They now wish to move to that building together with their freight shipping company which has three employees. TPS Aviation has six employees. Expansion of the business could increase the number of people employed on the premises to 15 people; the applicant had stated there would be 22 parking spaces provided. The C. P. had concern that should the applicant subsequently sell to another party with a different type of business there might be need for more parking; consideration should be for the long term benefit of the City. The property is owned by Clarence Phillips; Anza has a leaseback arrangement whereby they could buy it back from Mr. Phillips. Mr. Swan said that his figures differ somewhat from those of the applicant's designer; he noted two compact spaces next to Beach Road appear disfunctional because they do not provide a 24 foot backup, and could constrain truck access. There is at least 10% landscaping and an adequate setback. It appeared that 31 parking spaces might be required; with 20 provided, there would be a deficiency of 11 spaces. Mr. Kujiraoka told Chm. Taylor this is a 29 year lease which started 10 years ago; he is planning to purchase the property in about six months. David Keyston of Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust told Commission Anza assigned the lease and option to purchase with the consent of Mr. Phillips. C. P. Swan told C. Cistulli it would be a fair statement that there are 20 parking spaces which meet code. C. Kindig wondered about vehicles of the freight forwarding company; the applicant told him TPS Avaiation has one truck and this other company has one truck. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application. David Keyston spoke in support, pointing out Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 28, 1977 that the building was built under previous codes that are no longer in effect. He noted over 10% landscaping is being provided. He believed the proposed parking would be adequate for this use, and for most other uses; there would be parking space during the daytime adjacent to the building in the entrance to the drive-in movie theater, if needed. Mr. Keyston advised that the applicant had carried ori this same business across the street for approximately 10 years and had been a very good neighbor. There being no audience comment in opposition, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. David Keyston told C. Francard the building was constructed 10 years ago. C. Mink stated findings of fact based on the evidence presented orally this evening and on documents presented: Commission found if the variance is not granted it would present a hardship to the applicant for continued use of the building; and further, granting of this variance would in no way conflict with the conditions -of the General Plan for this zone. Second C. Cistulli, and findings of fact adopted on unanimous voice vote. C. Mink moved approval of this variance to George Kujiraoka for the intended use as submitted in the documents, the variance to be nontransferable. Second C. Cistulli, and unanimously approved on roll call vote. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE COOLIDGE SCHOOL AS A CHILD CARE CENTER -NURSERY -SCHOOL, AND CULTURAL CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS; PROPERTY AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026- 073-110), BY DIANE K. DE PERALTA OF COUNTRY CLUB DAY CARE AND CULTURAL CENTER, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -102P POSTED 2/18/77) Chm. Taylor recognized C. Sine who wished to express his feelings with regard to a recent newspaper article following the study meeting on this item. He felt the press had unfairly inferred that Commissioners were of a mind to deny this application in advance of the public hearing; and wished it to be known that he intended to listen this evening and then make up his mind regarding the -application. C. P. Swan reviewed the items which Commission had received in its packet. These included the special permit application; two pages from the lease agreement with the Burlingame School District indicating the term to be for one month commencing on the 9th day of February, 1977. The lease grants nonexclusive use of the playgrounds adjacent to the leased premises from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Mr. Swan stated he had received verbal communication that the building itself would be available to the applicant in the evening at hours later than 6:00 P.M. Additional items included a diagram of the proposed rental area: the stage and portion of the auditorium, Room #5 and the kitchen, with access to the restrooms (approximately 2,000 SF of leased floor area); Articles of Incorporation of Country Club Day Care and Cultural Center, Inc. dated the third day of November, 1976; February 23, 1977 letter from the State Franchise Tax Board indicating nonprofit status; a Preliminary Site Plan which shows parking located along Laguna Avenue with access from Laguna through the existing gate; and a February 16, 1977 letter from the applicant with details requested by Commission at their study meeting. This letter included a schedule for use of the school. Mr. Swan noted his negative declaration, ND -102P, concluded as follows: "An existing elementary school building and adjoining playground could again be used by children. The proposed uses have been considered by the Burlingame School District as Lessor and they have executed a month to month lease with this applicant. A nonprofit school is a conditional use that is permitted within the R-1 District. Off-street parking next to the fence along Laguna would be beneficial. The project uses would not have a significant environmental effect on the surrounding residential neighborhood." Mrs. Diane K. de Peralta, director of the school, addressed Commission. She noted the site plans were only 'preliminary' and merely showed some of the things they would like to do to the site should they ever acquire the property. In addressing the matter of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 28, 1977 parking, Mrs. de Peralta stated there were only four people working for the school at present who do park cars; two teachers, a cook and a janitor, plus the school bus. To date they have been parking on the Grove Street side of the school and have not gone into the schoolyard as it was her understanding the School District did not want cars there. She would prefer off-street parking for the employees. Most of the children are picked up from their homes and brought to the school by bus. These are children from the South San Francisco area who attended her.school there; they expected two from the Burlingame area to start the day after this meeting. C. Sine was concerned that the School Board know about the preliminary site plan and! upon checking had found they did not. For all practical purposes he felt this plan could be ignored. The applicant told Chm. Taylor that in addition to the day care and nursery school it was intended to operate a cultural center with music, art, dance, drama and cooking classes for school aged children and adults if they were interested. Mrs. de Peralta had talked to the Recreation Director and indicated they would! not duplicate the Recreation Dept. programs. She stated that she had a school in a South San Francisco church for one year, and had offered classes in the phone book.. There was Commission discussion regarding how the applicant proposed to operate this school and cultural center with only a month to month lease. She said she was going ahead on the understanding from the School Board. that the lease would be renewed month to month, until such time as it is declared surplus property. It was brought out also that they were operating at the new location now. C. Mink, noting that development of the school., after-school and cultural classes would not occur instantly, asked for an estimate of the number of children who might use the after-school services. Mrs. de Peralta replied that the license for day care applies to both day care and after-school services. She stated the maximum loading, any combination, would be 49, and adults would be in addition to this number. C. Jacobs expressed concern should Mrs. de Peralta's operation expand with many more children, and suggested conditioning the permit to a certain short term. It was C. Mink's thought the permit could be granted for space allocated by the School District at the present time, with any addition being required to come back to the P.C. Chm. Taylor felt the Monday through Saturday arrangement created its own special problems, and questioned nonexclusive use of the playground on Saturday since it is now being used by the general public on Saturday. He noted the impact on the neighborhood and on the surrounding streets with parking problems by multiple use of the playground. The applicant said the gates to the playground were proposed for the day care center's use of the yard and noted they would be liable for their own negligence. She was concerned with baby-sitting the whole neighborhood during the week. Chm. Taylor commented the use of the playground cannot be a concern of the Commission; this is a matter between the lessor and lessee. He then requested audience comments. Kathy Gordon, a nonresident of Burlingame, spoke in favor, stating she is a working parent and has been sending her son to the school for six months. She reported she had been very happy with his growth and welfare, the teachers and the program. Further, she did not believe the school could be a losing situation or one that would get out of control. John Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue, was concerned about use of the schoolyard. All holidays, Sundays and when the children get out of school in mid-afternoon there has been constant use of the yard. If the schoolyard were locked, Mr. Benson stated he would be against this application. Mrs. Gilda Visintin, 1411 Paloma Avenue, remarked that when the Recreation Dept. had used the school there were parking problems and difficulty getting in and out in case of an emergency. She noted the family type neighborhood and said she would be in favor of using the school if parking problems were resolved and if the schoolground were not locked so that it would be available to neighbors and children. Lenore Hunter Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 28, 1977 whose son attends the nursery school remarked that there are only four people parking on the street at present. It was her thought that a party at one of the nearby homes would generate many more cars than that. Chm. Taylor asked for any further audience comments; there were none and he declared the public hearing closed. Glenn Stewart, Business Manager, Burlingame School District was present and available for questioning. He told Commission that a month to month renewable lease was permitted; however, when options and determinations can be made for disposal of the property, the School Board will then take whatever action it deems necessary. It was his belief that the City had an annual lease since they are a political entity of the State of California. The lease was terminated when the rent was doubled. C. Mink stated his understanding that there are a number of steps the School Board must take to enter into public bid or dispose of property. He was asked how long this might take if the Board initiated proceedings. Mr. Stewart believed this procedure for purchase of the property would take not less than six months; a long term lease would take six to 10 weeks. The applicant was agreeable to conditioning the permit to a life span coextensive with the lease and subsequent renewals of the lease; any change would require her to come back to the Commission. Replying to C. Jacobs, Mrs. de Peralta thought evening classes would most probably end at 8:30 P.M. and would be entirely within the building. She would be agreeable to a 10:00 P.M. limit as a condition of the permit. C. Francard was told the dance classroom will hold approximately 15 adults, and the Commissioner remarked these people would be parking on the street. C. Sine asked Mr. Stewart about student and teacher enrollment when the school was operating at maximum capacity. Mr. Stewart estimated that with a 30 to 1 ratio.there would be a total of 210 to 225. Chm. Taylor believed the maximum Coolidge School ever had was 164 and when it closed enrollment was down to less than 60. C. Sine remarked on the continuing parking problem ever since the school was built, with an added problem when the Recreation Dept. was there. Mrs. de Peralta's present parking seemed a minor problem. The applicant told C. Sine the corporation is nonprofit; but she is charging a fee for this service. The Commissioner pointed out she was charging a fee for use in an R-1 zone. C..A. Coleman advised that technically the zoning regulations list uses that are permitted. The applicant would be making a living but it is technically a nonprofit corporation. Mr. Coleman asked Mrs. de Peralta's understanding of the term "nonexclusive use," stating it was his impression that others could use the playground area while she was using the school. It would also allow the School Board to rent out more of the building. Mrs. de Peralta told him the problem of the playground had not been dealt with as yet with the School Board. C. Kindig stated his concern about this as Sunday and holiday use was still unsettled. Mr. Stewart told him the subject of Sundays was not spoken to directly, but as a layman his reading of this term would be the same as the C.A.'s, i.e., others would be able to use the playground at a concurrent period of time. C. Kindig wished the gates unlocked on Sunday for the neighborhood children. The applicant told C. Francard she would hope to make improve- ments such as landscaping if the property comes under her control. C. Jacobs moved approval of the special permit in accordance with the Agreement between the applicant and the Burlingame School District, with use of the building until 10:00 P.M., with any changes to come back to the Planning Commission, and the special permit to be coextensive with the term of the lease. Second C. Mink and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 28, 1977 C. Jacobs wished the public to understand that any differing ideas they might have should be presented to the School District. After this item it recess was called at 11:05 P.M. and the meeting reconvened at 11:15 P.M,. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 3 -STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH ROOFTOP TENNIS COURT FENCE THAT EXCEEDS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT; PROPERTY AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) (APN 029-121-450), ZONED C-1, BY HENRY HORN $SONS (ND -103P POSTED 2/18/77) C. P. Swan discussed this application, noting it concerned land which has been vacant a long time only one-half block from City Hall. Itis within the Burlingame Avenue Area Off -Street Parking District and the proposed building is exempt from parking regulations. An elevator tower and proposed rooftop tennis court are structures that will be approximately 44 feet above grade; there is less than 15,000 SF of total floor area; it would not cover more than 75% of the land area., The total height with the tennis court fence will be more than 35 feet; therefore, a special permit is required. He directed P.C. attention to the Park Director's report concerning two elm trees in front; their branches extend over the buildable area of the lot. It was recommended pruning be done only to clear the building adequately, and that this be done at the direction of the Park Director and expense of the applicant. Bertram Horn, the applicant, addressed Commission. He stated he had contacted Leslie Mayne who would act as his consultant regarding the trees. In some general discussion with Mr. Mayne, he felt the trees could easily be trimmed and believed the roots would drop below any foundation the applicant was considering. They would design the founda- tion to bridge any major roots that are found. The tennis court screen would be 12 feet above the roof floor, and this court would be used by and limited to tenants of the building. The applicant's company plans to locate its offices on the third floor of this building, with 10 employees. Elevator and stair access to the roof area would be for the use of tenants only. He advised Commission he had checked tennis court screen heights in the area; most have 10 foot screens with perhaps two or three at 11 and 12 feet. They would expect the court to be used by adults only. They were not planning any dressing rooms as such and were planning to light the court at night. Replying to C. Francard, Mr. Horn advised he had talked to the Fire Dept. and planned to incorporate an enclosed fire escape next to the elevator which he felt would add to the design of the building. The Fire Dept. was not concerned about the tennis court screen as it could be easily cut, if necessary. The applicant did not think there was concern regarding tennis balls going over the fence as adults would be the only people using the court. He also told C. Kindig he felt the lighting could be placed so as not to affect any residents of the area. C. Sine inquired about the tree on the north side, on adjacent property, which is leaning substantially over the property line. The applicant advised his neighbor had said it would be in order to remove it if necessary; however, Mr. Horn thought it might fall within the courtyard and could be retained. 'C. Sine suggested considering the possibility, if the application is approved, of going to a foundation supported by caissons with a grade beam along the front wall to eliminate root damage to the trees. Mr. Yamasaki, Architect, commented that on a 3 -story building there would be concentrated locations and he thought they could actually control the point loading of certain areas. There would be non-bearing walls in between these supports and, in essence, the same result as C. Sine's suggestion. C. Jacobs expressed her concern about noise since the location is just across the street from the library. Mr. Horn told her he had talked with the assistant librarian and one other library attendant; they had no objections and were in support of a bit more lighting in the area since the library remains open until 9:00 P.M. Mr. Horn told C. Cistulli the tennis court fence would most probably be a cyclone fence; a chain link type which could be seen through. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 February 28, 1977 Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in support; there were none. He then asked for comments in opposition. Roger Duncan, 404 Primrose Road objected to the tennis court, with possible noise and accidents with tennis balls. He stated he was against the proposal. Jim Mosunich, who operates a nearby business, did rot like the idea of a tennis court either. He also questioned where people would park and was told by the Chm. that parking is not a concern of the P.C. since this location is within the Parking District. There being no further comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Cistulli thought the rooftop tennis court would be an innovation for the City of Burlingame. The applicant requested permission to allow the elevator to rise to the roof; the top of the elevator would be 8-1/2 feet above the top of the parapet, the same height as the tennis court fence. C. Jacobs was concerned about the bulk in view of the low profile of the area. Mr. Horn commented that the redwood tree on the site is huge and thought the elevator would add to the design of the building. C. Sine determined that only tenants would have a key to the roof, with a button in the elevator which would be locked off. The Commissioner had mixed feelings regarding the tennis court; it might be a good selling point for tenants, but he felt in five years' time there might be very limited use of it. C. Kindig inquired if Commission would have any control for review if the tennis court turned out to be a nuisance. C. A. Coleman suggested putting a special condition on any approval. It was the consensus of most Commissioners that the proposed tennis court was too small to be used as a tennis club in future years. C. Mink suggested a 9:00 P.M. time limit on the use of the lights with review in six months. He also stated his concern that the use of the court be limited to bona fide tenants of the building. C. Mink moved approval of this special permit subject to the fallowing limitations: that it be constructed in general compliance with the drawings and sketches submitted for a 3 -story office building with rooftop tennis court fence and elevator enclosure, each not to exceed 44 feet in height; that the use of the lights on the tennis court be limited to no later than 9:00 P.M. and that this particular restriction be reviewed in six months from date of opening and first use of this building; and that the use of the tennis court be restricted to bona fide tenants of the building only. Second C. Cistulli and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD The Planning Commission recommended that City Council take a close look at this special permit. If Council wishes to review this application it could be appealed or called up for consideration at a subsequent public hearing. 12. SIGN EXCEPTION FROM CODE SEC. 22.08.010 TO INSTALL EIGHT 4' X 4' SIGNS ON WASHINGTON PARK GRANDSTAND, BEING UNCLASSIFIED LAND OWNED BY CITY OF BURLINGAME; SIGNS TO BE FURNISHED BY ART BELLI, BURLINGAME BRAVES Mr. Belli addressed Commission and told them that the Park & RErcreation Commission had approved installation of these signs two weeks ago. There are eight 4' x 4' signs and it was hoped the Planning Commission would approve installing them on the Washington Park grandstand. C.A. Coleman told Chm. Taylor this particular application should be treated like a sign exception and it should then go to the City Council because it involves City property. This particular type of request is not covered by the new Sign Code. C. Cistulli inquired about the materials being used for the signs. The applicant advised it is weatherproof and light weight; the installation would be 25 feet off Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 February 28, 1977 the ground and Mr. Belli did not believe it could be damaged. C. Jacobs did not see any problem with the proposal. The applicant told C. Kindig that individual logos for each school would be used in the design of the signs. C. Francard objected to covering City of Burlingame property with signs in view of past Commission actions when reviewing signs. C. Jacobs moved approval of this sign exception, with recommendation to City Council, in accordance with all the materials submitted in the application. Second C. Cistulli; approved and recommended to Council on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, MINK, SINE Mr. Belli told Commission there would be no problem with installation; the Park Dept. would help in putting the signs up and there would be no expense to the City for same. 14(a). REQUEST FROM CLUB CATERING, 1461 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, FOR SIX MONTHS' EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REMODELING C. P. Swan commented on a letter dated February 24, 1977 received from Club Catering requesting a six months' extension of their special permit for remodeling front offices to change into proposed restaurant. They stated more time is needed due to scheduling of their time and the contractor's time. C. Mink moved approval of a six months' extension of Club Catering's special permit for remodeling; second C. Kindig and unanimously approved by voice vote. 14(b). C. P. Swan asked that Commission address City Council Resolution No. 19-77 which directs the Planning Commission to (1) select an appropriate project area for the Bayside Redevelopment Project, and (2) formulate a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of said selected project area. He noted the third page of the handout distributed to Commission which gives specifics, as staff understands same, which have been incorporated in the Agreement for preparation of the economic feasibility report and the environmental impact report. The C.P. questioned: how big can the parking variance be and how should it be designed so that it will work'? For example, a conventioneer might arrive from out of town with one car and visit five different land uses in the convention center project. He has only one car and doesn't need five parking spaces. Mr. Swan commented that the last cars to arrive might have to go somewhere else to park and walk or bus back to the Center. C.A. Coleman told Commission selection of the project area is merely a technical process; site plans, as such, are not involved at this point, merely formulation of a preliminary plan for the project area. He agreed that parking is difficult at present; until the feasibility study is returned the numbers are not known. Mr. Coleman has been designated the project manager; he assured Commission material would be available to them at the time of their study session. He also requested he be included in any conversations or meetings Commission members might have with Barry Silverton. Speaking as a golfer, it was C. Cistulli's suggestion the golf course include par 5 holes. There was some further discussion about the convention center project and the possibility of revising the project area at a later date. C. P. Swan expressed his concern regarding work priorities; to perform additional tasks for the redevelopment agency and still not delay completion of the Housing Element of the General Plan ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:17 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Id. Sine, Secretary