Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.07.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 24, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order Monday, July 24, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman Everett K. Kindig, Secretary Charles W. Mink Thomas W. Sine Thomas C. Taylor Absent: Jules L. Francard, excused Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner Jerome Coleman, City Attorney Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer Quorum present; Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman presiding. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held July 10, 1978 were approved as mailed. AGENDA Upon motion by Commissioner Taylor which was seconded by Commissioner Kindig, the order of the agenda was approved. ❑n.1f11 IRNMFNT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:30 P.M. MINUTES OF the July 24, 1978 meeting were approved with the 'Following correction: on page 11, third paragraph, last sentence to read: "Chairman Jacobs noted the final date of appeal." Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 1. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040 TO INTO THE REQUIRED 30' FRONT SETBACK ZONED R-1, BY HILARY J. FORD Page 2 July 24, 1978 ALLOW A NEW TWO CAR GARAGE TO PROJECT 12" AT 1125 OXFORD ROAD (APN 025-252-210), Commissioner Taylor stated he had discussed the alternatives of this variance with the applicant prior to the meeting and City Attorney Coleman advised that unless a Commissioner has made a preconceived conclusion he can participate in the action. Commissioner Taylor stated he would base his decision solely on testimony presented at the hearing. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application which includes remodeling the home and adding a two -car garage to the front of the house, which would extend 10' toward the street while maintaining a front setback of 29'. He noted that the existing detached single car garage at the back of the lot would be partially demolished.and its remaining portion converted to a garden shed. He noted that the average front setback on Oxford Road is 40', while municipal code only requires 30'; therefore, the request is actually for a 1' variance. If approved, however, the garage would project 11' in front of the neighbors' homes. Mr. Yost reviewed Mr. Ford's affidavit and then concluded that the remodeling fully meets other city requirements and the new design would be in much better relationship to the existing home than the prior plan viewed by the Commission in February.. Hilary J. Ford, the applicant, was present and submitted six signed letters from neighbors stating they did not oppose: the variance. There being no questions of the applicant at this time, the public hearing was opened. The following members of the public addressed Commission: Gayla Drakulich, 1123 Oxford Road, felt the 1' variance should be allowed; Robert H. Gans, 1112 Cambridge Road, opposed the variance, advising there is a deed restriction requiring a 40' front setback in this neighbor- hood, and none of the other homes have a garage protruding into the front yard; although the variance is for only 1', the new garage would extend 11' in front of the neighbors' homes which would change the character of the area. Anna Alexander, 1504 Highway Road, opposed the variance, stating that once the Commission lets down the barriers in an area they would not be effective again and it would definitely mar the neighborhood. Clark Combs stated he could not see the objection of the residents as the variance is only for 1', not 11'. Richard Crumrine, 1150 Oxford Road, questioned the interior and exterior dimensions and Mr. Yost confirmed that the interior of the garage would be a full 20' x 20'; Mr. Crumrine stated he was opposed to the variance for reasons listed by previous speakers. Margaret Lake, 1148 Oxford Road, felt approval of the variance would "open a can of worms", stating a 22' wide garage on a 50' lot would not be aesthetically desirable, and residents were trying to preserve the present character of the neighborhood; she also felt the moving of a plumbing wall was not adequate hardship. There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. Secretary Kindig noted the letters submitted by the applicant from various property owners stated they had reviewed the plans and would not object to the variance; these letters were signed by the owners at 1133 Oxford, 1124 Cambridge, 1124 Oxford, 1145 Oxford, 1123 Oxford and 1108 Oxford. Commissioner Sine stated this is a unique area of Burlingame and although only a 1' variance is being requested,'it would be the first step in setting a precedent; he felt the applicant did not meet the requirements for a variance. Chairman Jacobs agreed. Commissioner Kindig felt 1' would not significantly change the neighborhood. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1978 Based on the testimony submitted, Commissioner Sine found the application did not meet code requirements and moved the variance be denied. Chairman Jacobs relinquished the Chair to second the motion. Upon roll call, the motion i -or denial was defeated 2-4, Commissioners Cistulli, Kindig, Mink and Taylor casting the negative votes and Commissioner Francard absent. Commission discussed the adequacy of the application with regard to Code Sec. 25.54 and the 40' deeded setback of the area; City Attorney Coleman advised that this would be a civil matter. Commissioner Sine stated he felt the applicant failed to prove hardship and Mr. Yost read the conditions listed in code. Commissioner Mink stated that public testimony indicated the variance would affect the quiet enjoyment of the neighbors and that moving of a plumbing wall is not adequate hardship, although it is expensive. He also felt the owner's loss of enjoyment of his property rights, if the variance.is not approved, had not been substantiated. Commissioner Taylor moved that Commissioner Sine's motion for denial be reconsidered; this motion was seconded by Commissioner Sine and carried unanimously of those present, 6-0. Upon roll call, the motion for denial of the variance passed 6-0, Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Jacobs informed the applicant of his right of appeal. 2. VARIANCE.FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO ADD A FIFTH BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH A 16'-11" WIDE GARAGE; PROPERTY AT 1511 LA MESA DRIVE (APN 027-021-120), ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM DUGONI Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, stating the variance is required because the present garage is non -conforming, only 16'+ wide and code requires 20'. He noted this extra width could be achieved by reducing the size of the dining room; however, due to the size of the family (12 members), the applicant chose to keep the dining room at its present size. He referred to the applicant's affidavit which states that the existing garage is wide enough for their two compact cars and the driveway is 25'-3" from garage door to front property line (and 7' farther to face of curb) which would comfortably park a third and even a fourth car off street. With the exception of the width of the garage, Mr. Yost concluded, the addition fully meets code and there is no staff objection to the variance. Mrs. Dugoni was present and stated their main hardship was the size of their family, adding that her youngest child was born handicapped and should not be shifted from bed_ to bed when older children return from college. She stated the addition would in no way aggravate their car situation, and noted that Ralph Button, the designer, was present to answer any.technical questions. There being no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony and the hearing was closed. Mr. Yost confirmed that the ridgeline of the new roof would be well within the 30' height allowed by code. Commissioner Kindig found that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to neighbors or to the zoning codes of the city or the General Plan, and there is a hardship as the family needs another bedroom; he then moved for approval. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. City Attorney Coleman advised that actually the substandard garage creates the hardship. Upon roll call, the motion carried unanimously, 6-0. Chairman Jacobs noted the final appeal date. 3. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT AN 8' FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 144 AND 146 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1, BY JON AND GAIL FOLAN OF 146 CHAPIN LANE Assistant City Planner Yost stated that the reason for this application is the loss of privacy in the Folan's backyard due to the house addition under construction at Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1978 144 Chapin Lane, which is at quite a high elevation and to the rear of the Folan's home. Since this addition to the neighbor's home is being constructed out over a creek, the entrance deck leading to the front door will be about 7' to 8' above grade (with eye level on the deck about 12' to 14'). He stated the 8' fence would not solve this problem but it would help screen the foundation piers and substructure under the new addition. In the forward portion of the side yard the 8' fence would give more privacy to the home and upper yard area from the neighbor's entrance walk. Mr. Yost read the four findings required in Sec. 25.78.050 and concluded that staff had no objection to the requested fence exception. Jon Folan, the applicant, submitted a letter in support of the fence exception from Mr. and Mrs. Brod, the adjacent property owners. There being no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no testimony submitted, and the hearing was closed. Secretary Kindig read the letter from the owners at 144 Chapin Lane, which indicated they had no. objection and the fence would provide privacy for both families. Commissioner Sine stated he visited the site and felt there was a problem only in the lower patio area and that an 8' fence was justified for about 15'; however, he felt the balance of the new fence should be 6'. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioner Sine. Mr. Folan noted there will be a considerable outdoor deck area in the front portion of the adjacent home which would be elevated and the 8' fence would provide some privacy. Chairman Jacobs felt that since it was agreeable to the two property owners and would not face the street the request was not objectionable. She added that it is for their useable backyard area that thE! Folan's are requesting some privacy. Mrs. Folan also noted that they use their side yard more than any other area. Mr. Yost noted there are two decks involved and that as the adjacent home has no back yard area it is expected the section of decking off t:he living room (which overlooks the Folan's back yard) will be used a great deal by the Brods. Based on this information, Commissioner Taylor moved that the fence exception be approved. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and upon roll call, the motion carried, 5-1, Commissioner Sine casting the negative vote. Chairman Jacobs noted the final appeal dates. 4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EXISTING FENCE WITH 3' PICKETS AND 8' TRELLIS TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES; PROPERTY AT 1401 BERNAL AVENUE (APN 026-054-080), ZONED R-1, BY ROGER FERRE Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting that Mr. Ferre wishes to keep the existing fence that was recently constructed without a building permit and referred to photographs which show that the'body of the fence extends to only 3' in height along both streets; however, an 8' high trellis for roses had been added as the top part of the fence. He stated that the fence would appear to meet code requirements for public safety and visibility; but if approved, similar designs could be encouraged throughout the city. He referred to the code requirements for a fence exception and Mr. Ferre's letter of July 13 addressing those requirements. Roger Ferre, the applicant, was present. There being no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony submitted and the hearing was closed. City Engineer Kirkup advised that if approved there should be a condition that roses not be allowed on the trellis within 15' from the corner on either side, to protect sight distances. Commissioner Cistulli was concerned that roses might protrude over the sidewalk and could be dangerous to pedestrians. Commissioner Sine stated he had no objections to fences complying with the codes of the city, but felt if roses were allowed to grow on this fence there could be sight distance problems. He further stated that if the Commission Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes approves this fence exception it would be approving constructed without a building permit. Commissioner above fence exception. Commissioner Kindig seconded that the trellis could be removed and the 3' picket roll call the motion for denial carried unanimously the applicant of his right of appeal. Page 5 July 24, 1978 an illegal structure which was Sine moved for denial of the the motion. Mr. Yost confirmed fence allowed to remain. Upoh 6-0. Chairman Jacobs advised 5. APPEAL FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT A PROPOSED 25,000 SF CANOPY MUST HAVE BOTH A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND A FIRE RETARDANT ROOF; PROPERTY AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (PORTION OF APN 026-342-210; STATE.PARCEL #10), ZONED C-4, BY CYRUS MC MILLAN FOR BOB FASH OF AMERICAN IfNTERNATIONAL SKATEPARKS, INC. City Engineer Kirkup briefly reviewed the proposal, noting that the proposed canopy would be 70% metal and about 30% plastic and that the Building Official was supported by the Fire Inspector in the decision. He noted that the applicant stated it would be 4' above curb line at the study meeting, but plans actually show it would be 14' in front of curb line. He concluded that if the appeal is approved the Building Official recommends a requirement be made that the structure be constructed to withstand 80 MPH winds which have been experienced in that area. Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, was present. He stated that the question was what is the necessity for fire protection. As the canopy was determined.to be a building according to the Building Official's interpretation of code, then both a sprinklered structure and a fire retardant roof are required. He stated they could not see the requirement of either, but would agree to sprinkler the structure. He further stated it would not involve a fire hazard because it is open on all sides and its purpose is only for protection from the weather. He referred to a rendering of the proposed canopy, noting there would be a mansard effect to makeit more attractive. City Engineer Kirkup discussed the setbacks with the applicant, Mr. Fash and Mr. Fash noted two runs are 28' from the street and one location is at 5' which gets winds from the south which is not a problem; the problems are with winds from the north and west. Commissioner Taylor questioned the criteria and why this was before the Commission. City Attorney Coleman advised that according to the Building Code the canopy is a building and therefore staff treated it as such. City Engineer Kirkup referred to code, stating that the Commission has granted and denied some appeals. He noted that the 4' x 8' sheets are not "metallic shingles" and explained that code normally refers to an enclosed building; this is open on all four sides which enters an element of appeal. The main objection of the Fire Department is that they cannot get into metal buildings; however, since this -is open there is access. Commissioner Sine felt that since the applicant had agreed to sprinkler the building it seemed a reasonable request. City Attorney Coleman stated that staff had properly interpreted the code and it was noted that the Building and Zoning Code definitions of a building differ, although, in this case, Mr. Coleman advised that the Building Code applies. He further advised the Commission has the authority to reverse staff decisions if evidence is submitted. City Engineer Kirkup stated that an appeal could be based on the facts that it is open on all sides and they plan to sprinkler it, with the understanding that it would have no walls. Commissioner Cistulli felt it could become a storage area for cars or some other use and suggested it be stated it is solely for the present use (skateboard park). There being no further discussion at this time, the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony submitted and the hearing was closed. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1978 Commission discussed possible conditions of approval if the appeal was approved. Commissioner Mink stated that due to the unusual and exceptional use provided under this particular structure the Commission finds that a need for a fire retardant roof and a sprinkler system is not necessary. However, this determination is made only in light of the fact that this canopy is to be built as specified in plans presented and that under no circumstances could any permanent or temporary walls or windscreens be built or attached to within 10' of the canopy, and further, that the applicant's condition to fully sprinkler the structure is accepted and this would allow the metal roof as drawn in plans presented (not the fire retardant roof and no sprinklering) and that with these further conditions and additions Commissioner Mink moved the appeal be approved. It was then brought to the Commission's attention that a fence is included in the drawings presented. Mr. McMillan indicated there is a problem with the fencing as it was proposed to slat the fence on the north and west sides; he stated that to keep this fence 10' away from the structure would be impractical and requested 4'. Mr. Fash noted that green tennis court material which is transparent was proposed to be used and would serve as a wind screen. Commission, staff and the applicant reviewed the plans and it: was felt that 4' would not be enough. Mr. Fash noted the building is above street level and is 14' high with an 8' fence (safety fence), allowing a 6' gap between the fence and roof. Commissioner Mink then withdrew his motion. Commissioner Taylor moved that the determination of the Building Department be sustained and Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. Commissioner Cistulli stated he did notcare for a sprinkling system as the area could be used for another use. Upon -roll call the motion to sustain staff's determination passed 4-2, Commissioners Mink and Sine casting the negative votes and Commissioner Francard absent. It was noted that this decision is not subject to appeal. A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 10 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS AND A PRO SHOP SELLING RACQUETBALL EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING IN THE M-1 .DISTRICT AT 1401 MARSTEN ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-102-030) BY GERALD E. KUNZ (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) WITH KENN EDWARDS OF AIRPORT RACQUET CLUB (CO -APPLICANT) (ND -168P POSTED JUNE 16, 1978) (CONTINUED FROM JULY 10, 1978) City Planner Swan referred to a new site plan and letter submitted with the staff report. He requested that the report be included in the record by reference. Mr. Swan noted that most racquetball facilities are similar with pro shops, selling equipment, Jacuzzis, saunas, office space, etc. He briefly discussed required parking; an additional five spaces could be provided by reducing the landscaping and still satisfy the 10% required in the M-1 zone. He concluded that this project has three parking spaces per court but suggested Commission give particular attention to this site location because there is no on -street parking. Kenn Edwards, the applicant, stated that three spaces per court were being provided and that between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. the normal occupancy runs between 30% and 40%, leaving plenty of parking. Staff and Commission discussed the possibility of conversion of the space to other uses, i.e., an office/warehouse, and the adequacy of parking. City Planner Swan stated that it would not be possible to give exact figures because the amount of office floor area is not known. Assistant City Planner Yost added that when a preliminary design was prepared within the same "footprint" of this project there was adequate parking and landscaping with a 20% or more office use. Commissioner Cistulli felt there was a traffic problem on the street and Commissioner Mink also expressed this concern. Chairman Jacobs, however, did not agree, feeling this use would complement the M-1 zone because peak hours are offset. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1978 Regarding traffic concerns, Mr. Edwards confirmed that approximately 20 cars could be expected between early morning hours of 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. and this would drop later; in the early evening up to 11:00 P.M. the occupancy would increase. It was noted that conditions regarding fire access to the adjacent property were on the map. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony submitted and the hearing was closed. Chairman Jacobs stated she felt this street could be clear enough to handle the traffic generated from this use, noting if the site were developed with another use such as an office building there would be traffic generated from that use also; she felt this was complementary to the zone. Commissioner Mink moved that the special permit be approved according to plans and specifications submitted and the operation described in the July 20, 1978 letter. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Jacobs noted the final appeal date. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 17 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS AND A PRO SHOP SELLING RACQUETBALL EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1718 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-262-040/050/060/070), BY ARTHUR ZANELLO OF ADG CORP. FOR THE "COURT CLUB" (APPLICANT) WITH V. J. ARATA (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -170P POSTED JULY 13, 1978) City Planner Swan reviewed the application, noting the building will have 20,816 SF of floor area with parking in front of the building. Plans show 58 parking spaces, 3.4 spaces per court, and 11% landscaping. He further noted it would be open to the public with memberships also available. The address was corrected to 1718 Rollins Road. George R. Corey, attorney representing the applicant, was present and noted the architect was also present. He confirmed the facility would be open until 11:00 P.M. There being no discussion at this time, the public hearing was opened. Jack Bellevue, owner of the adjacent property, spoke in oppos.ition to the application as a competitor and then questioned whether this application was subject to the same criteria as that on his property. City Planner Swan confirmed that permission had been obtained from the property owner and City Attorney Coleman noted that certain requirements were made of Mr. Bellevue's property because of the leasing arrangements between parties; however, those same conditions did not apply here. Mr. Bellevue asked whether the City wants this many courts side by side and felt that in time there might be empty buildings. Chairman Jacobs explained that if the use is found suitable in the zone and codes are met, she felt the Planning Commission does not make decisions on business competition. City Attorney Coleman confirmed that no sales tax is paid except on equipment sold in the facilities. There being no further public testimony, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Taylor observed that the only reason the application is before the Commission is because of the use and he had no objection to it; he therefore moved for approval in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted and the letters dated June 26 and July 12, 1978 giving details of the operation. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Jacobs noted the final appeal dates. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 24, 1978 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 15 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS, COFFEE AND PRO SHOP IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1600-1638 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-3710-200/210/220/230/ 240/260/270), BY J. RUSSELL PITTO OF RACQUETBALL VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH HANSEN-COLE DEVELOPMENT CO. (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -171P POSTED JULY 13, 1978) City Planner Swan reviewed the application, noting that the plans call for parking on three sides of the building and these tenants would utilize about 80% of the floor area. He referred to the revised plans, noting the more concise layout and parking in excess of three spaces per court. The building site plan satisfies all zoning regulations. He noted the property owner had approved this use and the applicant was present. J. Russell Pitto confirmed that the second floor would have balconies for viewing into the lower courts. There was some question about the type of membership and City Planner Swan referred to page 2 of the information sheet, noting it would be semi -private and open to the public. There were some questions about the permits required for a restaurant and the public status. Mr. Pitto stated they do not have a restaurant or food service planned, noting revised plans call, for vending machines. He also noted that it would be opened to the public if there is available court time. City Attorney Coleman noted that conditional uses under the M-1 zone include sale of food and beverages and that any approval would include both public and semi- private aspects. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no testimony submitted and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Mink moved for approval of the special permit as described in a letter dated July 21, 1978 and plans presented; Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Upon roil call the motion carried 6-0, Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Jacobs noted the final appeal date. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 5-78 RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-49P FOR AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENT -A -CAR AT 1222 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY City Planner Swan reviewed the amendments to the EIR, noting the Final EIR Addendum includes a revised site plan which supersedes previous plans. In the summary of Impacts, Mitigations and Findings under "Design & Appearance"' 18% of the site is landscaped. He also noted that corrections, amendments and modifications have been incorporated within the text of the document. Minutes of the public hearing, letters from reviewing agencies and city responses thereto are included in the Addendum. He concluded that the resolution is ready for the Commission's acceptance and recommendation to Council. Chairman Jacobs stated she did not agree with the idea that the car rental use is more desirable as far as bay views are concerned. It was noted that paragraph 3 was added to page 11 regarding traffic and access, to address Commissioner Mink's previous concerns; City Engineer Kirkup stated that left turns into and and out of the area would be allowed. It was noted on page 8 there was no change and Commission requested that "would" be changed to "may" in the last sentence last paragraph. Commission discussed comments about the roof sign. They fell'. references to adverse impacts on page 19 should be omitted as such a sign is simply not legal and the elevations should not show a roof top sign; it was agreed that on page 19 the second line should be changed to state: "Therefore, it could not be built." City Attorney Coleman advised that this does not give approval of the sign. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 24, 1978 There being no further discussion, Commissioner Mink moved that the resolution, as amended, and the EIR itself, as amended, be recommended to Council for certification. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Franca rd absent. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1222 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-020/030), BY THOMAS LEONARDINI OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENT -A -CAR (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) City Planner Swan reviewed the application, noting the permit: would become effective only after Council action on the Commission resolution recommending EIR-49P for certification. City Attorney Coleman advised that some. of the conditions in Exhibit A might be considered. If the special permit is approved, it would be reviewed by Council and be subject to appeal. Charles Eley, architect and planning consultant, was present to represent the applicant. He had no additional information but commented that the sign would be redesigned when plans are submitted for a building permit. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony and the hearing was closed. Commission and staff discussed various possible conditions contained in Exhibit A of Final EIR-49P. Commissioner Mink moved that the above -noted special permit be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) all employee vehicles shall be parked on (2) all American International Rent-A-Car vehicles shall be parked and stored only on property owned or leased by American International Rent-A-Car; (3) the car wash system shall be designed and constructed to recycle wash water to the satisfaction of the City Engtmeer; (4) the special permit for use of car rental and storage lot shall be subject to annual review prior to renewal of business license; (5) the American International present lot at 1288 Bayshore Highway will only be used for storage of out -of -service cars; (6).no transport trucks should arrive at the site; (7) the American International sign at 12.88 Bayshore Highway shall be removed; (8) large radius curb turns should be used at the driveways to provide for some acceleration and deceleration space for right turns subject to approval of City Engineer; (9) City Engineer shall review and approve engineer's design for culverting of drainage ditch before building permit is issued; (10) approval is subject to Council certification of EIR-49P. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Commissioner Taylor stated that the conditions only improve the application; however, they do not change the use and the use itself had not been adequately addressed. He felt it was a low quality use at a prime location. Upon roll call the motion for approval with conditions did not pass by a vote of 2-4, Commissioners Kindig, Sine,Taylor and Jacobs casting the negative votes, Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Jacobs informed the applicant the permit had been denied, noting the appeal rights. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 24 SELF -STORAGE LOCKERS AT 1251 WHITETHORN WAY (PORTION OF APN 026-131-020 AND -090) BY NICHOLAS A. CRISAFI FOR STAR SELF STORAGE (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost briefly reviewed this application, and the earlier special permit approved for Star Self Storage, noting two conditions of approval placed on the previous permit for 1241 Whitethorn Way (i.e., sprinkler system for Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 24, 1978 each storage locker and availability of keys to each locker). He noted the present application is to convert additional area in the adjacent building for 24 additional lockers. He also noted that the new lockers were unusually large, 10' wide by 16' deep. He advised that the Building and Fire Departments had requested that, if approved, all lockers be provided with an automatic sprinkler• system and that a second exit be required from the back corridor serving the new lockers. The parking, he stated, is presently adequate and no new employees would be hired for the additional lockers; parking would be available on a short term parking basis immediately in front of 1251 Whitethorn Way. He concluded there is no staff objection subject to the conditions contained in the Building Inspector's memo of July 21, 1978. The applicant was present and stated there was an existing sprinkler system in the building which could be modified as necessary. He stated the second means of exit might create a problem but had no objection to it; he also agreed to maintain keys on the property to all lockers, noting there isspace both above and below the locker doors,for Fire Department inspection. There being no further discussion the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kindig moved that the special permit be approved subject to the conditions that (1) a second exit at the rear corridor area be provided and (2) all lockers be sprinklered subject to approval of the Fire Inspector. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Fra:ncard absent. Chairman Jacobs noted the final appeal date. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A XEROX COPY CENTER AT 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026- 142-110), ZONED C-4, BY BEVERLY MILLS OF REPRODUCTIONS UNLIMITED (APPLICANT) WITH DAVID H. KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (CO -APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost briefly reviewed the application, referring to a letter dated June 30, 1978 from Beverly Mills describing the proposal and a memo dated July 20, 1978 from the Traffic Engineer advising there were no traffic or sight distance problems with this property. Pat Condon, the manager, was present and stated the average customer visit is about 8 minutes and the three 15 minute parking spaces in front of their office are sufficient for their customer needs; in his opinion there was no problem regarding parking. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no testimony submitted and the hearing was closed. Secretary Kindig read a letter dated July.18, 1978 from Thomas Leonardini of American International Rent-A-Car questioning the consideration of this use at this time, as. it has been/30eration six weeks. After brief discussion, Commissioner Kindig moved that the above special permit be approved. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Jacobs noted the final date of appeal. 13. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR THE CREEKSIDE CONDOMINIUMS, A 22 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 729 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 028-141-070), ZONED R-3, BY TERENCE AND NOREEN O'NEILL (PROPERTY OWNERS) (REFERENCE ND -138P POSTED OCTOBER 14, 1977 FOR A 22 -UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING MORE THAN 35 FEET IN HEIGHT) City Planner Swan briefly reviewed the proposed conversion, rioting a 22 -unit apartment had been approved and as construction was not yet complete there seemed no reason why the developer could not meet all the condominium requirements. of Resolution No. 16-75; he noted that the project meets all setback and yard requirements. City Engineer Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1978 Kirkup recommended approval subject to the map or building plans showing independent water shutoffs for each unit. He stated the Fire Department indicated no additional requirements and that landscaping and lighting plans should be subject to Planning and Park Department approval. Assistant City Planner Yost noted that previous landscape plans were deficient; however, new plans have been submitted and they are now adequate. Terence O'Neill, the applicant, was present and requested if he might agree in writing that the shutoffs would be provided and noted on the present plans, thereby avoiding a great deal of expense in preparing new plans. City Engineer Kirkup noted that electrical plans were not shown and that gas is not a problem. There being no further discussion the public hearing was opened. There waa no testimony submitted and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sine felt the city needs apartment rentals and felt conversion to condominiums was not in the best interests of the city. Commissioner Taylor moved that the proposed conversion be approved subject to the conditions which were specified in the July 19, 1978 interoffice memo from the Assistant City Engineer to the City Planner; that a commitment in writing be submitted to the City Engineer's office regarding separate water shutoffs and that the lighting plan be reviewed by city staff. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 5-1, Commissioner Sine casting the negative vote and Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Jacobs noted the final date. 14. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 22 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 729 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 028-141-070), ZONED R-3, BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR TERENCE AND NOREEN O'NEILL City Engineer Kirkup briefly reviewed the map stating it is in conformance with the condominium plan just approved and therefore recommended approval. He noted the final map would not be submitted until the building is constructed, and there were no conditions for approval. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing; as there was no one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kindig stated that the map conforms to the condominium requirements and therefore moved for approval. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Sine abstaining and Commissioner Francard absent. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan noted the following two violations, both of which were referred to the City Attorney: (1) Mrs. Lazarri, home occupation at 2344 Poppy Drive; during a one hour period on Tuesday,July 18 there were 6 cars (12 trip ends). Complaints have been received about the noise and a lot of traffic. (2) 1555 Bayshore Highway, an active car rental agency is in operation at this location without benefit of a special permit or a business license approved by the City Planner. 1.1IIi1"I. , WT "M There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at. 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary