Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.07.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order Monday, July 10, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. in Conference Room B, City Hall. ROLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli Jules L. Francard Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman Everett K. Kindig, Secretary Charles W. Mink Thomas W. Sine Absent: Thomas C. Taylor, excused Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer Quorum present; Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman presiding. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held June 26., 1978 were approved with the correction that the last line in paragraph 2, page 5 read ". would be held in one month if.he would like to attend." AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. An.1oi IRNMFNT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:30 P.M. MINUTES of the July 10, 1978 meeting were approved as mailed. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1978 1. FENCE EXCEPTION TO RECONSTRUCT TO 8 FEET IN HEIGHT A DAMAGED FENCE ALONG THE BARROILHET AVENUE FRONTAGE.OF THE PROPERTY AT 100 PEPPER AVENUE (APN 028-314- 240), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. JON EREMEEF Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the specifics of this application, stating that the exception is for 2' over code standards. He referred to the four requirements in Code Sec. 25.78.050, stating that exceptional circumstances could be the heavy through traffic on Barroilhet and the house having almost no backyard with the front area serving as the play area. He noted the City Engineer had visited the property and indicated the existing sight lines at the intersection are presently satisfactory and would not be affected. He concluded that the applicant was present to address the Commission on other Code requirements. Jon Eremeef, the applicant addressed the Commission, presenting letters from six neighbors stating they were not in opposition to the fence exception. He briefly enlarged on Mr. Yost's statements, saying they bought the property because of the high fence; the proposed 8' section would not be closer than 35' to 40' of the corner and would not obstruct the vision of traffic. Commissioner Sine felt the existing 6' fence could be replaced and that replacing a fence which was 8' because of ivy growth was not justified. He also felt a more detailed sketch should be provided and that the traffic on Barroilhet was not adequate exceptional circumstances. Commissioner Cistulli questioned the hardship on the property owners, feeling that 6' would give as much protection as 8'. Mr. Eremeef stated the fence would be regular board batting and would not cause a hardship or hazard; the only people it would affect would be those living in the house. He emphasized that his child must play in the front yard area, that a higher fence would block trucks from view and with development in the area there are many large trucks using the street. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no one wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed. Secretary Kindig read letters from the following surrounding property owners who stated they would not object to the fence as proposed as long as it would not create a traffic hazard: Joanne Haase, 104 Pepper Avenue; Sally Andreini, 106 Pepper Avenue; Helen Scherer, 1806 Barroilhet Avenue; Eileen Calonico, 105 Pepper Avenue; Philip Caulfield, 121 Pepper Avenue; Ann Schmitz, 1810 Barroilhet Avenue and Rae McLaren, 112 Pepper Avenue. Chairman Jacobs stated she had visited the property and since the front yard serves as the back yard and the proposed 8' section of fence would not go all the way to the intersection, she had no objection to the exception. Commissioner Kindig felt that people facing Barroilhet cannot have a fence over 5' in height, yet because this is a corner site a 6' fence is permitted; he felt a series of fence exceptions could be requested resulting in an unattractive street. He added that an 8' fence would not help noise or reduce fumes any more than a 6' fence, and a 6' fence with plant growth would be more attractive. Commissioner Sine felt the City has been very lenient in policing fences as there are many fences with hedges or foliage that exceed Code standards. He concluded he was sympathetic to the applicant, however felt a 2' exception was not justified. Commissioner Mink noted that the data provided was misleading, noting it was a 5'-6" fence with ivy growing up to 8'. Mr. Eremeef apologized for this misleading information, concluding that the home was on a busy street; it was purchased because of the nice protective fence and it would take quite awhile for foliage to grow to the 8' height again. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 10, 1978 Commissioner Sine stated that based on testimony submitted, Code requirements had not been met and moved that the -fence exception be denied. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 4-2, Commissioners Jacobs and Francard casting the negative votes and Commissioner Taylor absent. Chairman Jacobs advised the applicant of his right of appeal. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 11 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS A14D 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 JUNE 26, 1978) City Planner Swan reviewed the application, making reference 'to a revised site plan dated July 6 entitled A-1. He noted several changes to update the negative declaration. The building would be 93' x 137' with a floor area of 12,741 SF. There would be 10 racquetball courts instead of 11, 30 parking spaces would be provided and 4,459 SF or 12.6% landscaping. He noted 900 SF of landscaping could be replaced with 5 additional parking spaces and still satisfy the 10% landscaping requirement. There is no on -street parking because there is no street frontage; Marsten Road dead -ends at the existing drainage channel. The building elevation is 25' in height, Mr. Swan confirmed the 20' easement is not included in the landscaping figures and advised this easement would be required for maintenance of the drainage channel. City Engineer Kirkup referred to a memorandum from -the Fire Department which made two stipulations; emergency access from the rear of 1400 Rollins Road, which was the parent parcel before resubdivision, and sprinkling the building. This was given to Kenn Edwards, the applicant for his review. Commission, staff and the applicant briefly discussed the proposal and it was agreed the requests for a more complete plan included in the motion at the June 26 meeting had not been met. The applicant was directed to provide the information requested June 26 within one week so staff could prepare a written report. This item was rescheduled for hearing on July 24. 3. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 10 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1500 .HOWARD AVENUE (APN 028- 291-010), ZONED R-3, BY GEORGE S. NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES FOR REPCO REALTY, INC. Assistant City Planner Yost stated that this item was consistent with the Tentative Map and ready for approval. There being no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no testimony submitted and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sine moved the above -noted map be approved as per City Engineer memorandum dated July 5. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-0, Commissioner Taylor absent. ITEMS FOR STUDY 4. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040 TO ALLOW A NEW TWO CAR GARAGE TO PROJECT 12" INTO THE REQUIRED 30' FRONT SETBACK AT 1125 OXFORD ROAD (APN 025-252-210), ZONED R-1, BY HILARY J. FORD Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, stating it was a much reduced variance request from that previously denied by the Commission. He concluded the application was ready for hearing. This item was scheduled for hearing July 24, 1978. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 10, 1978 5. 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 Mr. Yost reviewed the application, stating it was ready for hearing. Mrs. Dugoni was present and stated there would be no blockage of views because of the two story addition. This item was scheduled for hearing July 24, 1978. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 17 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS AND A PRO SHOP SELLING RACQUETBALL EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1700 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) Mr. Yost briefly reviewed the application, stating that more specific information regarding operation, i.e., hours, employees, etc. should be submitted by the applicant.. George R. Corey, attorney representing the applicant, was present and was requested to provide more detailed information in writing on the operation of the business. This item was scheduled for hearing July 249 1978. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 15 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS, COFFEE AND PRO SHOPS IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1600-1638 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-310-200/210/220/230/ 240/260/270), BY J. RUSSELL PITTO OF RACQUETBALL VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH HANSEN-COLE DEVELOPMENT CO. (PROPERTY OWNER') Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, referring to a letter from the applicants. He noted that more specific information should probably be requested on the use, i.e., operational information, employment, hours of operation, comments on how employment relates to the uses, size of the dance floor, etc. (The applicant noted the dance floor would be for dance fitness classes.) Mr. Yost confirmed that Racquetball Ventures International, Inc. would have well over three spaces per court with other parking available during evening and weekends and that landscaping would meet M-1 District requirements. He stated that the major issue is the proposed use described in Mr. Pitto's letter of June 26. Commission agreed that more information should be provided, as well as statements about the use per Zoning Code requirements, i.e., what is the closest use. This item was scheduled for hearing July 24, 1978. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 24 SELF -STORAGE LOCKERS AT 1251 WHITIETHORN WAY (PORTION OF APN 026-131-020 AND -090) BY NICHOLAS A. CRISAFI FOR STAR SELF STORAGE (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Mr. Yost reviewed the application, stating it was complete and ready for hearing. The applicant was present, noting he found the larger size lockers in demand and that they plan to improve the exterior in the future. Mr. Crisafi stated there are no parking problems on the street. This item was set for hearing July 24, 1978. 9. 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 reviewed the application, concluding that parking could be a problem and that comments would be obtained from the Traffic Engineer on sight distances at the entrances to the property. He felt other information could be requested: other uses in the building and number of employees; and information about the operation of the xerox center, i.e., services offered, pickup or delivery of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 10, 1978 documents, etc. The applicant confirmed that they would operate a pickup and delivery service. Applicant was directed to provide the information discussed and the item was set for hearing July 24, 1978. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO PARK AUTOMOBILES, MOBILE HOMES, RECREATION VEHICLES AND BOATS ON A 25,000 SF PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1530 ROLL.INS ROAD (APN 025- 272-120), ZONED M-1, BY TREVOR C. ROBERTS OF WINSTON MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENT, INC. (APPLICANTS) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF ROLLINS ROAD INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES (PROPERTY OWNER) City Planner Swan briefly reviewed the application, referring to a previous environmental impact report on the site. He stated the application was not complete and is only a conceptual idea of what is proposed. He said a complete site plan showing 10% landscaping, etc. should be provided as well as plans for the proposed parking area, i.e., if it would be paved and striped. Mr. Swain stated that in order to prepare a negative declaration information on the type of use proposed for the building should be provided. Commission requested the applicant to provide more information, as discussed, including plans for loading and unloading of vehicles, how they intend to keep the streets clean if the area is not paved, etc. Commission agreed they would like to see a project rather than a concept and this was set for study on August 14 at which time it could be scheduled for hearing at the following meeting. 11. 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) 12. 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 stated that several staff concerns had been adequately addressed and recommended the above items be scheduled for heatting. He confirmed that the water main would have to be relocated into the driveway area and Terence O'Neill, the applicant, stated that the water main had already been relocated. The above items were scheduled for hearing July 24, 1978. ADDITIONAL ITEMS APPEAL FROM DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL It was requested that an appeal from the Building Official's requirement that a 25,000 SF canopy roof proposed over the Skateboard Park at 620 Airport Boulevard be sprinklered and be constructed with a build-up roof be considered so it could be sprinklered only. City Engineer Kirkup advised that an accurate plan showing the 4' above -street grade canopy should be provided. Cyrus McMillan, attorney representing the applicant, was present and noted the park is below street grade and the roof would not exceed 4' above street level. He agreed that a plan would be provided as per City Engineer's suggestion. This item was scheduled for hearing July 24, 1978. ADEQUACY OF 1973 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR UPDATED EIR City Planner Swan introduced Leon Richardson. Mr. Richardson asked Commission if they would accept EIR-17P which was prepared in April, 1973 for the possible reclassification Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1978 of his lot at 117 Myrtle Road from R-1 to R -3A. Commission agreed with the City Planner that an updated EIR would be required. The Commission emphasized this was no guarantee of approval of the reclassification, and the updated EIR would be prepared at the applicant's expense. Commission was reluctant: to consider a single lot zone change; they would prefer area -wide review or at least part of a block, and indicated little likelihood of approval for any zone change. ADVANCE PLANNING 13. PROPOSED PROCESS FOR STUDY OF APPLICATIONS Commission and staff discussed criteria for study of items and setting them for hearing. It was agreed that a one page form or check list should be prepared by staff for use as a summary report to the Commission for consideration of new applications. The Commission decided that each applicant would have to provide staff with all needed information in time to be listed on the agendas as a complete applica- tion for study and to be scheduled for hearing.. Commission agreed.that the following information should be provided for the study meeting: plot plan (showing the structure on the site, elevations and interior of the structure) and any requirements by zoning, coverage requirements, landscaping, parking, etc. If it is an application for a use within an existing structure, it was agreed that operational information should be provided, i.e., hours of operation, type of activity, number of employees, etc. Then at the study, meeting further requests could be made. It was also agreed that any application which is not residential should provide the estimated number of trip ends (ADT) for that particular use and Fire and Police Department comments, if any, should be provided by the hearing. It was agreed that staff would work up a draft for further discussion. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan distributed several informational items; new fees for Planning Commission items, a letter from San Mateo County Planning Commission regarding budget cuts and mail -outs of agenda and minutes, information about environmental - management policies, a letter regarding Bay Area commuters and car pooling in vans and a hearing announcement for Amtrak at which reductions of miles would be considered. He also noted that as yet the Planning Department: budget had not been discussed by the City Planner and any member of Council. Two:poli:cy changes were noted; approval would be required for out of town overnight expense and most training -and safety funds would be eliminated. Commissioner Francard was concerned about the hazard along the bicycle path near Fisherman's Park. City Attorney Coleman who attended the meeting for several minutes after the Council meeting stated it is not the responsibility of the City and if children are in there after dark it is their responsibility. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary