HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.06.260
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 26, 1978
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to
order Monday, June 26, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Cistulli
Jules L. Francard
Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman
Everett K. Kindig, Secretary
Charles W. Mink
Thomas W. Sine (arriving several minutes after roll call)
Thomas C. Taylor
Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner
John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner
Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer
Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney
Quorum present; Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman presiding.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held June 12, 1978 were approved as mailed.
AGENDA
The order of the agenda was approved.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 12:35 A.M.
MINUTES of the June 26, 1978 meeting were approved as mailed with the following
correction: under Item #2, page 5, change the last sentence to read, "Chairman
Jacobs thanked him for his comments and noted the hearing would be held in one
month if he would like to attend."
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
June 26, 1978
1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DEIR-49P FOR AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
RENT -A -CAR AT 1222 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-020/030)
City Planner Swan referred to a transparency showing the revised site plan. He
introduced Ms. Irina Torrey and John LaFreniere of Torrey & Torrey Inc., consultants
preparing the Draft ETR. He then briefly reviewed the EIR process. Making reference
to Item #2 on the agenda, the special permit for the use evaluated in the EIR, he
noted the Summary on page 1 indicates that BCDC approval would be required, that
the executive office of the firm would remain at its present location and the free-
standing sign at that location would be removed. (Commissioner Sine arrived at
approximately 7:35 P.M., apologizing for being late and explaining he was delayed
at an intersection blocked by a train.)
Ms. Irina Torrey addressed the Commission briefly highlighting some points made in
the EIR. (1) The feasibility of making joint permit applications regarding the
implementation of the bicycle path; such arrangements would have to be made by the
developer. This was felt to be a major issue within the context of this particular
project. (2) The actual operation of the car rental agency is the main issue which
should be monitored and controlled, i.e., spreading of cars off the site, water
runoff and pollution, selling of cars, etc.; it was felt it is not really a land use
issue. (3) The drainage ditch does not seem to raise objections although it was
noted that the engineer's drawings were not available for review and until such
drawings are made an official part of the application more definitive statements
cannot be made. (4) Concern that there may not be enough landscaping (15% is
required). (5) In the revision it appears that cars are parked in rows normal to
Bayshore Highway and therefore passersby would see cars. It was noted that this site
plan was not the subject of the DEIR, but rather the previous site plan. (6) Removal
of the present sign would have a beneficial impact. It was suggested the new signs
are improvements; the proposed roof sign is integrated with the building; all signage
would require City approval. (7) There is no problem with road capacity and the only
mitigation suggested is the removal of the traffic directional sign on Bayshore
Highway.
Responding to Chairman Jacobs' questions about the difference -in plans and Bay views,
Mr. LaFreniere explained that the plan used in the DEIR allowed glimpses of
landscaping and the Bay beyond, and although more landscaping -is provided with the
new plan more automobiles would be visible. He emphasized that: it is felt there
should be more landscaping along the Bay. Commissioner Taylor stated he felt the
report was quite complete, accurate and would not require additional information.
Commissioner Mink wished to question several areas of the report, making additions,
corrections, or asking for clarification, as follows: page 1, "executive offices",
note location of executive offices; page 1, "present parking lot", show location and
number of cars to be parked there; page 1, "filling the drainage easement", culvert
the easement. On page 2, impacts regarding truck rentals, car sales, etc., he noted
that car sales are taken care of by the last item under Findings (controlled by the
City), and suggested that a mitigation step regarding truck or van rentals would be
to prohibit them; also to prohibit the unloading of transport trucks on City streets.
He felt all should be mentioned in both the Mitigations and Findings columns. On page 2,
regarding review of special permit annually in April; if the leasehold is renewable
annually, then this would be sufficient. However, it was felt this should be
researched and the review should go with the leasehold. City Planner Swan noted
the applicant owns this property and the month of April was chosen to gather
information prior to renewal of the business license. Commissioner Mink felt the
report should indicate this.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
Commissioner Mink continued his discussion, noting on page 3 the impact regarding
1 roofs; he felt this conclusion was difficult to justify. Also on page 3, impact
regarding roof sign, he noted this is prohibited. Noting the impact regarding storm
drainage on page 3, he questioned if all this was connected with storm drainage.
Ms. Torrey felt this statement was correct because if the washing of the car makes
pollutants, it would go into the storm drains. Commissioner Mink noted that nothing
is said about the installation of the culvert and believed this should be included.
On page 3, Mitigations, regarding traffic information sign, it was felt the location
of that sign should be included. City Engineer Kirkup noted it is a one-way sign
in the middle of the median. Page 3, Mitigations regarding City responsibility of
signage, it was felt the Commission could not review an illegal sign except to say
that it is illegal. Commissioner Mink noted that on the new revised sketches it
appears a joint application might be required; he noted page 7, item 2 regarding
the Airport Service Area and asked if this encompasses a subregion. Ms. Torrey
indicated this was probably so.
Staff responded to several concerns of Commissioner Francard. City Engineer Kirkup
confirmed that the site is not in a mean high tide area and not subject to flooding
even in a storm with an easterly wind. He did note the area was subject to flooding
in a 100 year storm situation. He further confirmed that one area was bermed by the
City. City Planner Swan explained that the area of the planter for a tree is counted
as landscaping, not the drip line or spread. Regarding Commissioner Francard's
concerns that landscaping be provided on the Mobil Oil property if this were approved,
Commissioner Mink stated a joint application would be required and at this time it
is merely an idea.
Chairman Jacobs wished to point out areas that could be clarified or different wording
used: page 3, regarding the revised site plan, parking layout and lot coverage;
Ms. Torrey stated this would have to be discussed with the City Planner. On page 8,
regarding the 'no adverse impacts' statement, it was felt "may" not have adverse
impacts should be used. Ms. Torrey agreed, explaining this statement was made
because most of the uses in the area are car oriented. On page 10, regarding
landscaping, clarification of adequate amount was requested. Concerning statements
of 'no adverse impacts' on page, 11, it was felt this should read "may not have".
City Planner Swan noted that the DEIR considers the impact of the project on adjacent
properties; each are mostly paved at present. Chairman Jacobs was not convinced
there would not be much air pollution and requested this be changed to "may".
Ms. Torrey emphasized the impact would be no more than other alternative uses and
said this would be further clarified in the report.
Chairman Jacobs continued by noting that one of the car businesses referred to is no
longer in business; reference to it could be removed. She questioned if the statements
in paragraph 4, page 12 could be proven, particularly the last statement: "In a few
instances it appears that a larger number of cars are parked ori site than had been
originally stipulated:" Ms. Torrey made reference to the City staff report of
January 8, 1978 and noted this report was used for documentation. Chairman Jacobs
referred to page 18, Environmental Setting & Impacts, and the blocking of view.
Mr. LaFreniere explained that it was his experience in driving along Bayshore Highway
that almost anything blocks the view. It was felt the view of the roof would be more
desirable than the cars; here, he stated, a value judgement was made. Chairman Jacobs
requested this statement be further clarified. On page 19, reference City interpretation
of the code, she felt this should be removed; Ms. Torrey agreed. On page 20, regarding
scale of new construction and impacts, it was felt no changes were required.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
June 26, 1978
On page 24, it was felt the statement that "views of the bay . . . would be better
with the car -rental proposal" should be changed to "may be better." Commissioners
Mink and Taylor disagreed, feeling it might not be better than a restaurant or
office building. Chairman Jacobs referred to the King Building and also a recently
approved project which allowed views of the Bay beyond the building. Commissioner
Mink felt "would" could be left in the report and Commissioner Taylor added that a
restaurant would have the same effect only with a different size building.
Commissioner Mink made reference to Ms. Torrey's comment about general land use
for rental cars, i.e., monitoring and management. He felt, from a general point of
land use, a car rental agency was suitable in this zone but not. at this particular
site with this difficult intersection where, typically, people renting cars are not
very familiar with the area or the intersection. He felt some statement should be
made about the difficulty of the intersection for transient customers. Ms. Torrey
explained that with other uses more cars could be generated and felt it was confusing
even to people who are familiar with the area. It was agreed, however, that a
statement about this would be included.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no
public input and the hearing was closed. There was some question as to whether
the special permit (Item #2) should be acted upon while the EIR is being finalized.
City Planner Swan stated the Commission could hold the hearing as scheduled and
continue it, noting that action on the special permit could not. be final until the
EIR is certified. Chairman Jacobs felt that continuity would be lost by splitting
action on the two. Mr. Swan noted it had been indicated that Mobil was not interested
in the bicycle path.idea or a joint application, but action might be taken by the
City to require a bicycle path. Commissioner Taylor questioned opening a public hearing
on the special permit with this problem unresolved. City Planner Swan stated that
without a public hearing this condition could not be enforced. Commission agreed
that the Draft EIR could incorporate an addendum to integrate the comments submitted.
This could then be presented at the next meeting at which time they could also
consider a resolution recommending it to Council for certification.
2. 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 explained this was a special permit application to operate a car
rental agency at 1222 Bayshore Highway, with the continuing office use at 1288
Bayshore Highway. He noted that Charles Eley was present to update the Commission
on the application. Commissioner Taylor stated he objected to holding the hearing
on this special permit although he would like to hear Mr. Eley's comments. Mr. Eley
said he had very little to add on the status of negotiations with Mobil Oil, noting
Mobil is not willing to put a bicycle path through their property. He said the
revised site plan is an attempt to respond to some of the comments of the environmental
impact report and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) staff.
With regard to landscaping, he stated their calculation of 18% included that portion
of the site inundated by the Bay which could account for the 14% figure in the DEIR.
He emphasized that with the revised plan, even with that portion of the site which
is not included in the landscaping, the landscaped area would be in excess of 15%.
He confirmed that the discrepancy in landscaping figures would be clarified.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
Regarding Ms. Torrey's comments about the unavailability of eng=ineer's drawings,
Mr. Eley explained that the work was performed; however, the information was not
transferred to the present owner with the sale of the property for financial reasons.
Mr. Eley went on to explain that the previous plans included a three-way joint
venture; however, Westbay Associates indicated very definite opposition to the
bicycle path through their property as they have future development plans.. He noted
they did.agree some plants could be placed on their property. He further explained
that the bicycle path was not yet a condition by BCDC but they ;indicated a great deal
of interest in providing access to the Bay through this means. He stated the plan
meets all BCDC requirements; however, they cannot approve it with conditions until
all local approvals have been made.
Responding to Chairman Jacobs' questions, City Engineer Kirkup rioted the culvert
has been pulled back 20' and Mr. Eley added this revision had been presented to BCDC
staff and their marine biologist; it was indicated that this would adequately protect
the cord grass. It was agreed the above -noted special.permit would be heard on
July 24, 1978 at the same meeting the resolution for the Final E:IR is considered.
As this item had been scheduled for hearing at this time, a member of the audience
was given permission to speak. Leo Kriloff, 2315 Easton Drive, stated he felt this
was a poor use of the property and it could be put to better use. Chairman Jacobs
thanked him for his comments and noted the hearing would be held in one month if he
could attend.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 4-78: SCHOOL SITE ZONING
This item was briefly reviewed and it was noted that Burlingame High School and the
Burlingame tennis courts would remain unclassified as they are presently. City
Attorney Coleman confirmed that Commissioner Cistulli could participate in roll call
if he had read the minutes from the previous meeting. Commissioner Taylor moved
for adoption of the above -noted resolution with findings. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Sine and upon roll call carried 6-0, Commissioner Mink abstaining.
4. AMENDMENT OF DECEMBER, 1973 SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN THE M-1
DISTRICT AT 819.MITTEN ROAD BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:30 A.M. AND 10:30 P.M., WITH
SEATING.FOR 48 CUSTOMERS, BY JACK FONG WOO (APPLICANT) WITH DOHEMANN AND COMPANY
(PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM MAY 22, 1978)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, referring to the minutes of
May 22, 1978 when the hearing on this item opened. He noted the original permit
was approved by Commission in 1973 on an unassigned basis with limitations on hours
(7:00 VM. to 3:00 P.M.) and seating (not more than 38 customers). The new owner
of the business, Mr. Woo, would like the two conditions amended so that his cafe
could stay open to 10:30 P.M. and provide seating for up to 48 customers. He further
noted that no objection to either of these changes has been made by the Police or Fire
Departments. He then informed the Commission that Mr. Woo had prepared new information,
including a petition with 96 signatures.by people working in the vicinity of the cafe
who stated they would eat there if it were open in the evening.
Chairman Jacobs. recognized Ms. Beth Gary of Dohemann Management Company who stated
they were in support of Mr. Woo. She said the proposed new hours would be an
improved security factor for other tenants who stay open late and concluded that
Mr. Woo has been a fine tenant.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
June 26, 1978
Fred Waters, from an office adjacent to Mr. Woo's cafe, stated that he was present
to speak on behalf of the applicant since Mr. Woo's English was not very good.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was opened. As there was no one
wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
City Engineer Kirkup confirmed that according to the Building Inspector changes made
in the kitchen are in conformance with both Fire and Building Codes. Responding to
Commissioner Kindig's questions, Mr. Waters stated there has been no consideration
of advertising Mr. Woo's cafe; it was expected the business would draw from the
immediate area. Commissioner Mink felt it important to note that over a period of
years the Commission has changed the character of this area and considering it
simply M-1 is unrealistic. Commissioner Cistulli felt that if this were a new
application he would be opposed to it, but since it is an established business
he felt approval with review in one year is justified. Commissioner Taylor said
that when this.'*permit was originally granted it was to meet the needs of the people
working in the area, adding that the Commission was not encouraging a retail
environment but trying to provide a service to firms in the area. Now, he stated,
the applicant has shown there is a need or reasonable desire for the type of service
being requested and concluded, based on this information, he would not object to the
application.
Commissioner Taylor moved for approval of the above -noted amendment with the conditions
that seating be limited to 48 customers, the hours be limited from 7:30 A.M. to 10:30
P.M., that the permit is issued to this applicant (Mr. Woo), and that the permit
is subject to review in one year. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and upon
roll call it carried unanimously 7-0. Chairman Jacobs noted the appeal date.
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B (1.203 ACRES MOL),
PARCEL MAP VOL. 26/38; PROPERTY AT 1327-1337 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-
121-080), ZONED M-1, BY FRED C. GUENTHER, JR. FOR ROBERT J. DOLAN AND INDUSTRIAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY
City Engineer Kirkup briefly reviewed the above application, noting it would be a
subdivision into two parcels and that Parcel B is not to be developed nor does it
have an occupant at this time. He stated the requirements for parking and landscaping
would be met at the time of occupancy or development. He also noted there are no
utility services, i.e., sewer and water, to Parcel B but as it is not possible to
predict the requirements for those utilities, particularly water, these services
would be reviewed at the time of occupancy. Based on these conditions or understandings,
City Engineer Kirkup stated that the map was complete and could serve as both the
tentative and final map; he recommended approval.
Fred C. Guenther, Jr., the applicant, was present and confirmed that he understood
the City Engineer's comments, i.e., utilities and landscaping, about Parcel B.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened; there was no public
input and the hearing was closed. City Engineer Kirkup confirmed the Public Works
Department would enforce any conditions on the map. He confirmed that the landscaping
requirements would also be enforceable.
Commissioner Mink moved that both the Tentative and Final Map be sent to Council
with recommendation for approval. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon
roll call it carried unanimously 7-0.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
June 26, 1978
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A.RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 57, EASTON
ADDITION. NO. 6; PROPERTY AT 2111/2201 EASTON DRIVE (APN 027•-154-140/150), ZONED R-1,
BY RAYMOND J. MASON FOR GORDON AND BARBARA WILKINSON
City Planner Swan reviewed the application, noting that Lots 3 and 4 would make up
Parcel 1 and Lot 5 (with a modified property line) would make up Parcel 2. He noted
that Parcel 2 would have only a 30' width at the back.property tine, with an average
lot width of 50', which meets minimum code requirements. He stated that Lot 5 would
be a saleable parcel, and is a saleable parcel now. He further stated that the City
Engineer would require there be both sewer and water service to Parcel 2 before the
final map is approved.
Gordon Wilkinson, the applicant, explained that the purpose of the change in property
line is to give permanent access to an area adjacent to the garage on Lot 4 for parking
and a small garden. He stated that Parcel 2 would not be sold .and that it is his
intent to build a new home for his family there and then sell Parcel 1 with the
existing home. He confirmed that his family needs a large parking area on Parcel 1
as they presently have five cars. City Attorney Coleman advised Mr. Wilkinson that
the existing porte cochere would straddle the new property line and have to be removed
if the map is approved. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was
opened. There was no public testimony and the hearing was closed.
Chairman Jacobs inquired about the living quarters above the garage. Mr. Wilkinson
confirmed those living quarters do exist. City Attorney Coleman stated that in this
case it is a non -conforming use, not an illegal one, as it has been in existence for
a long time. Commissioner Sine added that the garage and its living quarters were
built at the same time as the main house and probably were meant to be servants'
quarters. This apartment now has been converted to a rental unit (possibly by
previous owners); however, utilities for this unit go through the main house and
there is only one address, etc.
Commissioner Mink stated there are unusually shaped lots in the City, either because
they were created long before codes required average lot widths, etc. or unique and
unusual topography. He concluded that neither of these factors exist in this case,
the map does not appear to meet the intent of the code and therefore he moved the
above -noted map be denied. City Attorney Coleman asked if Commissioner Mink was
making the finding that this proposed parcel map would not be compatible with the
pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood; this was confirmed by Commissioner Mink.
Commissioner Sine seconded the motion for denial and upon roll call the motion carried
unanimously 7-0. Chairman Jacobs advised the applicant of his right of appeal.
A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M.
7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT INTO TWO PARCELS, ONE
OF WHICH WILL HAVE UP TO 74 PARKING SPACES LESS THAN CODE REQUIRES AND 90 PARKING
SPACES TO A SUBSTANDARD SIZE; PROPERTY AT 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE (APN 025-121-220),
ZONED C-3, BY STEPHEN H. EDWARDS, PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
(PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -162P POSTED JUNE 16, 1978)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, referring to previous study at
the Commission meetings in May and June. He explained that the present proposal is to
subdivide the 5.9 acre CTA property into two parcels: Parcel A would have the existing
CTA office building and 135 parking spaces in the existing parking lot. Parcel B
would be 1.7 acres, mostly the undeveloped land in the center of the block, with a
32' wide driveway to Magnolia Avenue.
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
Mr. Yost noted the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each 300 SF of
gross floor area in an office building and the existing CTA building has 62,341 SF
of floor area, 21% of which is in the basement. He explained that determination of
the parking requirement for this building involves a decision as to whether its
basement area is useable space. He informed the Commission that CTA filed a market
appraisal of the building (by Coldwell Banker, dated December 9, 1977) and this report
states that the existing basement has an "economic rent" value; half the basement has
office value and the other half only storage value at present. However, the
unfinished portion of the basement could be completed and does have future office
potential. He stated that the total parking requirement for Parcel A is therefore
between 192 to.209 parking spaces, which suggests the proposed variance is for
between 57 to 74 parking spaces. He then pointed out that the existing CTA parking
lot was not laid out to code standards and 90 of the 135 parking spaces to remain
with Parcel A are of a substandard size.
Mr. Yost then explained that CTA has based their variance application on two points:
(1) a certified car count of their parking lot between April 6-19 which purports to
show that the CTA organization, as the sole tenant of their building, does not
require as much off-street parking as code would suggest is necessary; and (2) a site
plan which shows that by removing some of the existing landscaping around their
building and constructing a second parking lot off Magnolia Avenue, Parcel A could
be brought fully to code standards. Mr. Yost noted that the intent of the variance
is to allow CTA to defer construction of this additional off-street parking until
such future time as it may be required. He then pointed out several aspects of the
application requiring consideration. (1) Is a variance for up to 74 spaces justified
by the record submitted by CTA and the experience of the neighboring businesses?
(2) Are the legal requirements for a variance met by the application? (Reference
Code Chapter 25.54 listing four criteria for approval). (3) What conditions would be
necessary to protect the interests of the City and adjacent property owners, if the
variance were approved? (Mr. Yost referred to the memorandum from the City Attorney
of June 19, 1978.)
Commissioner Taylor requested Penn Foote, Assistant General Counsel of CTA, tell the
Commission how the application meets the legal requirements for variance approval.
Mr. Foote addressed the Commission, noting the main point is that CTA would have to
destroy an acre of existing landscaping to make a parking lot which they feel is not
needed at this time. He stated no changes in the existing CTA building were
contemplated. He felt the five conditions described in the City Attorney's June 19
memo would adequately protect the City, stating he understood those conditions and
agreed to them. He also stated a resolution could be recorded and this would run
with the land to bind future owners. He confirmed that CTA intends to sell Parcel B.
Commissioner Francard asked if a cul-de-sac might be included -for ingress and egress
to the center of the block, expressing concern about the future development of
Parcel B. Mr. Foote stated they felt the proposed 32' driveway right-of-way would
be adequate. Chairman Jacobs noted that building lines could be set on the map.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened.
William F. Pagano of Aaronson, Dickerson and Lanzone, legal representative of the CTA
Credit Union, requested permission to speak in opposition to the application,
addressing the adequacy of it with regard to Code Section 25.54 (criteria for
variance approval). He introduced William Singer of the CTA Credit Union who would
speak.first,addressing the use of the existing parking lot.
Page 9
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
Mr. Singer stated that approval of the variance would, in'fact, create a hardship
for neighbors in the area. He felt that permitting CTA to maintain a substandard
parking lot would create a problem in that CTA people are now using the Credit Union's
parking lot. During special CTA meetings people come from --throughout the State and
there is an overflow into the Credit Union's lot. He felt the parking report
submitted by CTA was not accurate. He concluded that approval of the parking variance
would definitely be adverse to the Credit Union and suspected it. would be adverse to
other neighbors as well.
Mr. Pagano then addressed Commission.and noted that Code permits variances only when,
because of special circumstances applicable to the property, there results a deprivation
of property rights. He felt that the variance should be denied unless Commission could
make a finding of special circumstances unique to this property. He concluded that
granting a variance on any other finding would be granting a special privilege which
would be improper. There being no further testimony, the public: hearing was closed.
Mr. Yost confirmed that Parcel A would be deficient until such gime that additional
parking is constructed. He referred to Sheet #4 of the plans submitted, pointing out
what Parcel A would look like if constructed to Code standards.
Chairman Jacobs indicated her reluctance to grant the variance, noting she lives in
the area and is very conscious of the nice lawns, but felt the possible sale of
Parcel B could create problems. She noted that Mills High School is also in the area
which adds to the congestion. Commissioner Mink felt a problem would be created and
there is ample space on Parcel A to provide the necessary parking; therefore, there is
no hardship and no reason for a variance. He felt the applicant was creating the
hardship by dividing the present lot. He concluded, agreeing with the testimony of
'Mr..Pagano, that no unique characteristic exists.
Mr. Foote disagreed with the suggestion the subdivision would create a parking problem,
as only 65% of the present, parking lot is normally used; he made specific reference
to 15 spaces which are almost always free. He also felt that people would park on
Murchison Drive before they would park in the Credit Union area.. He did confirm,
however, that parking for Parcel A does not meet code. Chairman Jacobs stated it is
difficult to grant a variance when CTA has created its own problems through a series
of.parcel maps over the past 20 years. Commissioner Taylor fell; the proposed plan
was unimaginative and concluded that an alternative could have been worked out that
would have been better for CTA and the neighbors. Chairman Jacobs noted that
additional parking on Parcel A could be attractive with berms and other landscaping.
Commissioner Cistulli felt that no hardship had been proven and noted the block is
already congested. Commissioner Sine felt that since the entire property was at one
time CTA's, the entire situation is of their doing, and concluded that no variance
was justified.
Commissioner Mink noted the point was whether the property is so unique that the standards
of the Code cannot be met. He felt the property did not have that unique character
and the Code could be met. Commissioner Kindig asked if the size of proposed Parcel B
could be reduced to get additional parking without tearing up part of the CTA lawn.
Mr. Foote stated this is a possibility.
On the basis of testimony given, Commissioner Sine found that the applicant had not
complied with the requirements for a variance and moved for denial of the above -noted
variance. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried
unanimously 7-0. Chairman Jacobs informed the applicant of his right of appeal.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 10
June 26, 1978
8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1705 MURCHISON
DRIVE/1833 MAGNOLIA DRIVE (APN 025-121-220) INTO PARCEL A (4.157 ACRES) AND
PARCEL B (1.731 ACRES), BY BRIAN/KANGAS/FOULK & ASSOCIATES FOR THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
City Engineer Kirkup stated that in light of the previous application, unless the
applicant proposes to create each parcel as per City code, he recommended no action
or denial. Assistant City Planner Yost noted the map could be approved, but with
the condition that additional parking be provided on Parcel A, consistent with the
site plan shown on Sheet 4, submitted by the applicant. Mr. Foote stated he had
no authority to give a commitment that additional parking would be provided and
requested the item be tabled. City Attorney Coleman requested it be continued to a
date certain. Mr. Foote requested a date sometime after the end of July, and this
item was continued to August 14, 1978.
9. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO PERMIT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE
WITH 2' SIDE YARD; PROPERTY AT 1431 CARLOS AVENUE (APN 027-173-020), ZONED R-1,
BY WILLIAM AND JEAN GILMORE
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting that because a small
portion of the house is only 24" off the side property line it is nonconforming and
a building permit cannot be issued for the proposed addition. He then listed a
number of special circumstances about the property which could ,justify the variance:
(1) there is a 6' wide alley that runs the entire length of the property immediately
adjacent to that portion of the house within 2' of the side property line; (2) because
of this alley the lot was reduced in width from the normal 50' to only 45'; and
(3) adjacent lots to this property face Hale Drive and their backyards abut the alley
adjoining this lot. He explained that.although Mr. Gilmore's home is only 2' off
the side property line, it is actually 30' away from the back of the closest neighbor's
garage on Hale Drive and 65' away from this neighboring house. As per previous
Commission direction, he confirmed that the alley belongs to the heirs of the
original subdivider, not the City. He did note, however, that the City does have
a sewer and water main in this alley and no future construction would be allowed
over these utilities. This, he stated, provides a separation of not less than 8'
between the NWly side of the home and any future construction that might take place
on the neighboring property, which is reasonable by Code standards. He concluded
that there is no staff objection to approval of this application.
There being no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no testimony
submitted and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Mink cited the conditions of Code Sec. 25.54, noting that a unique
hardship is brought about by the 45' width of this lot; that the utility easement
along the side of the building was unusual; that such addition -is necessary for the
preservation of the rights of the applicants; that the application would not have
any adverse effect on the neighboring properties; and that this variance would not
be in conflict with the codes of the City or the General Plan. He therefore moved
for approval of the above -noted variance. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion
and upon roll call it carried unanimously 7-0. Chairman Jacobs notified the
applicants of appeal and final dates.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
June 26, 1978
10. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.010 TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SECOND FLOOR OF
THE "? DISCO" WITHOUT PROVIDING OFF-STREET PARKING; PROPERTY AT 1316 BROADWAY
(APN 026-095-150), ZONED C-1, BY GEORGE SINCLAIR OF PANKO/'SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES,
INC. FOR JIMMY CARRASCO OF CARRASCO, INC. (QUESTION MARK DISCO) (APPLICANTS)
WITH MARY OLCESE, ET AL (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -167P POSTED JUNE 16, 1978)
City Planner Swan reviewed the application, referring to a transparency displayed
showing the floor plan of that portion of the building devoted to the disco. He
noted that the parcel is located in the C-1 District on Broadway where no off-street
parking is available and therefore it is a non -conforming building. He noted the
parking ratio for a store in that zone as one per 400 SF gross floor area; however,
with the hours of the disco, its greatest parking demand occurs; after surrounding
stores are closed. This, he noted, frees up much of the on -street parking for the
disco and there are two parking lots available within about 200 feet of the establish-
ment, one on Paloma and Capuchino Avenues with 28 spaces, the second on the other
side of Paloma Avenue with 24 spaces. He stated he had visited the site Saturday
night (June 24) and noted it appeared the occupancy was being carefully regulated.
He did note there is a small rear yard and a back door with no weather stripping;
although the noise level did not seem excessively loud, it could be better contained.
Mr. Swan said the main concern was that there be adequate parking and he noted that
action on this could set a precedent for expansion of the buildings on Broadway
(other businesses have been told that the floor area should not, be changed and they
are non -conforming because they do not provide parking). In light of finding 25 vacant
spaces in the City's parking lot and finding people parking on Broadway, he felt there
would not be much parking to the rear of the building and the variance could be
sanctioned based on the hours of operation. He also felt there should be a close
surveillance of the rear door so it would be closed, and noise levels should be kept
below a CNEL of 65. If the rear door were opened, noise levels would exceed that
maximum. He reported he had heard from a neighbor that the noise level has been
reduced with this new operator.
Commissioner Sine noted it had been requested a representative of the owner or the
operator be present. George Sinclair, architect representing the applicant, confirmed
that a legal representative, James A. Bruen and the operator, Roi Costa were present.
Mr. Sinclair briefly reviewed some of the concerns the applicants have been dealing
with, emphasizing that the present operator has not occupied the building all that long.
The emphasis of the disco is on dancing rather than drinking and he noted that expansion
into the mezzanine area would provide seating lost with the expansion of the dance area
on the first floor. Regarding the noise aspects, he emphasized there is a great deal
of difference in the amplification of the type of music used, i.e., it is taped, which
is controlled whereas live music is not. He agreed with Mr. Swan's concern about the
back door, stating they would make a sealing on that door. He stated the rear door is
kept closed even when it is warm. He emphasized again that it is a dancing establish-
ment and, with disco dancing, ample room is needed so dancers will not be cramped on
the floor. He stated that viewers are discouraged. He noted it was felt the worst
noise leakage is probably the skylights that have been painted over, rather than the
door, and acoustics people had been contacted on this. Such areas of noise leakage
would be remedied and the materials used would decrease volume.
Chairman Jacobs commented that any addition would have to be according to Fire and
Building Codes, etc. City Planner Swan interjected this would be subject to City
Codes through the building permit process. Mr. Sinclair confirmed that the occupancy
permitted by the Fire Department is 317.
Page 12
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
Responding to Commissioner Kindig's concern about the exterior of the building,.
Mr. Sinclair said that a rather major rework of the exterior had been discussed and
this was discouraged by the building's owner, although he felt a warm tone could be
added to the stark black and white. Mr. Sinclair briefly discussed the structural
framing with Commissioner Cistulli, noting the ground floor would be concrete and the
second floor wood; the second floor would be strictly a lounge area with no dancing.
James A. Bruen, attorney for the applicant, confirmed the present permit would expire
in August, at which time they hoped *the Council would extend the permit as the
business has been upgraded substantially. It was unlikely that construction, if
approved, would begin before the permit decision is made. He stated they had found
considerable animosity toward the previous business operator and that the new owners
have invested a great deal of money to improve the business; he hoped Council would
base their decision on this business rather than the prior one. He stated the balcony
area would increase the seating capacity although it would not -increase the occupancy
of the building; the upstairs seating is required because of the enlarged dance floor.
It was noted the present operator opened for business on April '15 of this year.
There being no further discussion at this time, the public hearing was opened.
One of the partners in the business at 1320 Broadway spoke in favor of the application,
stating the new business people are very courteous and noting that the door is not left
open; she felt there is not excessive noise. Stephen Sacco, 1142 Capuchino, spoke
in opposition to the application, stating he is against anything that would bring
another car into the area. Charles Geer spoke in opposition to the application and
presented a petition with 11 signatures also opposed to the application. He stated
he is opposed to the basic concept of the use in the family residential small -shop
Broadway area. He noted he has an apartment behind the building and tenants have
been complaining about excessive noise, specifically in the parking lot when people
are leaving. He also stated that patrons leaving the disco leave debris in the area
that must be cleaned up. He felt the four findings necessary for variance approval
could not be met, particularly concerning the public health, safety and welfare and
improvements of other property owners. He also felt his property rights would be
infringed upon, that there are not exceptional circumstances and there would not be
any undue property loss to the owner of the parcel. In conclusion, he stated he
would also oppose the operating permit when it is brought before Council. A resident
at 1207 Paloma Avenue spoke in opposition, stating he lives in a nearby apartment
and the door is opened for short periods of time which wakes him; patrons leave as
fast and noisily as they can. Ann Bruce, representing the owner of 1207 Paloma,
addressed Commission speaking in opposition to the application. She referred to a
letter from a former tenant who moved because of the noise, anti concluded that if
the door is kept shut it might remedy the sound but the noise is there. There being
no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
City Engineer Kirkup confirmed that complete approval had not been obtained from the
Fire Department, making reference to a memorandum from the Fire Chief which indicated
that until detailed working drawings could be viewed they would not be able to
comment. Commissioner Sine stated his main concern was the lack of exits from the
second floor in case of a fire. He noted there is only a ground floor exit at the
front and rear of the building. Mr. Sinclair made reference to drawings about the
proposed occupancy for the second floor, confirming there are no fire escapes.
He stated that exits were reviewed with the Building Inspector as they relate to
the Uniform Building Code; the existing second floor allows 1015 and the proposed
additional space would allow 61, although they did not want to increase the occupancy.
Page 13
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
He stated they would be willing to provide a more direct means of exiting out of
the mezzanine area, i.e., direct exit from the second floor area. Commission noted
that such an exit would have to be used only in case of fire. Commissioner Sine
also stated he could not help but feel sorry for people living in the area with this
type of business, and questioned what would be there several years from now. He was
not convinced all the conditions for variance approvalhad been met. Regarding the
policing of the door, Mr. Sinclair suggested the installation of a second interior
door, adequately marked, so that at least one closure in the corridor would exist
at all times. He noted this was not considered the largest noise leakage area in
the building and that they are trying to mitigate the problems.
Commissioner Mink referred to Code Chap. 25.54 regarding criteria for variance
approval. He felt item (a) regarding exceptional circumstances had been adequately
addressed; item (b) had been substantially addressed; item (c), that this finding
could not be made; and item (d) regarding conformance with City ordinances, et cetera,
had been met as it is an approved business with a business license. He concluded
that the main problem is item (c) concerning the disco's effect on surrounding
property and the owners' rights. Commissioner Taylor expressed concern, noting the
business is already in existence and a significant point is that the applicant
proposes no change in occupancy. He felt this was an opportunity to abate a condition
and perhaps the requirements of the Code could be met if there were some conditions
attached such as sound insulation, second floor exits and improvements made to the
noise leakage areas. He emphasized that the variance primarily concerns parking
and testimony had been received on this point.
Commissioner Cistulli felt this was an opportunist -type business ("get rich quick")
and he was more interested in the property owners in the area, noting they support
the area all the time. He felt people attracted to the disco might be undesirable
and stated the Commission should protect the people of Burlingame; this is one of
their responsibilities. Attorney Bruen referred to Code Sec. 25.70.040 regarding
an exemption from the parking for existing commercial buildings; such as this one;
City Attorney Coleman and City Planner Swan noted that Code Sec. 25.50.020 applied
here which states that no use in a non -conforming building shall be extended.
Commissioner Francard felt too much.emphasis was being put on the building when
public testimony indicated there is a noise problem outside from people leaving the
disco at the rear parking lot.
Mr. Costa, the manager, addressed the Commission, stating they were making efforts
on all noise problems. He stated that debris was not necessarily left by his patrons;
there are other bars in the area. He advised they want the back door closed as
people will try to come in. He said the disco was not a "quick: money" operation and
they wanted people to have fun;:disco music is an alternative to live music which is
much louder. He noted that discos have been popular in Europe for a number of years,
as well as in New York for several years, his point being that it is not just a fad.
He added they have dress codes and would not encourage "bums." Mr. Costa emphasized
his operation has been in business only about 10 weeks and during that time only one
complaint had been received. This was regarding the use of a fire siren which has
since been discontinued. He commented he had never seen the people submitting
testimony in opposition complaining about noise; the hearing is the first time
complaints had been received. He emphasized that had those complaints been made,
an attempt would have been made to respond to the concerns. He concluded that
much had been invested in the new operation and they were not trying to increase
the occupancy.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 14
June 26, 1978
Commissioner Taylor moved that the above -noted variance be approved with the
condition that the rear door be weather stripped for noise insulation and that the
building be acoustically treated to maintain a CNEL of 65. Commissioner Kindig
seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion was defeated by a vote of 3-4,
Commissioners Cistulli, Francard, Sine and Jacobs casting the negative votes.
Chairman Jacobs informed the applicant his appl.ication was denied and advised him
of his right of appeal. A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at
11:00 P.M.
11. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040 TO PERMIT A TRELLIS TO ENCROACH 7 FEET INTO
THE FRONT SETBACK AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE (PORTION OF APN! 029-131-100), ZONED
R-3, BY JOSEPH G. LOMBARDI (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
City Planner Swan briefly reviewed the application, noting the trellis is proposed
to be added on an owner -occupied unit in the front yard or setback. He stated this
would be counted as lot coverage (Code allows 50% in the R-3 zone) and confirmed
the coverage would be slightly more than that figure with the trellis. It was
confirmed the proposal would not meet code in two areas; lot coverage and extension
into the front setback. Joseph Lombardi, the applicant, was present.
Commissioner Kindig stated he respected the applicant and his past building; however,
he was sorry he had approved this particular building since there is almost no
apparent open space and what open space there.is was only for the enjoyment of the
tenants. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There
was no public input and the hearing was closed.
City Planner Swan confirmed the trellis would cover 7% of the lot. Chairman Jacobs
felt the wooden trellis would soften the concrete front of the structure. It was
Commissioner Mink's feeling that, as proposed, this property would be in opposition
to the general zoning codes of the City; therefore, there was no reason for the
variance. It was noted there is nothing unique, causing a hardship for that property.
Commissioner Taylor moved that the application be denied. Commissioner Mink seconded
the motion and upon roll call the motion for denial did not carry, Commissioners
Cistulli, Kindig, Sine and Jacobs casting the negative votes.
Commissioner Kindig found, as noted in the applicant's letter, 'that there is a problem
with the sun which would cause a hardship on the applicant, the proposal would not
affect the appearance of the building or be detrimental to surrounding property
owners and would not be in conflict with the General Plan. He -then moved for .approval
of •thi's 'variance. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it
carried 5-2, Commissioners Taylor and Mink casting the negative votes.
12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR UP TO 99 STUDENTS AT
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE (APN 027-340-150) 13Y BARBARA FONG AND
DIANE GUAY (APPLICANTS) WITH THE BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT (PROPERTY OWNER)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, stating the proposal is to use
2-5 classrooms at Roosevelt for 23 days between July 5 and August 4 for a summer school
program with an enrollment of 30-60 children (with an upper limit of 99). The hours
of operation would be from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon, divided into three periods 50-60
minutes each. He further noted that two types of programs would be offered, a reading
lab and an enrichment program. He said that no transportation is proposed by the
applicants, although there may be some car pooling. He noted that Roosevelt School
has a normal enrollment of approximately 230 pupils; the summer program would be
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 15
June 26, 1978
20-40% of that amount. He further noted that private schools are a conditional use
in the R-1 Zoning District and Code requires that such schools be non-profit. He
noted both applicants were present.
Ms. Guay addressed the Commission briefly, reviewing the qualifications of Ms. Fong
and herself. She explained that the school would provide an educational program,
as opposed to a recreational one. She concluded the Burlingame School District was
highly supportive of this plan as its summer programs had been discontinued. City
Attorney Coleman briefly addressed the non-profit status, stating they simply propose
to return any extra money to the parents. Commissioner Taylor questioned whether
they have liability insurance (Workmen's Compensation) and Ms. Guay confirmed they
do not; however, anything they might have overlooked would be taken care of. They
were directed to contact the necessary office regarding this. Commissioner Sine
stated he was opposed to any commercial like operation in an R-•1 District, despite
the non-profit status, although he appreciated the need for such a program. There
being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public
input and the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Mink moved that the above -noted special permit be approved. Commissioner
Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried 6-1, Commissioner Sine
casting the negative vote. The effective dater of this special permit was noted by
Chairman Jacobs.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 6 RACQUETBALL COURTS AND EXERCISE ROOM IN THE M-1
DISTRICT AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-262-270), BY ANN MORI OF PENINSULA
SPORTS CENTER WITH JAMES C. LOUSTALOT (APPLICANTS) WITH JACK BELLEVUE (PROPERTY
OWNER) (ND -163P POSTED.JUNE 16, 1978)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, stating that at present facilities
include a gym, offices, locker rooms, showers, a second floor weight lifting room and
a 75' Olympic pool; and, on a parcel in separate ownership, four tennis courts with
backboard practice area, a basketball/volleyball court and children's play area.
He noted that 33 on-site parking spaces are presently provided to code standards
and at times 8-10 additional cars are "squeezed in." The proposal is to construct
six racquetball courts by reconstruction of a corner of the present gym and an
addition of about 38' on the front of the building toward the street. He noted that
a 15' front setback would be maintained with 7,850 SF of ground floor area for the new
racquetball club. Additionally, there would be an exercise room and1 ocker rooms,
each with sauna and jacuzzi whirlpool.
Several points Mr. Yost noted were: one, while adding lot coverage, the new site plan
actually increases the on-site parking from 33 spaces to 35 spaces; two, a letter
dated June 1, 1978 from Ann Mori states that she waives her rights to the four
additional tennis courts which had been approved by the City in 1976; three, upon
review of other racquetball facilities in the Bay Area, the City Planner has determined
the parking requirement for such facilities should be 3 parking spaces per court;
four, a car count between May 10 and June 18 shows the average weekday number of
cars in the existing parking lot varied between 10 and 15 cars and on weekends,
while on holidays there was an average of up to 25 cars; and finally, he referred to
the negative declaration, noting it states "modest intensification of recreational
use will slightly increase traffic. Evening and weekend parking demand will present
little or no problem in this light industrial district."
Page 16
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
Considering the improvements in this application, Mr. Yost noted that the amended
proposal seems a reasonable combined use of the property. James C. Loustalot,
applicant, briefly addressed the Commission, and stated that the City of.Burlingame
is in a unique position because this facility would be unlike that of any other
from San Francisco to San Jose; there is nothing with racquetball, handball,
swimming, tennis and all related activities. He stated that Ray Wagner, Burlingame's
Recreation Director, had been very encouraging and concluded by thanking staff for
their assistance.
City Engineer Kirkup said that although this condition would have no direct bearing
on the application, he wished to note that since the Center has been in operation
there have been some problems with the City's pumping facility, i.e., T-shirts, etc.
clogging the pump. He requested that approval be conditioned to require that a
proper trap or drain be installed. There being no further discussion, the public
hearing was opened.
George R. Corey first addressed the Commission regarding both this item and the next
item (another racquetball facility). He noted that in about a month he and his client
would be applying for another racquetball facility and a further facility is being
planned for Millbrae, close to Burlingame limits. He felt the Commission might want
to consider all the facilities at one time as they all could "not make it", and
requested action of this application be deferred. This, he felt, would enable the
Commission to choose the "best" facility for the City. Chairman Jacobs thanked
Mr. Corey but stated that the Commission considers each application as it is submitted
and each application is weighed on its own merits. Mr. Corey then spoke in opposition
to the application, addressing the parking; he felt, with the increased activity,
parking would not be sufficient, especially with all the other uses (tennis, swimming,
etc.).
Secretary Kindig read the following correspondence in support of the proposal:
(1) letter received June 20, 1978 from James Cannon, 1304 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame;
(2) letter received June 14, 1978 from Thomas Reed, 2916 Dolores, Burlingame;
(3) letter dated June 13, 1978 from Ronald Barrett, 1200 Edgehill Drive, Burlingame;
(4) June 20, 1978 letter to Jim Loustalot from Ray R. Wagner, Director of Recreation.
There being no further public input, the hearing was closed.
Chairman Jacobs commented that although parking might be overloaded on weekends, the
facility is in an area that is not in use at those times (light industrial district).
Mr. Yost confirmed that the original application was signed by Ann Mori and there was
a question of subleases; now., he stated, both the applicant and Ms. Mori hold separate
and independent leases. He confirmed the application should only reflect Mr. Loustalot
as the applicant. He further explained that it is difficult to apply the parking on
an assigned basis as both businesses would use more than half at different times of
the day. There would be times when the parking lot would not have adequate space;
however, those peak times occur when on -street parking is available. Chairman Jacobs
felt it would be very difficult to provide parking for the most intense period of
weekend use with the cost of land, and felt Mr. Yost's statements about the combined
use and the availability of on -street parking would justify approval. Commissioner
Cistulli felt each application should be considered as it comes in and no application
should be postponed because of upcoming proposals.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 17
June 26, 1978
Commissioner Mink moved for approval of the above -noted special permit, in light
of the negative declaration and testimony submitted, with the :stipulations that the
permit be issued to James Loustalot, as per the application, and per plans dated
June 5, 1978; and under the conditions described in a letter from Ann Mori and
James Loustalot date-stamped June 7, 1978; with the further condition that a trap
be installed in the drainage system to approval of the City Engineer. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Kindig and upon roll call it carried unanimously 7-0.
Chairman Jacobs noted the appeal dates.
City Planner Swan made a brief presentation about upcoming applications as well as
items 13 (just acted upon) and 14, a special permit for another such facility. He
stated that staff has been trying to get some ideas about facilities regarding
questions about parking and concluded a parking requirement of 3 spaces per court
would be reasonable. He emphasized that one important factor to consider is whether
other parking is available at peak times (on -street parking, etc.), especially if
the facility provides a variety of activities.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 11 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS AND 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 6/16/78)
City Planner Swan noted that this particular application is for 11 courts on Marsten
Road and that two additional applications are to be scheduled for hearing in July,
one on Rollins Road and one on Gilbreth Road. In addition, a facility is being
proposed in Millbrae which is in the same area as the Burlingame proposals. In
reviewing this facility, he noted there would be an exercise area with weight equipment,
etc., that a negative declaration had been filed for the construction of the building
with over 35,000 SF of area with access by means of a bridge over Easton Creek at the
end of Marsten Road. He said 10% landscaping would be required in the M-1 zone.
Several problems with the application were noted: (1) concerning location of the creek,
dedication for a 20' easement for channel maintenance should be required; (2) no
detailed floor plans, building elevations or dimensions of parking layout have been
submitted and it is felt more parking could be obtained by shifting the building to
one side; (3) paving of the drainage channel for maintenance; (4) there is no street
frontage. He concluded it appears there is not adequate parking during -the day
and based upon this he suggested that the application be continued.
Chairman Jacobs was concerned since this item was set for hearing; she felt the
requests for additional information should have been made at the study meeting.
Mr. Swan noted that a considerable amount of new information had been received, i.e.,
other proposals for similar facilities. The Chairman stated this application was
considered complete enough for hearing at the study meeting and the applicant was
then quoted a 2-1/2 space parking ratio, now it is 3 spaces; she concluded that such
changes should not be made. Commission agreed it was not fair -to this applicant;
however, they did agree that more complete plans would be required to make a decision.
Kenn Edwards, co -applicant, addressed Commission, stating that on Friday he received
a letter from the City Planner and therefore did not have adequate time to prepare
the additional items requested. He did note that everything required in the
negative declaration was prepared and his architect felt there was enough room on the
site for the 10% landscaping.; paving of the easement could be performed; they could
conform to three spaces per court. He noted they felt there would not be more than
33 cars on the site at one time.
Page 18
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
Regarding floor plans, Mr. Edwards explained that the lounge area is not a bar, but
a. control center in the entranceway. He requested the Commission consider this
application, hold hearing and approve it with conditions to conform to the requirements
discussed. Commission discussed the possibility of approval with conditions; however,
it was agreed they would like to view the amended plans and then act on the application.
A hearing date in two weeks was discussed and Mr. Edwards asked if the Commission
would give tentative approval before he continued with the additional expenses.
City Attorney Coleman advised that Commission could not give guaranteed approvals.
City Planner Swan pointed out that at the study meeting the point was made that
landscaping was less than 10% and that parking should not be less than 2-1/2 spaces,
with the note that other facilities were providing 3 spaces. Fie stated that little
or no communications had been received from the applicant since that time and the
City.Engineer had called attention to the channel maintenance agreement.
Commissioner Mink moved that the hearing be continued to July 10 and at that time
the applicant is to present plans including complete parking layout with 3 spaces
per court, 20' easement for channel maintenance, floor plans, building elevations,
10% minimum landscaping and comments on the long cul-de-sac. Commissioner Cistulli
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 7-0. Chairman Jacobs apologized to
the applicant, noting the hearing would be held on July 10, 1978.
15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW WALL, FLOOR AND WINDOW COVERING TO BE SOLD AT RETAIL
IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1675 ROLLINS ROAD (SUITE D) (APN 025-280-210),
BY EDWARD AND RINDA ARIAS OF ARIAS INTERIORS (APPLICANTS) WITH HERBERT HUMBER
OF ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER (PROPERTY OWNER)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, making reference to a letter
dated May 12, 1978 from the applicants describing the proposed use. He read a portion
of that letter and concluded this would suggest there would be adequate off-street
parking; if the operation is kept low key, wholesale oriented as indicated by the
applicant, staff would have no objection. He did state that, -if approved, the permit
should be reivewed in six to 12 months. It was noted the applicants were present.
There being no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public input
and the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Kindig noted that the back parking lot is normally empty but felt any
retail customers would probably park on Rollins Road. He felt the existing parking
lot should be striped, noting this had never been done. He also stated he is usually
opposed to retail uses in M-1 areas; however, because of the type of business,
concentrating on wholesale, etc., he felt it would be permissible.
Commissioner Kindig moved for approval of the above -noted special permit, that it be
issued to the applicants in accordance with their letter of May 12, 1978 and under
the conditions in that letter, with review in 12 months. Commissioner Mink seconded
the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously 7-0. Chairman Jacobs noted
the final dates. Staff was directed to write a letter to the property owner requesting
that the parking lot be striped.
16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND U-STOR-IT, A SELF -STORAGE WAREHOUSE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT
AT 1855 ROLLINS ROAD (AND WITH SECOND ENTRANCE FROM BRODERICK ROAD) (APN 025-
163-010), BY JOHN HARRINGTON OF COLE REED ASSOCIATES/U-STOR-IT (APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -169P POSTED JUNE 16, 1978)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the proposal is to increase
the storage lockers from 264 to 495. He identified the present uses within the
Page 19
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1978
40,500 SF building, noting the property is very substandard in relation to current
off-street parking requirements. 'The additional storage lockers would result in one
extra employee and up to 2-4 additional customers at one time during the week, with
peak times during the noon hour and from 4:00-5:30 P.M. He emphasized that a typical
"permitted" use could have 13 or more employees in a 13,000 SF warehouse, and the
self -storage use appears to be less intense than many permitted uses. He concluded
this would seem a reasonable use of the property and recommended that the number of
parking spaces marked for this business' exclusive use be increased from the 3 provided
now to 5 for the existing 264 lockers and another 5 parking spaces be reserved for
the additional 231 lockers, to be reached from Broderick Road. He concluded there
was no staff objection to this proposed expansion by U-Stor-It.
John Harrington, applicant, confirmed that the 10 parking spaces could be reserved
and that he would meet all the concerns in the memorandums from John Calwell, Chief
Building Inspector and Larry Newell, Chief Fire Inspector regarding sprinklers,
restrooms and handicapped facilities. There being no further discussion, the
public hearing was opened. There was no testimony submitted and the public hearing
was closed.
Commissioner Mink moved that the above -noted special permit be approved subject to
the conditions contained in the memorandums dated June 15 and 16, 1978 from Fire Inspector
Newell and Building Inspector Calwell, and that five marked parking spaces be reserved
for exclusive use of this business in each of the two parking lots. Commissioner
Taylor seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously 7-0. Chairman
Jacobs noted the effective date.
17. FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 INTO
ONE LOT; PROPERTY AT 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APN 028-283-010), BY WILLIAM WRIGHT
FOR JOSEPH KARP (TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED MARCH 27, 1978)
Staff reported that the map was in proper order for approval, noting that all conditions
were included on the map, i.e., no ingress or egress on E1 Camino Real. There being
no discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public testimony and
the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sine moved for adoption of the above -noted map, with the notation that
all conditions are included on the map. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion
and upon roll call the motion carried unanimously 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was regularly adjourned at 12:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig
Secretary