Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.05.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order Monday, May 22, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli Jules L. Francard Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman Everett K. Kindig, Secretary Thomas W. Sine Thomas C. Taylor Absent: Charles W. Mink, 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 May 8, 1978 were approved as mailed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:30 P.M. MINUTES of the May 22, 1978 meeting were approved with the following addition: under Item #2, Chairman Jacobs wished the minutes to reflect her concern that the variance for noontime parking at this restaurant would be only one space per 200 SF versus the code requirement for a specialty restaurant of one parking space per 91 SF of gross floor area. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission approved the order of the agenda. HEARING ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 May 22, 1978 1. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.010 TO ADD A 10' X 20' BACKYARD DECK, WHICH WILL INCREASE LOT COVERAGE TO 46.6%; PROPERTY AT 2512 POPPY DRIVE (APN 027- 171-070), ZONED R-1, BY ALEX F. KENNETT Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application noting the lot is substandard in that the total area is 4,400 SF and code minimum is 5,000 SF. The existing house, he noted, covers about 41% of the lot and the proposed deck would bring the lot coverage up to just over 46%. The proposed deck would be at the upper floor living area level, 10' x 20' in size and about 10' above grade, with an exterior stairway connecting it to the patio below. He explained that code states an exterior deck more than 5' above grade counts as additional lot coverage. He felt the principal concern is the effect of the deck on the privacy in the adjacent neighbors' backyards and explained briefly how the deck might affect those yards. He concluded that the four requirements of Code Chapter 25.54 should be reviewed, noting that staff feels there is some question as to whether the condition concerning other property owners' quiet enjoyment of their properties or protection of the improvements of their properties has been met. Alex F. Kennett, the applicant, was present and submitted a letter to the Commission from William C, O'Connor, 2508 Poppy Drive. Secretary Kindig read the letter in which Mr. O'Connor, the most affected property owner, stated he felt the variance should be allowed. Staff confirmed that notices were sent to property owners within 300' of the site. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public input and the hearing was closed. Commission considered photographs provided by the applicant during their discussion. Discussion was held about the proposal with the applicant and staff. Regarding consideration of a split level deck or a deck reduced in height, Mr. Kennett explained this had been considered but the backyard is small and a lower deck would reduce the useable area of his yard. Responding to the Commission's concerns, Mr. Kennett stated he has no intention of closing the deck in for another room or shop area. Commissioner Sine stated this is a very secluded area, noting he had visited the site, and felt that the deck, as proposed, is the only way it could be done. He concluded that since the area is secluded it would not create a detriment to the neighbors; his main concern was the setting of a precedent with smaller lots. Commissioner Kindig was also concerned about small lots with larger homes. The applicant confirmed he was aware of the problems when he recently Purchased the home. Commissioner Taylor questioned the hardship requirement and the applicant felt the hardship was that he purchased a home that was constructed under different conditions than those permitted today. Commissioner Francard and Chairman Jacobs were concerned about noise factors as well as privacy. The applicant stated the construction would meet Building Department standards and a 3'+ railing would be provided, the stairs would be constructed of wood with pads on the stairs, and there would be French doors from the house. Chairman Jacobs felt there was a safety factor to consider (i.e., a 3'+ railing with young•chiildren). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 22, 1978 Commissioner Kindig found that the lot is unusual as it is less than the 5,000 SF minimum and has a small backyard, creating a hardship for the owner, and based on correspondence presented it does not appear that it would cause an adverse effect on the neighborhood. He therefore moved for approval of the above -noted variance application. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion carried 4-2, Commissioners Taylor and Jacobs casting the negative votes and Commissioner Mink absent. Responding to Commissioner Sine's inquiry, Mr. Yost explained that if the home were destroyed by fire a new home meeting all the requirements of code (side yards, lot coverage, etc.) could be constructed; the substandard lot would still exist. Chairman Jacobs noted the appeal procedures and date on which a Building Permit could be obtained if there were no appeal. 2. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING WITH 29,544 SF OF OFFICE SPACE AND 17,200 SF OF RESTAURANT SPACE, WITH 30 COMPACT CAR SPACES; PROPERTY AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-342-190/200), ZONED C-4, BY JOSEPH KENT OF RAISER ARCHITECTURAL GROUP FOR STANLEY LO (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). (ND -159P POSTED MAY 12, 1978) City Planner Swan reviewed the above variance and the related special permit (item 3) simultaneously, noting that separate hearings and motions would be required. He explained the project is proposed to be located on two lots at Bayview Place and Airport Boulevard and made reference to a project summary provided by the applicant. He noted that a parcel map to combine the two lots into one parcel would be required and referred to a staff report and the negative declaration prepared for the project. Mr. Swan explained the reason for the variance is to gain credit for 30 compact car spaces, noting that the number of spaces required for the combined office/restaurant use could be calculated using the ratio 1:300' office area and 1:200' eating area, with a deficiency of 30 standard spaces. He noted that for a specialty restaurant used in the evening or on weekends the required parking would be 189 spaces; and the project supplies that many. He also noted there is 16% lot coverage and 20% landscaping. He said the compact spaces could be eliminated and 30 more standard spaces provided by a reduction in landscaped area and total parking provided. He felt it would be more beneficial to have a wider planter buffering the project from the street, especially if future improvements evolve (widening of street to provide on -street parking). He then asked that the staff report be ;incorporated by reference. The City Planner continued, noting that details in the negative declaration concerned provision of parking and the impact of compact car spaces. He felt an environmental impact report was not required, the main impact being the additional traffic; traffic would be divided over a longer period of time because of the mixed use. Another impact he noted was the aesthetics of a building of this height and the pollution from traffic coming to the site. In mitigation of height, the parking area is lowered (2' below grade) and open, permitting vision under and through the building to the Bay beyond. He also noted the restaurant is on the top level which provides unrestricted views of San Francisco Bay. Since the most significant effect is traffic, Mr. Swan felt an item to consider for mitigation could be off-site circulation system improvements. He suggested the following condition: that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that this project pay $100 per required parking space for future off-site circulation system improve- ments. This figure could be adjusted downward for interim projects; and he emphasized the costs for roads and traffic signals are extensive. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 22, 1978 Commission discussed City Planner Swan's suggested condition at length. There was some question as to the constitutionality of this as it might be a revenue producing charge. City Engineer Kirkup stated that similar one-time assessments have been made in San Jose and across the Bay, not necessarily based on a parking space ratio (square footage, number of units, etc.) and it is constitutional as it is a one-time charge. He explained, however, that the money must be earmarked for a specific use. Several Commissioners stated their individual opinions; however, it was the general consensus of Commission that such a condition establishes a policy and such policy should be handed down from the Council to the Commission. City Planner Swan agreed that it would be the Council's policy although the Commission might present the idea to Council. Commission felt the approval of such a condition would be a departure from their regular practices. Commission discussed the status of the tentative map with staff and City Engineer Kirkup confirmed the tentative parcel map would not go to Council but the final map would. City Planner Swan stated that under the emergency ordinance which is in effect in the bayfront area anything proposed requires review by the City Council. Commissioner Taylor questioned the decision that an environmental impact report is not required, feeling traffic is a major impact. City Planner Swan explained that he felt the negative declaration adequately covered the impacts of the project, noting this area is suggested for office use by the Blayney Report and that the overall impact of traffic for the area is being covered in the plan for the area. Joseph Kent of Raiser Architectural Group, representing the applicant, presented a rendering of the proposed building. The main points of his presentation were that the compact spaces could be converted to full size spaces if less landscaping is provided. He noted the smaller amount of landscaping would still satisfy zoning regulations. Regarding the special permit, he stated that with the unusual setting a most important aspect of the site development is to maintain a visual sense of what is happening beyond the building. He felt one justification for the height was the visibility of the Bay at eye level through the parking area. Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kent confirmed that even with full size spaces the development could still offer the 15% required landscaping. He explained that the parapet acts as a screen for miscellaneous equipment and it is anticipated the parapet would be sufficient to screen any machinery. He noted that hydraulic elevators are to be installed and the elevator equipment would be at the lowest level of parking. He further confirmed the second level of parking is 2' below grade with a landscaped berm to buffer it; soil conditions make it undesirable to go lower. He stated there is room for a tow truck at the lower level with a slab -to -slab dimension of about 9', leaving 8' head room in the parking area. Staff confirmed that no permits could be issued without the parcel map. Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing on the variance. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, first commented on the policy of charging developers $100 per required parking space for off-site circulation system improvements. He stated he was opposed to such a charge and noted his company had donated valuable property to the City for improvements. He then addressed the variance, speaking in opposition as it is very difficult to direct people to park in specific areas for small cars. He noted that offices and restaurants produce the greatest traffic impact during 4:30 to 5:30 P.M. peak hours. He further stated he did not see any Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 22, 1978 exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of a variance and the denial of such a variance would not necessarily cause a loss of property rights to the owner. He felt this could force parking off the site and onto the street or other properties. As a result of his personal dealings with the applicant, Mr. Keyston cautioned the Commission to carefully detail any conditions or commitments from the applicant. John Raiser addressed the Commission, commenting with regard to traffic impact the figures noted by Mr. Keyston were based on a 1:1 lot coverage and this project has .61 lot coverage. He stated the project was conceived as a restaurant/office combination in direct answer to the City's desire for more restaurants in the waterfront area, and the request for the variance is a minimal one. He felt it would be a first class project within the guidelines and spirit of the City's wishes. Leonard Waldo, Wm. J. Purdy Co., spoke in opposition to the variance, noting that in his business out of 60 cars there are only 3 compacts. There being no further public testimony, the hearing was closed. Chairman Jacobs was concerned about the restaurant, feeling it would be a specialty restaurant at the noon hour as well as evenings. Commissioner Taylor discussed the square footage and parking requirements with staff. City Planner Swan confirmed that the restaurant floor has approximately 1.7,200 SF of floor area and, based on 1:200, the required parking would be 86 spaces; if the restaurant concept were eliminated, it would reduce the required parking to 99 spaces. He suggested Commission consider if the variance actually improves the quality of the lot as stated by the applicant. Chairman, Jacobs questioned the style of the building, and Commissioner Taylor felt the applicant was attempting to create a higher quality development. Commissioner Francard felt the landscaping and parking plans were incomplete; City Engineer Kirkup confirmed the plans did not show bumpers or curbs. Mr. Kent explained the stalls are large enough and include room for bumpers so the wheels would not protrude into the landscaped areas. He agreed that perhaps this was an oversimplification in the plans but stated the bumpers were planned as this is fairly standard procedure. City Engineer Kirkup commented this could be a condition of approval. Commissioner Sine was opposed to the variance, feeling that a plan with standard spaces would be more desirable. He felt when compact car areas are provided they are not properly used. Commissioner Cistulli felt there is a trend for smaller cars and believed it would be more desirable to have! the additional landscaping. Commissioner Taylor felt there had been adequate exceptional circumstances demonstrated by the applicant, that the variance is necessary for the use and enjoyment of the property, that it would be consistent with the zoning requirements and conforms to the objectives of the General Plan (as it is being amended), and that it would not be injurious to surrounding property owners. He then moved for approval of the above -noted variance subject to the conditions that (1) 20% landscaping be provided as proposed, and (2) parking spaces be provided with adequate curbs, bumpers or wheel stops. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. There was some question about the parcel map and staff stated that permits could not be issued without a parcel map. Upon roll call the motion for approval of the variance carried 5-1, Commissioner Sine casting the negative vote and Commissioner Mink absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 22, 1978 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS 50' :IN HEIGHT (58'-6"), IN THE C-4 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN.026-342-190/200), BY JOSEPH KENT OF RAISER ARCHITECTURAL GROUP FOR STANLEY LO (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) As City Planner Swan had reviewed this with Item 2 above, he stated he had nothing to add. Mr. Kent stated that he, too, had nothing to add. Commissioner Taylor noted that the 50' limit is a review figure and not a mandatory limitation. There being no further discussion, Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing. There was no public input and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Francard was concerned as there was no definite figure given for the height of the building (i.e., parapet) except to say that it would be within a given space, but this could change. Chairman Jacobs stated -the applicant had assured Commission everything would be kept under the parapet. John Raiser addressed Commission, referring to projects currently being completed and stating it can be seen they stay within the plans. He emphasized the parapet would not house the elevator machinery and that they paid particular attention to see that the roofs are attractive and unobstructive to the neighboring buildings. Commissioner Taylor felt the special permit could be conditioned to allow a building of 50' but not over 60' and added he appreciated the project summary, stating it was clear, concise and well written. Commissioner Taylor moved that the above -noted special permit be granted for a building to exceed 50' in height in accordance with the plans and specifications received May 17, 1978. C. Cistulli seconded the motion for approval. City Engineer Kirkup noted that the height is not specified in the plans and Commissioner Taylor added the clause "but not over 60"' to the motion. Commissioner Cistulli agreed to this additional phrase and upon roll call the motion carried 4-2, Commissioners Francard and Sine casting the negative votes and Commissioner Mink absent. Chairman Jacobs advised the public as to appeal and final dates and then called a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. 4. AMENDMENT OF DECEMBER, 1973 SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 819 MITTEN ROAD BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:30 A.M. AND 10:30 P.M., WITH SEATING FOR 48 CUSTOMERS, BY JACK FONG WOO; DOHEMAN14 & COMPANY (OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, referring to previous Commission action in 1973 when the permit was issued to the "'property" with limitations on the hours (7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.) and seating (no more than 38 customers). He said the present operator would like the conditions amended to allow seating for up to 48 customers and with hours until 10::30 P.M. Mr. Yost emphasized this would be the first time that a sandwich shop in the industrial area could stay open to serve dinner and sell take-out food. He noted that the property owners indicated no objections to these proposed changes. Some of the concerns or questions to consider would be whether this evening use in the M-1 District is acceptable in principle, whether a minimum number of on-site parking spaces should be required of the applicant (code would require 5 and the property owners have no objection to reserving this number for this business), and whether an amended permit should be limited to the present applicant rather than simply running with the property (with review in six to twelve months). fle noted the necessary building permits would be required to cover the changes in cooking (cooking of greasy foods) whether or not the Commission approves the amendment. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1978 Jack Fong Woo, the applicant, was present and stated he had not increased the seating in the dining room (38 was already permitted). It was noted the Fire Department found the area adequate for a seating capacity of 48. Mr. Woo stated he would get the necessary permits and bring the cooking equipment up to code. He confirmed he would have a Chinese restaurant with take-out: food in addition. Mr. Yost added that the flue merely has to be of a heavier gage to handle the greasy cooking and this replacement would require a building permit and Fire Department inspection. Upon brief discussion of the correspondence from the Police Department, Mr. Yost said the Police Department was asked whether they felt there may be an adverse effect with the business staying open after other businesses in the area had closed (i.e., problems with strangers). The Police Department's response indicated there would not be a significant problem from a policing standpoint:. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There wasno public input and the hearing was closed. Chairman Jacobs felt concerned about an evening restaurant in the area and several Commissioners agreed with this. Commissioner Kindig commented that such restaurants were usually approved to provide lunch to people working in the area; an evening trade or carry -out use in the M-1 District is a totally different use. Commissioner Taylor agreed, stating this is a retail use in the M-1 District which would have no relation to the surrounding area. Chairman Jacobs asked the applicant if he would consider keeping the hours to 3:30 P.M. and Commissioner Cistulli asked if he had tried.opening for breakfast or having take-out only to 9:30 P.M. The applicant felt there was not enough breakfast trade and still hoped to extend the hours to 10:30 P.M. Chairman Jacobs was sympathetic to the applicant's situation (alleged financial hardship) but stated there are areas within the City where restaurants are permitted all day. Commissioner Taylor felt adequate testimony had not been provided to show there is a nighttime need in the area and that exceptional circumstances had not been presented. When asked for a specific reason.to have later hours, other than financial hardship, Mr. Woo stated it was just for the business. Commissioner Taylor moved that the application be rejected. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. Commissioner Cistulli was concerned as he felt there was a rule about reapplying for the same permit. Staff confirmed the application would not be able to come in for a year to reapply unless the proposal had significantly changed. Commissioner Taylor felt the applicant might seek advice to develop the evidence Commission needs for such a permit. Upon roll call the motion for rejection did not carry, the vote being 3-3, Commissioners Cistulli, Francard and Sine casting the negative votes and Commissioner Mink absent. The applicant was asked to return in 30 days with further material addressing the Commission's concerns. Mr. Woo agreed and the item was continued 30 days. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY AND OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (PORTION OF APN 024-403-270), BY -TRANS RENT -A -CAR, INC. WITH CYRUS J. MC MILLAN (ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT) AND FLAGSHIP INTERNATIONAL, INC. (SKY CHEFS) (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -160P POSTED MAY 10, 1978) City Planner Swan reviewed this item, referring to staff report which he requested be incorporated with the hearing minutes by reference. He also referred to the minutes of the study meeting of May 8, 1978 at which the applicant confirmed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 22, 1978 several points. Mr. Swan reviewed a separate list of conditions which were attached to the staff report, stating they might be used as a standard list of conditions applying to rent -a -car establishment permits within the City. He then read the 11 suggested conditions. Mr. Swan confirmed the revised site plan dated May 17 designated 40 spaces. Cyrus McMillan, attorney representing the applicants, Dr. Seymour Furman and Gloria Rivas, was present and briefly addressed the Commission, stating this is not a new rent -a -car company coming into the City but merely the relocation of an existing company. He noted the facility would be moved approximately 500' to 600' down the road. The present location has no landscaping and the site is congested. He stated the lease is for a 5 year term with a possible 5 year extension and confirmed that although the proposed site is larger, the operation would remain the same (same firm, same business and same number of cars). The hours would be 6:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. and on Saturdays 6:30 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. He further stated there are probably 30 trip ends per day with peak hours being 6:30 A.M., 9:30 A.M. and 9:00 P.M., not interfering with peak commuter traffic. Trans Rent-A-Car, Inc. has a fleet of 60 to 70 cars and 2 vans; they have an arrangement with Anza for overflow parking. Mr. McMillan addressed each of the suggested conditions as follows. Condition regarding the final parcel map: this was agreed to. Condition regarding size of the site area and off-street parking: agreed to with the note that this new site is greater than the present location. Condition regarding spaces for pickup and dropoff purposes: agreed to with the note that there would actually be more (37 spaces with room in the rear for employees and therefore more closely parked). Condition regarding the landscaped area being 15% of total site area: not agreed to as landscaping on the south side would be at a depth of 20' and on the northerly side at a depth of 15'; it was noted this is more than the required 10% but probably not 15%. Condition regarding separation between front property line and parking area: agreed to. Condition regarding a grease trap: agreed to. Condition regarding construction of a car wash system: not agreed to for economic reasons, however, would agree to any restrictions placed with regard to water use. Condition regarding space for loading and unloading vehicles from transports: agreed to with note that transports are not used, but there is space. Condition regarding the special permit: agreed to. Condition regarding vehicle parking: agreed to although it was indicated the purpose was questionable and this would just be another detail to take care of. Condition regarding service charge for off-site circulation system improvements: not agreed to as a condition on this particular item but also opposed the entire concept. There was some question as to the driveway setup and City Engineer Kirkup suggested that the driveways be reversed. Mr. McMillan stated he would be happy to install a sign of "right turn only" between 4-6:00 P.M. Barry Rafter, architect, addressed the Commission stating the parking lot has a fence and it is felt changing the driveways could create a traffic hazard for the Sky Chefs people next door. Chairman Jacobs felt if the traffic were only allowed to go to the right there would not be much of a problem. Commission agreed the driveways should be changed. Mr. McMillan stated their only concern was the safe ingress or egress from the property and would agree to such a condition. Chairman Jacobs felt that berms should be provided in the landscaped area to screen the cars from vision. Mr. McMillan stated there is a safety factor to consider. Commission agreed this could be detailed in the conditions. City Planner Swan felt that a planting area no less than 15' wide would be preferable to a condition that landscaping be 15% of total site area. Mr. McMillan discussed screening the cars with landscaping and agreed that a 4' berm could be provided; he requested staff be allowed to review and approve the landscaping plans. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 22, 1978 Responding to several questions from the Commission, Mr. McMillan confirmed the present location is overloaded, but felt the proposed location would not be overloaded as there are no plans to increase the size of the fleet. He stated the lot would hold more than 37 cars and would agree to a condition that not more than "X" number of cars would be stored. He further confirmed they have a valid lease from Sky Chefs and reaffirmed this facility would not serve any other car rental agency with regard to servicing. Mr. McMillan explained operational procedures, noting Trans Rent-A-Car can be contacted by a direct line at the airport or by commercial telephone, but there is no desk at the airport. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public input and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Francard objected to the one year review. Commissioner Sine noted the plot plan should show 37 spaces instead of 40 and felt a condition should require this. The applicant explained that this was changed because of the increased setbacks for landscaping and. agreed to submit a revised plot plan. City Planner Swan advised the Commission would have to see a parcel map before the issuance of any permits and at that time a revised site plan including the landscaping could be submitted. Responding to Chairman Jacobs' concerns about grease, City Engineer Kirkup stated they do not want greasy runoff to go in the storm drains and then into the Bay. He added the Building Department checks this but stated if this is a condition of the permit it is easier for staff to work with. Commissioner Taylor felt there were too many unanswered questions, i.e., what kind of charter buses, other nearby locations(would this become a fleet headquarters and a service center for Oakland Airport cars). Mr. McMillan stated this company has facilities out of the area (San Diego, Orange County, Phoenix, etc.). He noted there would be two vans stored on the premises and employees would be provided on-site parking. Commissioner Taylor felt this was not good for the aesthetics of the area and observed this is a prime parcel of land. He felt other uses would be more suitable here. Commissioner Kindig moved for approval of the above -noted special permit with the following conditions. (1) A final parcel map shall be approved before the special permit for land use on that parcel may become effective. (2) The site area shall be of adequate size to provide off-street parking for all employees and all rent -a -car establishment vehicles. (3) There shall be not less than 10 standard car spaces for pickup and dropoff purposes, to be striped and clearly marked. (4) The.separation between front property line and parking area shall be increased to not less than 15 feet. (5) A grease trap shall be designed and installed in the site drain to prevent grease from entering -the storm drainage system and then the Bay. (6) Adequate space shall be provided on the site for loading and unloading of vehicles from auto transports, rather than any on- or •off-loading on the street. (7) Special permit shall be limited to the period of the leasehold; it shall run for five years and be renewable -For another five year period. (8) Vehicle parking shall be subject to annual review and report to the Planning Commission. (9) Height of the mounding or screen planting to be no less than 4'. (10) North driveway to be entrance only and south driveway to be exit, and with sign "right turn only" at the exit drive during peak hours. (11) A revised plot plan showing, landscaping shall be submitted for staff approval. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously 6-0, Commissioner Mink absent. Mr. McMillan stated he hoped to be scheduled for the June 12 agenda with the parcel map including the revised site plan with landscaping. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 22, 1978 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN ENGINE TUNE-UP SERVICE AT THE JIFFY SERVICE STATION, PROPERTY AT 1 PARK ROAD (APN 029-223-160), ZONED R-3, BY J. W. MADOCKS OF TOSCO CORPORATION (LION OIL DIVISION) WITH L. G. ARMSTRONG OF QUALITY TUNE-UP (APPLICANTS) AND ALICE D. KELLER WITH SHIRLEY J. JOHNSON (PROPERTY OWNERS) (ND -161P POSTED MAY 10, 1978) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application by Lion Oil Division which presently leases and sells gasoline from the existing service station. He noted the application is to sublease the two service bays in the station to Quality Tune -Up which would operate a one hour tune-up service. This service would require only one employee. He referred to a letter dated May 2, 1978 to the Commission from L. G. Armstrong, Vice President, Quality Tune -Up which detailed the proposed service, addressing the parking and hours of operation. It was confirmed there would be adequate on-site parking for two employees (one for the station and one for the tune-up service) and three customer cars. Mr. Yost noted the parking could be increased by two or three spaces with tandem parking and pointed out that a negative declaration, ND -161P, had been posted for the project with the conclusion it would not have a significant effect on the environment although the visual appearance and vehicle parking limitations should be regulated by conditions of the special permit. It ►vas noted the applicants were present for the discussion. Mr. Yost concluded his review, stating Commission should consider that all new signs would have to come to the Commission for review as this is a commercial use of R-3 zoned property; he noted the proposed exterior improvements (i.e., painting) and advertising for the tune-up service were the next item on the agenda. J. W. Madocks, the applicant, referred to the minutes of the study meeting of May 8, 1978 and stated he had nothing more to add. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public input and the hearing was closed. It was noted the information received at the study meeting of May 8, 1978 would be incorporated into the record by reference. Commissioner Taylor stated he was opposed to anything making it easier to operate a commercial business in an R-3 zone and that the location is; not suitable for a service station;. such a use is not consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Yost explained that some research would be required as the use existed prior to 1941 when the first zoning code was adopted; it appears the parcel was always R-3 and the use preceded the zoning. Chairman Jacobs stated it has been City policy to keep El Camino Real as non-commercial as possible. Commissioner Sine felt this would only compound an existing nonconforming use. Commissioner Taylor moved for denial of the application and Commissioner Sine seconded the motion. Upon roll call Commissioner Cistulli voted in favor of the motion and then the roll call was interrupted. Mr. Armstrong requested permission to speak. Commission agreed this would be appropriate. Mr. Armstrong addressed the Commission, stating it was the applicants' desire to do this in a manner that would enhance the station that exists. He stated he would like Commission to see what they have planned, rather than deny the request and operate a shop under adverse conditions that no one would benefit from. He pointed out the City Attorney, at the study meeting, had confirmed the uses (service station and tune-up service) could operate without Commission approval although the tune-up service would have to operate without signage. He regretted the signage and exterior plans followed this item as Commission could have viewed plans for improvements of the building. He concluded it was not their desire to go against the wishes of the Commission. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 22, 1978 Staff confirmed that the tune-up service could be operated without the benefit of a sign as part of the gas station operation, and Commission approval would not be required. Commissioner Cistulli stated, since the applicants hope to clean up the existing station, perhaps Commission should consider it so that they would have some control. He wished to rescind his previous vote. Chairman Jacobs called for a vote on the motion for denial of the permit and upon roll call it carried 5-1, Commissioner Cistulli casting the negative vote and Commissioner Mink absent. Chairman Jacobs informed the applicants of their right of appeal and appeal dates. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW UP TO 126 SF OF SIGNAGE FOR EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN THE R-3 DISTRICT AT 1 PARK ROAD, BY J. W. MADOCKS OF TOSCO CORPORATION (LION OIL DIVISION) WITH L. G. ARMSTRONG OF QUALITY TUNE-UP This item was removed from the agenda. Ken Davis addressed Commission, stating that the station would be opening within a week with the tune-up service; he wished the Commission had considered this. 8. RESOLUTION ON SCHOOL SITE ZONING City Planner Swan reported the City'Attorney was not able to prepare this resolution. 9. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS City Planner Swan reviewed a staff report prepared for this item noting concerns: (1) removing residential uses from C-3 District Regulations, (2) whether office buildings in the bayfront area should be a conditional use or permitted use, and (3) clarification of building heights. He commented that Council had not given staff detailed direction or development criteria; and it was 'noted the emergency. ordinance would expire July 6, 1978. City Engineer Kirkup stated that from the standpoint of Public Works, office buildings can be approved if there is adequate capacity; he noted that study area permits were required because office buildings are screening off the Bay, this was one of the concerns behind the ordinance. He further explained that the Draft EIR and final Bayney Report would have guidelines for review in July; thereafter, staff would proceed with implementation. Chairman Jacobs was concerned as there were no criteria. She stated she had a concern as to roof height (roofs measured in middle of a gable roof). Commissioner Sine felt the code should be amended and the height measurement taken to the highest point of the roof or ridge. The present code definition may have had residential buildings in mind only. ADVANCE PLANNING 10. PROGRESS REPORT ON BAYFRONT LAND USE STUDY City Planner Swan read a revision to his staff report as follows: Rather than suggest development charges based upon land area, assessed value or location, a market-oriented approach is proposed. We know that the type, size and intensity of land use determines both the traffic generated and the amount of parking required. By using the vehicle as a measure a service charge can be directly related to both land use and circulation system requirements. Page 12 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1978 Therefore, it is suggested that the required number of standard size parking spaces be used to determine the dollar amount to be charged. The amount could be called a vehicle service charge. It would not be for revenue; it would be a service charge to cover off-site circulation system improvements. Mr. Swan reviewed planned uses for the remaining lands, noting a small portion would be left, subject to charges and implementation. He expressed the concern about monies for implementation of the plan in those -areas. Commissioner Taylor agreed with this sense of concern; however, he felt applying an assessment on a single item at this time was not appropriate. He believed everyone should pay his fair share and not just "hit" the people who are developing now. City Planner Swan agreed and further noted that 22 acres MOL are to be devoted to residential use, mentioning the proposed location. Commissioner Taylor felt that was not a good area for housing. 11. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan advised that David Keyston had a presentation to make. Mr. Keyston introduced Donald K. Olsen, an architect representative who would be applying for a study area permit for a Victoria Station restaurant. It was explained that the purpose of this discussion was to gain Commission's opinion concerning use of a galvanized roof on top of an insulated roof. He noted that although such a roof is not legal in Burlingame, the applicants felt the metal might look better and do a better job than cement asbestos which is the alternative. Commission discussed the proposal briefly with Mr. Keyston, Mr. Olsen and staff. City Engineer Kirkup felt there would be a problem with the Fire Department, noting that "metal shingle" is not defined in the code. He felt a precedent might be set. Mr. Keyston stated the building would be fully sprinklered. Commission generally agreed they do not want metal buildings in the City; however, it was indicated if something could be presented which would satisfy the Fire -Department, the Commission would consider it. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary