HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.02.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
February 27, 1978
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to
order Monday, February 27, 1978 at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Cistulli
Ruth E. Jacobs
Everett K. Kindig
Charles W. Mink
Thomas W. Sine, Secretary
Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman
Absent: Jules L. Francard (necessarily absent)
Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner
John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner
Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney
Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer
Quorum present; Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman presiding.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held February 15, 1978 were approved with the notation
that Item 2 be clarified to show that the new sign amounts to approximately 25 SF.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Chairman Taylor acknowledged the presence of Charlotte Johnson, former Councilperson
and Mayor.
An.ini1DNM17NT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 A.M.
MINUTES of the February 27, 1978 meeting were approved with the correction to show
the vote on Item #9 to be 4-2, Commissioners Jacobs and Kindig dissenting,
Commissioner Francard absent.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY GARDEN AND TEACH FRENCH INTENSIVE FARMING
AT 18 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1, BY JEAN S. WEAVER (REFERRED BY COUNCIL TO
COMMISSION FOR REHEARING)
City Planner Swan explained that this item had been sent back to the Commission from
the Council because the proposal presented to Council was different from that
considered by the Commission. Draft minutes of the Council meeting of February 21
were included in the Commission's packet. He noted that several letters were also
included in the backup materials, including a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Phil Knight,
23 Dwight Road with suggested conditions for approval, a letter from Irene Mitchell,
17 Clarendon Road and a letter from Albert J. Horn, attorney representing the
applicant, presenting a new project site plan. City Attorney Coleman confirmed
that notices were not required and this is a new hearing.
Albert J. Horn, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, attorney representing the applicant,
Mrs. Jean Weaver, addressed the Commission, stating he felt the project is a unique
opportunity for the City. He felt there was confusion as to what the garden would
be as well as misleading phrases used in describing the garden at the previous
meeting. With regard to statements about areas for public gatherings, etc., he
felt such references implied considerable public traffic. He referred to his letter
of February 16, 1978 and its attachments, briefly reviewing the plot plan and stated
this is not a school with formal classes and there would be no public assembly.
He noted the existing home would be used as a home for permanent residents and
parking is included;.the garden would be used as a garden. He felt there was some
question as to whether this use would fall into the Commission's jurisdiction. He
continued that the previous presentation made the garden sound like an open park
area with groups of people gathering for classes while the present plan would have
no formal classes; instead it calls for gardening activity that would not be open to
the public although a special garden interest group may visit. He felt five to seven
people might be expected with possibly more on a sunny weekend day. He explained
the reason this particular parcel was chosen is because it was once a beautiful
garden and has proper soil conditions for growing; it is one of the few locations
in the City where there is still privately owned land that is open and it is
conveniently located for people to walk or bicycle or use public transportation,
reducing cars and traffic. He stated that when the garden was mentioned in the
Burlingame Recreation Department schedule approximately 25 Burlingame families
indicated an interest.
Mr. Horn then answered the Commission's questions. He explained people from Burlingame
or others showing an interest in the garden would be chosen although it would be
primarily aimed toward residents of the City. He stated the opportunity is unique
because a private citizen is willing to arovide such an opportunity with experienced
personnel and without any tax burden on the City, and without any fees or costs. He
stated another piece of land could be considered but it would not be as accessible
to residents. Commissioner Cistulli referred to a garden in San Francisco and stated
many people and automobiles were there. Mr. Horn confirmed for Commissioner Mink
that the home is to be used as a single family residence, there are three parcels
of land, no fees would be charged for the services, there would be no promotion for
public gatherings. Commissioner Mink felt perhaps the project should not be before
the Commission. City Attorney Coleman stated the R-1 regulations refer to "truck
gardening" as a conditional use and although this is not a truck garden, it is an
intensive garden use and it would be more defensible in court if a use permit is
required. He confirmed that a truck garden is for profit and Mr. Horn confirmed
that there would be no profit.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
Commissioner Jacobs felt, since people were coming to learn, the garden would be
considered a type of school. Mr. Horn explained there is not the traditional teacher/
student relationship in such a garden. He stated there would be an expert there to
assist and supervise the garden so that people would not be able to come in and do
whatever they felt like doing; the expert would teach proper gardening techniques
to maintain the garden. As an analogy he referred to a carpenter teaching skills to
an apprentice on a construction job,. which is not considered a school. Responding
to Chairman Taylor's questioning as to the garden's status as a school, Mr. Horn
explained that a license for a school by the State of California is not required
since there is no credit given and if the garden was applying for a tax exemption
then State permits would be required.
Commissioner Mink felt the Commission had no jurisdiction over this matter as it is
not a school and not a truck garden, and since it is to be operated as a single family
residence over three properties. Mr. Horn suggested possible issuance of a one year
permit to see what the results would be. Commissioner Mink was reluctant to do this
and moved the item be removed from the agenda. Chairman Taylor, for the lack of a
second, exercised the authority of the chair and seconded the motion. He then called
for a vote, stating an "aye" was to remove the item and "nay" was to consider the
item. Commissioner Kindig felt that if the Commission found they do not have control
then the zoning laws for R -I are remiss and something should be done about this. Upon
roll call the motion to remove the item from the agenda was denied 4-2, Commissioners
Cistulli, Jacobs, Kindig and Sine voting against the motion and Commissioner Francard
absent.
Responding to Commissioner Jacobs' inquiry, Mr. Horn stated the horticulturist would
be employed by the applicant but would probably not be living on the property. Warren
Pierce (horticultural expert for the garden), 650 Brewer Drive, Hillsborough (formerly
of Santa Barbara) addressed the Commission, explaining he holds an MA in Botany from
UCLA and has had six ,years of experience in such gardens in Santa Barbara. Mr. Pierce
reviewed the plot plan on a projector for the benefit of the public, noting there
are two entrances on Clarendon with parking for five cars and no other entrances.
He pointed out the demonstration area and herb garden, noting the entire garden would
have a five foot to six foot high hedge and a fence according to code. Responding to
the Commission's questions, he explained the raised beds would only be raised about
two to three inches through cultivation and confirmed the covered parking would be
for the residents with three extra spaces. He stated that the only product is
knowledge, fertilizers, et cetera would not be sold and problems with mosquitos, flies
and rodents is not caused by compost. He also confirmed the fence and hedge run
along the sidewalk. Assistant City Planner Yost noted the property line is two feet
back from the sidewalk and the fence would have to be on the property line.
Mr. Pierce stated the well is not an open one and therefore not dangerous.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing and asked for public comments. A member
of the public questioned the restrictions concerning future droughts and Chairman
Taylor explained the garden would be under the same restrictions as any single family
residence. Another member of the public questioned the parking arrangements and felt
the plan would not work. She also questioned who would control the rats which might
congregate in the garden site.
Phil Knight, 23 Dwight Road spoke in favor of the garden, thanking his neighbors for
their past support in opposition to the previous plan and adding that he would continue
to oppose any rezoning or commercial uses in his area. He explained that in
considering the new plan with conditions mentioned in his letter of February 23, 1978
(which he stated had been agreed to by the applicant) he and his wife could no longer
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
oppose the garden. He noted that 50% of his property would be bordered by the project
and felt the new plan was almost a complete turnaround; instead of 60 plus people
involved, free to do their 'own thing', open to the public, etc., the new plan is
something that he would not mind living near. He stated they would rather have the
garden next door than new construction, and felt the project would keep the property
close to the original form, that of one single family residence with a garden. He
noted the previous .owners apparently had been running a nursery business on the
site as much of the existing hedge was -planted in five gallon buckets which were
portable and raised for sale. He further noted there had been a sprinkler system
and plants were removed from the site with a truck for sale. He felt building
every inch of available land was not desirable and, therefore, no longer objected to
the project.
The following people spoke in opposition to the garden. Harold Houts, 113 Bayswater
Avenue, stated he would rather have kids working on their cars in driveways than
the garden; he concluded it would be a nuisance. Caesar Roldan, 34 Bancroft Road,
stated he did not want this in his neighborhood. Sam Marenco, 207 Clarendon Road,
asked if the City wants Burlingame full of farming lots. He stated he is very much
against the project and felt it would continue throughout the City. Mildred DaDalt,
39 Bancroft Road, referred to a petition opposing the project which had been submitted
to the Commission at a previous hearing. She asked what an ad hoc demonstration is
and if the 25 participants would be at the demonstrations. She wanted to know how
many -people would like to participate and, of those, how many would be Burlingame
residents. She felt this might be promoted in trade magazines.
Secretary Sine read the following letters which were in opposition to the project:
from Irene Mitchell, 17 Clarendon Road, dated February 27 and from Mr. and Mrs. John T.
Davis, 117 Bayswater Avenue, dated February 28. There being no further public input
the hearing was closed.
Responding to the concerns of the public and questions from the Commission, Mr. Horn
stated the garden would not be promoted in trade magazines and they already have
a list of people from Burlingame who would be interested; after that he expected it
would carry by word of mouth. It was noted Mrs. Weaver had agreed to the eight
conditions in the Knight's letter. Mr. Knight explained the reason the garden would
be closed on Sundays was to relieve the resident couple living in the home; the other
day it would be closed. would be a weekday, probably Monday.
Commission discussed the eight conditions and several changes were agreed to by the
Commission, the applicant and Mr. Knight. Chairman Taylor noted in a two bedroom
residence only one space is required for parking. Assistant City Planner Yost
confirmed only one covered space is required for the two bedroom home on the property.
Mr. Horn stated there -would be no signs promoting the garden. He confirmed it would
be a year-round garden with slack months. Commissioner Cistulli requested the list
of names Mr. Horn had referred to and Mr. Horn presented a list of names to be included
in the file as part of the record. Chairman Taylor explained this would be treated
as any other conditioned item when concern was expressed over who would police the
conditions. Mr. Horn felt Mr. Knight would be the best policeman. He noted the
parking plan is designed so that any one car can leave without the others having
to move. The demonstrations would involve several people who were tending their
plots and the horticulturist would invite them for a demonstration of a technique;
it would not mean bringing new people into the garden. He stated that written
applications would be mailed to the property and information sheets might be available
at the Burlingame Garden Center; he emphasized the City's Recreation Department would
not be involved. He confirmed there would be bathroom facilities in the home.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
Commissioner Sine felt whether this is a profit or non-profit garden project, it
is still a commercial venture in an R-1 zone. Commissioner Jacobs moved for denial
of the proposal and Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. City Attorney Coleman
confirmed that findings are not required and this would fall under Code Section
25.28.030 Conditional uses requiring a special permit, subsection (2) "Schools ."
or subsection (4) ". . truck gardening . " Upon roll call the motion carried
4-2, Commissioners Mink and Taylor dissenting and Commissioner Francard absent.
Chairman Taylor advised the applicant of his right of appeal.
A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:05 P.M.
2. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040, A 30 FOOT SETBACK DISTANCE, TO PERMIT THE
ADDITION OF A TWO CAR GARAGE TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 1125 OXFORD
ROAD (APN 025-252-210), ZONED R-1, BY HILARY J. FORD
Chairman Taylor stated he lives within the 300 foot radius and had received notice
of this hearing; however, he would take part in voting on this item because he
would base his decision only on material and testimony presented at this meeting.
Assistant.City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the proposal is to add
a two car garage at the front of the existing house which would encroach 10 feet into
the 30 foot setback established for the neighborhood. The present detached one car
garage at the rear of the lot would be converted to a garden shed. It was noted the
applicant plans to bring other portions of the house up to code.
Mr. Yost stated that the new garage would extend well forward of all the neighboring
homes on either side. The principal concerns are whether the proposal is consistent
with the architectural character of the present home and the surrounding neighborhood,
and whether the applicant's affidavit satisfies the legal requirements for a
variance set forth in Code Chapter 25.54. Responding to Commissioner Sine's
inquiry, Chairman Taylor stated that only the variance for the setback is under
cons.ideration. Mr. Yost confirmed that plans indicate interior dimensions of the
garage would be 20'x20'.
Richard Henson, attorney, 700 El Camino Real, Millbrae, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission. He stated that all the changes proposed are intended to
improve the home and the surrounding area. He reviewed the proposal, noting the
applicant is a licensed contractor who plans to bring the home completely up to code
and live in the home himself. He assured Commission the garage addition is intended
to be used solely as a garage. To improve the aesthetics he noted the applicant
proposes a brick and wrought iron fence and there would still be a 20 foot setback.
To preserve a 30 foot setback, a garage could be added to the front of the home by
destroying one bedroom, making the house less valuable because there would be only
one bedroom. He stated the driveway does not permit getting an automobile back to
the rear of the lot and it is difficult to park a car in the driveway as the doors
cannot be opened because of the hedge and stucco wall. In conclusion, Mr. Henson
requested Commission consider the extraordinary circumstances for this particular
lot and that the applicant cannot use his existing garage. He noted the alternate
solutions are not workable, i.e., the destruction of one bedroom or having less than
a two car garage.
Responding to Chairman Taylor's concerns about the roof line of the proposed garage,
Mr. Ford, the applicant, stated the roof would be almost flat, but pitched slightly
to the left and the mansard would cover it; he added he would be willing to put a
different type of roof on the garage if the Commission didn't like the flat roof.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in opposition
to the application.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
Robert Gans, 1112 Cambridge Road, speaking for the Burlingame Gate Improvement Club,
stated there is no right denied the applicant that is not denied all in the
neighborhood equally. He felt the proposal would change the park -like atmosphere
of the area. He presented a petition with 60 signatures in opposition to the
proposal. John A. Costanzo, 1132 Oxford Road, questioned the proposed setback.
Assistant City Planner Yost explained that the drawings are not construction drawings
but that the front of the proposed garage would be 20 feet from the front property
line. Mr. Costanzo stated he.!.felt the proposal would decrease the value of the
neighborhood.
Marjorie Costanzo, 1132 Oxford Road, said she understood the applicant's desire to
improve his home, but the residents' main concern is the garage because it would be
too close to the street. She noted that Oxford and Cambridge Roads have a park -like
setting, being tree -lined streets with large front yards; even with Mr. Ford's
proposed brick fence the garage would still "stick out like a sore thumb." Margaret
Lake, 1148 Oxford Road, stated that she did not think.the proposal adequately
addressed the four requirements for a variance and felt when the home was purchased
the applicant should have ascertained the requirements of the building and zoning
codes. She noted this would not be the first setback variance for someone in
Burlingame but it would be the first setback variance on Oxford and Cambridge.
She felt this would destroy the neighbors' enjoyment as it is nice to see a continuation
of lawns and flowers down the street rather than the side of a garage.
Anne Stoye, 1131 Oxford Road, noted that many of the homes have had interior remodeling;
however, the outside of the homes have not been altered. She felt the plans are
modern and would change the whole atmosphere of the neighborhood. Mary Lou Baldra,
1145 Cambridge Road, stated there is a desire of the neighbors to maintain the
uniqueness and the main concern is that if the variance is granted it would set a
precedent for other people to request similar variances. She noted the neighbors
all have eight foot driveways and feel the inconvenience is worth it. She commended
the applicant for bringing the home up to code and welcomed him to the area, but
requested he preserve the neighborhood as it is. There being no further public
testimony, the hearing was closed.
Responding to Commissioner Cistulli's questions, Assistant City Planner Yost confirmed
variances of this type have not been approved in this area. Chairman Taylor noted
the only homes with less than 30 foot front yards are the corner lots, with the
exception of the Podesta home which is newer than the surrounding homes and was
probably built without reference to the zoning code setback requirements for this
block. Commissioner Sine questioned the applicant. It was his feeling that since
Mr. Ford is a licensed contractor and had remodeled other homes, he should be aware
of local regulations or aware of his obligation to check into those regulations.
The applicant stated he had not been aware of the 30 foot setback regulation when
he purchased the house. Commissioner Sine asked if he had considered enlarging the
existing garage to a two -car. The applicant stated his intentions were to add a
second bathroom at the back of the house and he felt it would be difficult to get a
large car into the present garage with the bathroom addition. Commissioner Jacobs
did not feel the application met all the requirements for a variance. Chairman Taylor
was not convinced this proposal was the only one that could be pursued and felt there
were alternatives.
Commissioner Mink stated the testimony submitted showed the proposal could be
detrimental to the right of the neighbors to enjoy their properties. He read Section
25.54.020 (c) and moved the variance be denied on this basis. Commissioner Sine
seconded the motion. Upon roil call the motion carried unanimously 6-0, Commissioner
Francard absent. Chairman Taylor informed the applicant of his right of appeal and
options available to him.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 10:00 P.M.
3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.010, FOR 47% LOT COVERAGE OF AN INTERIOR LOT IN
AN R-1 DISTRICT AT 27 CLARENDON ROAD (APN 029-293-080), TO PERMIT REMODELING
OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AND THE ADDITION OF A TWO CAR GARAGE,
BY KHADIJEH G. HECKLER/MCGAVIN
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting there is currently a
licensed residential care facility at the home which has six bedrooms and 2-1/2
bathrooms (with 3 toilets); there is no covered parking and the existing lot coverage
is 35%. The proposal, he explained, would relocate the living room, kitchen and
dining areas to the back of the house, create a central hallway, increase the number
of bathrooms to include nine toilets, and add a seventh bedroom. In addition to
structural changes and additions to the home, the applicant proposes to add a
detached two car garage. The lot coverage without the garage wuld be about 40%
and with the garage, 47%. He noted the maximum number of guests permitted by code
is six. He also noted the additional floor area could be added within code by
adding a second story; however, because it is a home for the elderly, a one story
building is required. He made reference to Chapter 25.54, noting that findings are
required if the variance is approved.
Mrs. Margaret Rezowalli, Redwood City, whose drafting firm prepared the plans, was
present representing the applicant. She reviewed the present house, the special
requirements of a home for the elderly and what is proposed. Major remodeling would
eliminate an unsatisfactory floor plan and create bathrooms as convenient to the
guests' rooms as possible. She said the garage would provide covered parking and
produce no increase in traffic. Assistant City Planner Yost explained that lot
coverage is the only question with this application.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There being no
correspondence or public testimony, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sine was
concerned about this use in an R-1 zone; he felt the future use of the home should
be considered although he was not objecting to this request. Commisssioner Jacobs
felt this is a unique use and a permitted use in an R-1 District, since there have
been no objections and such facilities are needed: As approval of the variance would
not be in conflict with the General Plan, it would be a hardship on the tenants
without the changes, and since the requirements of Code Chapter 25.54 had been met,
she moved for approval of the above noted variance as presented in the plans.
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion with the understanding this variance would
be granted to the applicant. City Attorney Coleman advised a variance runs with
the land. Commissioner Kindig amended his second, and upon roll call, the motion
for approval carried 6-0, Commissioner Francard absent. Chairman Taylor advised
the applicant of the effective date.
4. VARIANCES FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.070 AND CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO PERMIT THE
CONVERSION OF 3 COVERED PARKING SPACES TO ADDITIONAL APARTMENT SPACE, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CARPORT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES;
PROPERTY AT 1457/59 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-013-050), ZONED R-3, BY NICK GENER
(APPLICANT) WITH MRS. T. GENER (PROPERTY OWNER)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the property is nonconforming
for three reasons: (1) there are two separate residential buildings on the property
(code stipulates one); (2) the rear dwelling unit is within three feet of the back and
side property lines (code stipulates 15 feet for rear yard); and (3) there should be
five off-street parking spaces on the property, four of which should be covered (there
are only three covered parking spaces).
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
Mr. Yost explained that the applicant proposes to enlarge the studio apartment which
is above the garage by enclosing the three garage spaces and converting them to
two bedrooms and a bath, and to replace the lost parking with a new carport between
the rear unit and the front duplex (providing three parking spaces). A fourth
off-street parking space is to be provided in front of the duplex, just behind the
required 20 foot setback. Mr. Yost reviewed code requirements concerning nonconforming
buildings. He stated that the proposal could be amended to provide off-street parking
to code standards by approving a variance to convert only two of the three garages to
sleeping quarters, bringing the number of off-street spaces to five. He also
referred to the City Engineer's memorandum dated February 24, 1978 which suggests
providing curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements as a condition for approval.
Mr. Yost advised Commission on the variance requirements and the applicant's affidavit,
and various considerations, T.e., obtaining a commitment from the property owner for
public improvements. Mr. Gener, the applicant, was present.
Mr. Gener explained that a truck owned by a tenant in the duplex would not fit into
the existing garage and the new carport would accommodate it. Commissioner Cistulli
felt that perhaps a variance could be granted with an amendment to the plans, with
remodeling of only two of the garages on the south side of the structure, leaving
the third space on the north side as a garage; however, he was concerned that if
the property were sold the downstairs bedrooms could be converted to apartment units.
Mr. Gener stated it would be built as one unit. There being no further discussion,
the public hearing was opened.
The following people spoke in opposition to the application. Milan Dulik, 1449 Balboa
Avenue, was concerned about the overloading of sewer facilities. Chairman Taylor
advised him this proposal does not call for any additional units, but an addition
to an existing unit.. Oakley Kephart, 1480 Highway Road, stated his concern is the
parking and felt it was not fair to tenants not to provide parking. He noted that
Highway Road is utilized for off-street parking and residents on that street have
to get a permit for overnight guests. Anna Alexander, 1504 Highway Road, agreed
with Mr. Kephart, stating there is already an overloading of the street. Alexander
Hanson, 1516 Highway Road, did not feel the 20 foot yard should be used as a parking
lot and stated this would compound the problem of more cars on the street. Secretary
Sine read a letter received February 27, 1978 from Thomas and Julia Prager, 1454 Balboa
Avenue, which opposed the proposal because of the parking.
Mr. Gener responded to the concerns, stating he could not answer the sewer problem
except to assure that an additional unit is not proposed. He stated he plans to
landscape the front yard if the variance is approved. Mr. Yost noted that a six inch
curb along the driveway leading to the new carport would prohibit people from parking
in the front area. Mr. Gener stated he would agree to these changes and conditions
including the public improvements and the 10 foot wide pedestrian easement. There
being no further public input or discussion, the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Kindig and Mr. Yost discussed the property line distances briefly; Mr. Yost
stated there would be 32 feet to the face of the building from the front property
line, a 12 foot wide parking space and 20 foot setback. Commissioner Kindig felt
the amended plan was agreeable. Commissioner Mink stated that even with the amended
proposal there are two areas of nonconformity: (1) the side and rear setbacks and
(2) dwelling units in two separate buildings on one parcel. He therefore found the
addition would be contrary to the General Plan and moved the 'variance be denied.
Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and upon roll call it carri.ed'!4-2, Commissioners
Kindig and Taylor dissenting and Commission Francard absent. Chairman Taylor advised
the applicant of his right of appeal.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
February 27, 1978
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 701-801 AIRPORT BLVD.
(TENTATIVE ADDRESS) (APN 026-343-010/020/030/130 TO 220/310), ON 16.6 AC MOL,
ZONED C-4, BY PHILIP D. BROX, PRESIDENT, ANZA PARKING CORP. (APPLICANT) WITH
DAVID H. KEYSTON, TRUSTEE, ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST AND STATE OF
CALIFORNIA (PROPERTY OWNERS) (ND -152P POSTED FEBRUARY 17, 1978)
City Planner Swan gave a presentation on this item, making.reference to his staff
report dated 2/27/78 (copy of staff report on file with application). He noted the
proposed project involves 16-1/2 :acres of bayfront territory, and land use in that
area would affect the budget of Burlingame over the next ten years. He stated that
the application is to allow for 10 years vehicle parking on 16-1/2 acres, including
6-1/2 acres designated "future parking" and 1.33 acres to be reserved for off-site
parking per Agreement with the Sheraton. He noted that 10 acres would be developed
immediately and the remaining six plus acres at a later time. Plans show 1,188
parking spaces on ten acres but few were drawn to show 9' x 20' standard size
parking spaces. Assuming 130 parking spaces per acre of future parking and depending
upon the number of small car spaces and landscaping, a total of from 1,700 to 1,900
spaces could be provided.
City Planner Swan expressed his concerns including aesthetics, storm drainage, pavement
design, landscaping, signs, safe access, future street right-of-way and future property
ownership. He noted that the ultimate use, the land use after 1990, is also a concern.
This parcel is located in the Bayfront Study Area for which the City has consultants
at work to prepare a Bayfront Plan. The requested special permit would replace
permits issued in January, 1976 and August, 1977 and allow relocation of the Anza
Airport Parking facility to this site. He noted that the current permit is valid
through August of 1978. Also, ND -152P states that no EIR is required because it is
covered by previous environmental documents. There would be no substantial adverse
change to the environment. In correspondence the applicant claims the traffic impact
for this use would be less than other uses in the C-4 District. Mr. Swan then
reviewed the staff report in detail with highlights, and referred to Exhibit B which
shows the area owned by the State, the 58,140 SF area reserved for Sheraton parking
and "future parking."
Commission discussed the proposal at length with staff and David Keyston, Anza
Shareholders' Liquidating Trust. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned about no EIR
being required for this proposal as other projects have to bring in EIRs; she felt
10 years was a long time and 1,200 cars a big change. City Planner Swan stated this
site was included in the EIR for the Bayside Redevelopment Project which considered
it for an airport parking facility. Mr. Keyston added that this would move a
parking area from one location to another and the impacts would be similar at the
two locations. He made reference to his letter of February 22, 1978, noting that
for a portion of the site (Lots 12 and 1) a permanent permit would be required to
comply with conditions placed on the Sheraton Hotel; the balance would be covered
by a 10 year permit. Mr. Keyston stated that if the plans were in error this was an
involuntary mistake and spaces would be full size and meet regulations. In discussing
compact car spaces, he stated rather than try to direct small cars to special areas,
all spaces would be standard size.
With regard to the sixth suggested condition, Mr. Keyston said he.felt landscape plans
were usually submitted to the appropriate department for approval. He said the
30 foot strip around the property could be landscaped and, if so, this landscaping
would count toward the 15 percent required landscaping. However, this would take up
most of the 15 percent and it would be more attractive and beneficial at the area
suggested in the plans as it would be visible from the road.
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
Mr. Keyston agreed the existing.billboard would be removed and no other signs
erected except at the entrance to direct people. He felt this would fit in with
the Blayney Report as this area would probably be considered for parking. City Planner
Swan stated proposed types of land use vary with not all of the property being
absorbed by 1990 and he felt the parking facility could fit in with any one of the
schemes being considered. Mr. Keyston confirmed that Anza Shareholders' Liquidating
Trust and the State own this land. Commissioner Jacobs discussed the future of the
site and options on the property with Mr. Keyston, indicating concern if the property
were sold this use would go to the new owners, possibly to a hotel which might request
1,000 rooms. Mr. Keyston said they would like to wash their shuttle buses. The
Commission agreed that suggested conditions 8 and 9 were inappropriate. Commissioner
Sine stated that when the present permit was granted three to four years ago it was
his impression it was a stopgap measure to help pay taxes on the land at that time,
and he did not think it would be permanent. He was concerned that the City is
becoming a dumping ground for cars from the airport. Mr. Keyston confirmed that
the earlier application was to be temporary, but he felt the City has control.
He stated they would still consider it to be a temporary use except for the portion
for permanent parking. Commissioner Jacobs felt this same statement about temporary
use could be made in 10 years.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing; as there was no one wishing to speak and
no correspondence the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sine questioned the
temporary status of the proposal with regard tothe portion for the Sheraton Hotel.
Mr. Keyston confirmed there are two lots shown on the plan which would be perpetual.
Commissioner Sine felt thatsince a portion is permanent he would rather see the
entire parcel developed with a highrise parking structure. Mr. Keyston emphasized
that a variance has been granted to the Sheraton with the condition that parking
be provided within reasonable proximity.
Commissioner Mink moved for approval subject to 10 conditions (suggested conditions
8 and 9 deleted) as follows: (1) Agreement to assume all responsibility for any
flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims
arising from such problems. (2) No cars shall be parked in the 30 foot front setback
in the area which is designated as a permanent parking area in perpetuity. (3) All
vehicle areas shall be paved with not less than 2 inches of asphaltic concrete over
4 inches of base rock. (4) Parking spaces shall be striped for standard 9' x 20'
parking spaces. (5) There shall be no more than 1,900 vehicle parking spaces.
(6) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
Commission to assure 98,000 square feet of landscaping, acceptable plant materials,
irrigation systems where necessary and establishment of landscaping. (7) There shall
be no sign exceptions; abatement of existing billboard per Sec. 25.41.030(d).
(8) Overflow parking of rent -a -car agency vehicles and storage of other vehicles
shall be permitted but without on -street unloading or loading of vehicles.
(9) Off-site parking and shuttle bus service for local employees shall be permitted.
(10) There shall be no vehicle washing or service facilities on the airport parking
facility site except for the washing of shuttle buses at a wash rack acceptable to
the City Engineer.
Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roil call it carried 4-2,
Commissioners Jacobs and Sine dissenting and Commissioner Francard absent.
Page 11
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A PRE-SCHOOL DAY CARE CENTER AT 110 LORTON AVENUE
(APN 029-.231-170), ZONED R-4, BY DOUGLAS M. FAIRRINGTON, PASTOR, THREE CITIES
ASSEMBLY OF GOD (ND -153P POSTED FEBRUARY 22, 1978)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting there is presently an
older two bedroom single family home at the front of the property and a two unit
apartment with four covered parking spaces on the rear property line. He also noted
that the three adjacent lots are also owned by the church. The proposal is for minor
remodeling of the single family home to permit the church to operate a day care
facility for 30 children, with a fenced outdoor play area covering a portion of the
paved area between the house and the rear apartments and a 30' x 40' lawn at the
back of the duplex at 1110 Bayswater (which is also owned by the church). He referred
to the site plan and also to the improvements which would be required by the Fire
Department, Building Department and State Department of Health. He noted the
memorandum dated February 21, 1978 from the Traffic Engineer which states that there
would be no staff objection to the curb in front of 110 Lorton Avenue being painted
white for the convenience of parents with children attending the proposed day care
center.
He asked the Commission to consider whether the two curb spaces would be adequate
for the parents use, as there is to be no bussing of any type provided by the center;
and to determine where the four staff members are to park, and if the fencing around
the play area would leave adequate parking for the rear apartments. He stated the
proposed on-site parking seems questionable without further improvements; Commission
might ask the church if and when additional off-street parking will be provided for
its members' use.
Douglas Fairrington, 100 Lorton Avenue, Pastor for the church, made a brief
presentation using the overhead projector to outline the proposed use of the property.
He pointed out the off-street parking area for three to four staff cars. He stated
that the church would like (as soon as funds permit) to demolish their. buildings at
112/114 Lorton and establish a private off-street parking lot. Responding to
Chairman Taylor's questions about lot lines, Assistant City Planner Yost stated
the proposed use would cover three lots. City Attorney Coleman added that a parcel
map to erase lot Tines would not be required. Commissioner Sine questioned
Mr. Fairrington as to the property at 110 Lorton and stated there were no permits
issued for the two apartments on the top of the garage; therefore, the property is
nonconforming because of the two illegal apartments.
Commissioner Jacobs stated she had visited the site and felt there were a lot of cars
in the area and that 30 people bringing their children might create a problem. Upon
confirming the date of Commissioner Jacobs' visit, Mr. Fairrington explained that
about 44 church youth had gone to the snow that weekend and their cars had been parked
there during their absence; he believed this had been an exceptional case. Commissioner
Sine questioned'the water and electrical meters and whether the apartments in the rear
are being fed from the front meter. Mr. Fairrington stated there was more than one
water and electric meter and separate lines to the back apartments.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of
the application. Kathy Stanton, 110 Lorton Avenue, stated she did not think parking
during the day would be a problem and noted there is a parking problem in the evening
because of the apartments in the area. She confirmed she was not connected with the
church although because it is convenient she attends.
Page 12
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
Celia Mueller, 110 Lorton Avenue, stated she pays her own PG&E bill and felt that
parking is not a problem and that the children would not bother her although the
play yard is directly below her apartment. She felt noise would not be a problem.
Ed Swift, 1504 Bernal Avenue, member of the church Board of Directors, stated he
has lived at the 110 Lorton home and found it spacious and roomy; he felt it is a
good location for the day care center. He stated he would like to keep a youthful
influence in the community and it is difficult for families with young children to
live on one income; therefore, there are many two income families who need day care
facilities. He felt it would enhance the downtown area and would encourage young
families to stay in the Burlingame area.
The following people spoke in opposition to the application. William H. Langston,
111 Lorton Avenue, felt traffic and parking were two concerns to consider. He said
noise would also be a factor and felt there are better locations for such a center.
Maureen Topping, representing the owner and tenants of 124 Lorton Avenue, noted that
the area is zoned R-4 and this is a commercial use. Chairman Taylor explained this
is a permitted use with a special permit. She stated parking and noise were factors
to consider. She emphasized that a nursery school is an all day play time, not
like a regular school with given times for play yard use and given times for quiet
in -class use. Karl Becker, owner of 120 Lorton Avenue, was concerned about parking
and the noise 30 children would make. He also felt there might be a safety problem
with the safety of the children being delivered to the school.
Secretary Sine read a letter from Mrs. Robert Lingaas dated February 26, 1978 asking
that the church be required to provide adequate parking, emphasizing that although
the parking demand seems low, there is a two hour limit and where there is no limit
the parking demand is, in fact, very high. There being no further public input,
the hearing was closed.
Chairman Taylor stated the City does need day care centers and although the project
has some shortcomings, he noted the yard would be completely fenced and therefore
the safety of the children was not a factor. Commissioner Kindig moved for approval
of this application, in view of the fact that parking is -being provided for employees
and day care centers are needed in the area. Commissioner Sine felt something should
be mentioned about the conditions recommended by the Traffic Engineer. Chairman
Taylor asked if Commission has the right to recommend curb sites for loading and
unloading. City Attorney Coleman advised this would have to be approved by the
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. Commission discussed various conditions that
might be attached to the special permit. Commissioner Kindig amended his motion for
approval with review in one year effective upon the granting of an unloading and
loading zone and with improvements to the property as specified by the Chief Fire
Inspector and Chief Building Inspector. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and
upon roll call the motion carried 5-1, Commissioner Sine dissenting (Commissioner
Francard absent). Chairman Taylor informed the public that appeals must be filed
by 5:00 P.M., March 6. A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at
12:35 A.M.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO DO FURNITURE STRIPPING AND REPAIRS AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT;
PROPERTY AT 1313 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-131-010), BY THOMAS YATES OF THE
GENTLE STRIPPER WITH BUEL PROFFIT OF McKIBBEN BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application (copy ,of staff report on file),
concluding that two concerns are whether this section of the industrial area is a
reasonable area for retail services and how likely is it that the business, as it
becomes better known, would require additional parking for employees and customers.
Page 13
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no public discussion, the
hearing was closed. It was felt that parking would not be a problem. Commissioner
Mink moved approval of the application as presented and Commissioner Cistulli seconded
the motion. Commissioner Sine asked if the Fire Department had approved this.
Assistant City Planner Yost stated that a business license had been taken out by
Mr. Yates and the Fire Department would inspect the premises before the license was
approved. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken and the motion
carried unanimously 6-0 (Commissioner Francard absent).
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A FACTORY SERVICE CENTER AND REPAIR CUSTOMER DELIVERED
STEREO EQUIPMENT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 890 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-390-220),
BY JAMES McEWAN OF PIONEER ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA (APPLICANT) WITH BRUCE HOSFORD
OF CROW/SPIEKER/HOSFORD (PROPERTY OWNERS)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application (copy of staff report on file),
concluding that the principal question is the maximum number of "walk in" customers
acceptable for a factory service center in an industrial area. He noted that 95%
of the repair work would be "under warranty."
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing; there being no public input the hearing was
closed. Commissioner Mink asked if the applicant would agree to a one year special
permit that is renewable so the Commission could review parking. Mr. McEwan stated
this would be acceptable; however, the lease is for three years and they would like
to be assured they would be able to operate through the term of their lease.
Commissioner Mink asked if parking spaces could be marked for his business' use
and Mr. McEwan agreed that 10 spaces could be marked. He said his lease states
two spaces but there are eight additional spaces in front of the area he leases
that could be marked.
Commissioner Mink moved for approval of the application with review of the parking
in three years and the condition that there be 10 marked parking spaces. Commissioner
Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously 6-0 (Commissioner
Francard absent).
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL INDUSTRIAL AND AUTOMOTIVE TOOLS AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT;
PROPERTY AT 890 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-390-220), BY LARRY WINSTEN OF CHARTER FAST
FREIGHT (APPLICANT) WITH BRUCE HOSFORD OF CROW/SPIEKER/HOSFORD (PROPERTY OWNERS)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application (copy of staff report on file)
and concluded that the main concerns for the Commission's consideration are: whether
this retail service would benefit other firms in the M-1 District to a substantial
degree; whether the retail sales would be aimed at a wider customer group; and how
the sale of the tools at retail would be advertised. He noted that the "weekend sales"
would be Thursday,.Friday, Saturday and Sunday; and that three parking spaces would
be allocated for retail customers with an additional two spaces for the employees
(one full time and one part time). It was noted that the applicants, Larry Winsten
and Dr. Becker were present.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. As there was no one wishing to speak,
the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kindig was concerned about the amount of
retail being proposed for this area. Commissioner Sine questioned the term of their
lease and if they would be agreeable to a one year review. Mr. Becker stated their
lease is for three years and they would prefer a three year review. Commission agreed
that such retail sales could create problems.
Page 14
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1978
There was some discussion about the remainder of the building and whether there
would be adequate parking left for new tenants. Assistant City Planner Yost stated
the property has 94 full size parking spaces, two handicapped spaces, 5 compact and
three unmarked spaces. He stated it has approximately 50% more parking than
required by Code for an office/warehouse, and even provides parking in excess of
standards for retail sales. Commission discussed the review period briefly and
Commissioner Mink then moved approval with review in three years, and with six marked
parking spaces for customers and staff. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion
and upon roll call the motion died 3-3, Commissioners Jacobs, Kindig and Sine voting
negatively (Commissioner Francard absent). Commissioner Sine moved for approval with
one year review and six marked parking spaces. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion
and upon roll call it carried 4-2, C.ers Jacobs & Kindig dissenting, C. Francard absent.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 833 MAHLER ROAD
(APN 026-322-160), BY YONG K. CHO (APPLICANT) WITH EARL SWANSON (PROPERTY OWNER)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting it is merely to transfer
the permit for the present business (approved by the Commission in November, 1976) to
a new owner; the business would remain the same under the new management. He described
the two conditions of approval on the original permit and suggested that these should
be continued with this permit.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no public input, the hearing
was closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit subject
to the provision of nine marked parking spaces and that the permit be issued to
Mr. Cho, the applicant and be nontransferable. Commissioner Kindig seconded the
motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously 6-0 (Commissioner Francard absent).
11. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A 25' HIGH POLE SIGN WITH 110 SF OF COPY PER FACE, TO BE
CONSTRUCTED ON PARCEL 3 (APN 026-113-390) ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY LEADING TO
1494 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-240) AND 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-410),
BY FEDERAL SIGN COMPANY FOR BENIHANA OF TOKYO, INC. WITH THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT, INC.
Assistant City Planner Yost briefly reviewed the application, noting that the existing
20 foot high pole sign which advertises The Fisherman Restaurant is to be removed, and
then replaced with a larger sign which would have copy for both The Fisherman and
Benihana of Tokyo, the new restaurant recently completed on this property. The new
pole sign would be 25 feet high and have 48 SF of copy for Benihana, 46 SF for The
Fisherman, and also have a 16 SF "electronic message display board" similar -to the
one at The Eggplant restaurant. (Written staff report on file.)
Susan Passovoy, attorney representing the Benihana, was present, noting that others
were present representing The Fisherman. She made several points: (1) this is the
only location for a sign to advertise both restaurants; (2) this was a compromise
between the two restaurants; and (3) neither restaurant can be easily seen from
Bayshore Highway (she presented photographs). A color rendering was presented with
the proposal. She confirmed this would be the full extent of the advertising.
Responding to Commissioner Sine's concerns, she noted two reasons for the extra
5 foot height: (1) the lower portion of the sign would be obstructed if its height
were limited to 20 feet, and (2) aesthetics - the extra 5 feet allows more space
between the signs for each restaurant.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no public input, the hearing
was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 15
February 27, 1978
Joseph Geller, attorney representing The Fisherman, was present. He stated the reasons
expressed for the added height were valid and the only alternative for the two
restaurants was a joint sign. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the setbacks. Assistant
City Planner Yost stated there are no setback requirements. Ms. Passovoy stated this
was a small wedge of property and it could not be set back much farther. It was
confirmed the colors would be as shown in the color rendering. There was a brief
discussion about the reader board and if it should be eliminated.
Commissioner Mink moved for approval of the sign exception as per the plans and color
renderings submitted. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call
it carried 5-1, Commissioner Jacobs voting negatively and Commissioner Francard absent.
12. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR OAK GROVE MANOR, A SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE
AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE (APN 029-131-100), ZONED R-3, BY REDMOND WALSH FOR
J. G. LOMBARDI
City Engineer Kirkup reported that the project was in concurrence with State law
and local ordinances and recommended approval. Commissioner Sine moved for approval.
Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried.unanimously 6-0 (Commissioner
Francard absent).
13. RESOLUTION NO. 1-78 RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-45P, FOR THE
ONE WATERFRONT OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
City Planner Swan referred to a draft resolution to go to the City Council for study
area permit and noted that since a building of less than 50 feet in height is planned
the Commission would have no further jurisdiction. Commissioner Jacobs questioned
whether the four lots are currently subdivided. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders'
Liquidating Trust, stated there would be a parcel map. City Planner Swan confirmed
the resolution is ready for action. Commissioner Mink moved for adoption of Resolution
No. 1-78 and Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Upon roil call the motion
carried unanimously 6-0 (Commissioner Francard absent).
14. LETTER TO BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN RESPONSE TO THE 2/2/78 LETTER FROM
GLENN A. STEWART, DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS SERVICES, WHICH ADVISED THAT THE DISTRICT'S
BOARD OF TRUSTEES PROPOSES TO SELL THE COOLIDGE SCHOOL PROPERTY IN THE R-1 DISTRICT
AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE
Commission considered the draft letter prepared by staff as per Commission direction
February 15, 1978. The letter was approved for signature.
15. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 7 FOOT FENCE ON THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES
AT 445 CHATHAM ROAD (APN 029-161-120), ZONED R-1, BY NANCY A. DuGUID
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application (copy of written staff report
on file), noting the petition from the applicant which sets out the background.
He stated the proposal is to replace an existing 6'6" high side yard and rear yard
fence with a new 7' fence. He noted that several of the immediate neighbors have
7' fences and that the applicant feels the proximity of her property to Burlingame
High's playing fields and a public easement connecting the school grounds with
Chatham Road justifies the extra privacy that a 7' fence would provide.
Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing; there being no public input, the hearing
was closed.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 16
February 27, 1978
Assistant City Planner Yost noted that the applicant had been present earlier but
had asked to be excused at 12:30 A.M. Commissioner Jacobs moved for approval of
the fence exception and -Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. Upon roll call
the motion carried 6-0 (Commissioner Francard absent).
City Planner.Swan noted that Council adopted Ordinance No. 1122 which extended the
Emergency Ordinance until July 6, 1978, requiring study area permits be obtained
from Council for projects north and east of Bayshore Freeway and within the Rollins
Road industrial area.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary