Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.01.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order Monday, January 23, 1978 at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Frank Cistulli (arrived during public hearing on Item #1) Jules L. Francard Ruth E. Jacobs Everett K. Kindig Charles W. Mink Thomas W. Sine, Secretary Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman 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 January 9, 1978 were approved as mailed. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Taylor noted that a family prayer service for Paul C:onstantino.was being held at 8:00 P.M.this evening and he was sure the members of the Planning Commission would have all attended if it were not for this meeting. Paul Constantino was a member of the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. The minutes of January 23, 1978 were approved as prepared. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 January 23, 1978 I. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY GARDEN AND TEACH FRENCH INTENSIVE FARMING AT 18 CLARENDON ROAD (APN 029-294-090/240/250), ZONED R-1, BY JEAN S. WEAVER (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -148P POSTED 12/12/77) Summary of Action: Motion for denial of the special permit carried 6-1, Chairman Taylor dissenting. City Planner Swan reviewed the application, stating that the parking layout for this project is less than adequate, the site plan is not to scale and the parking plan would not work without tandem parking and cars backing out into the street. He also noted that 63 garden plots and five off-street parking spaces are proposed, and that the item is ready for Commission action. Regarding parking requirements for such a project, Mr. Swan stated there are no specific requirements, and there is no similar project of this size from which to determine a requirement. He felt that four spaces would be reasonable and confirmed that if the parcel were developed as single family two parking spaces would be required. In discussing other concerns Mr. Swan explained that accessory buildings are permitted to the property line in the rear 30% of R-1 lots (i.e., greenhouses and storage structures, etc.). Bill Somerville, representing the applicant, addressed the concerns of the Commission. He emphasized that the plans presented were draft plans, that everything would be up to code and that other draft plans had been prepared to show various ways the garden could be arranged. He further emphasized that the garden wants to be a good neighbor and does not want to encourage traffic and congestion, but rather encourage users to walk, bicycle or use public transportation. He felt if the tandem arrangement is not suitable that parallel parking could be used and, if necessary, a rule of "no cars" could be imposed although it would be difficult to enforce. It was also noted that the compost pile would be in the center of the garden. Commission, Mr. Somerville and City Attorney Coleman discussed the status of the garden, i.e., why a permit is needed, what category such a project falls under in City codes, whether or not it is a commercial enterprise or a school. Mr. Somerville explained that the garden is being called a school under City regulations, but actually it is not a school. He emphasized that probably no more than 10 people would visit the garden at one time and that it is not a high activity area because the plots are raised and not to be walked on. He stated that fees would not be charged and it is not a commercial enterprise; excess food would be given to senior citizen centers or church community groups. He further emphasized that none of this wouldt be paid for from tax monies, but from a private donor. He stated it is a philanthropic effort which would be for the community. Addressing Commissioner Mink's inquiries, Mr. Somerville explained that the San Mateo Foundation has no direct interest in the project although he had been authorized to advise the applicant. Responding to Chairman Taylor's concerns, City Attorney Coleman referred to Code Sec. 25.28.030 regarding nurseries and truck gardening establishments (1941), stating that agricultural uses require use permits and this is not an ordinary R-1 use such as a greenhouse or related activities for individual residents. There being no further discussion, Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of the garden project. Norman Evind, a San Mateo resident, noted that such a garden would create an environment for people to come and learn and felt any problems could be sorted out. Oreste Mencarin, a Burlingame resident several blocks from the site, felt such a garden would be good for the community as well as providing a source for free vegetables. r Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1978 Carol Kimpson, 483 Rollins Road, Burlingame stated she has gone to the garden in Palo Alto for four years and felt such a garden would be a fine opportunity for Burlingame. She also noted there did not appear to be any problems with the garden in Palo Alto. David Hinkle, 204 Bayswater, Burlingame stated that he supported the garden as it would support the health of the community and he would like to see this a community project. Paul Walker, 861 Clara Drive, Palo Alto who would be managing the garden, stated that in working with the applicant he found that she has made every effort to have the best garden possible, especially in addressing concerns of nearby residents. Rhonda Barnes, 143 Dwight Road, Burlingame said she had been at the Palo Alto garden and there is a garden project at Beresford Park in San Mateo, in a residential area, where young and old work together; she concluded that it would be a nice thing for Burlingame and noted that there are two bus stops in the area. C. Jacobs pointed out that the problem does not appear to be the garden itself, but instead the proposed location. The following people spoke in opposition to the project. Marti Knight, 23 Dwight Road, Burlingame emphasized that the concept of such a garden is not what is being opposed by the residents but instead the chosen location and she listed their concerns as noise, home values, traffic congestion and policing problems, i.e., residents having to determine if strangers are actually visitors to the garden. She suggested that other more suitable properties be considered, i.e., near the Peninsula Humane Society or near Washington Park which is close to bus lines, has parking areas and bike racks and is near a senior citizen center. Irene Mitchell stated she had sent a letter dated January 19, 1978 which was in opposition to the garden and was advised that her letter was part of the record. John Till, 26 Bancroft Road, Burlingame questioned the negative declaration, stating he felt such a project should require an EIR. Chairman Taylor advised him that the Commission had considered this question at their meeting January 9, 1978 and it was the consensus of the Commission to uphold the City Planner's decision that no EIR was required. Mr. Till then stated that he was opposed to the garden project. Mrs. Dario Garcia, two homes from the garden site, spoke in opposition, stating that such a garden belongs in the country. Mildren DaDalt, 39 Bancroft Road, questioned earlier references to the Williamson Act. City Attorney Coleman stated that he would have to research this as the Williamson Act is not commonly used in Burlingame. Mr. Somerville explained that Mr. Dotter had made reference to this at the January 9 meeting; however, there is no intention to apply under this act and the applicant would pay full taxes. Jeanne Mathews, 16 Clarendon Road, stated she would prefer not to have this near her home as there is already a parking problem. Correspondence: It was noted that Mrs. C. Perin of 29 Dwight Road wrote a letter in opposition to the garden. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. Discussion between the.Commission and Mr. Somerville followed. Mr. Somerville stated the garden does not appear to be the issue, but instead traffic and parking. He pointed out that many gardens are in existence and parking and cars are not a problem. He noted that single family homes would also add to the traffic and stated that the garden would not decrease the value of homes. With regard to strangers, he said such gardens are for the community, they are generally used by nearby residents and become a place where people know each other. He added that a resident couple would be living there also. He emphasized they were trying to be as flexible as possible to alleviate residents' concerns. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1978 Addressing Commissioner Francard's concerns about restrooms and the well (children's access to the hoses if the water is unsafe), Mr. Somerville assured than everything would be up to code specifications. Men's and women's restrooms would be provided and the well has been declared good by the Department of Public Works; any problems would be carefully checked out before the water is used. He added that the garden would adhere to any water usage restrictions placed on a single family residence. Commissioner Mink felt the garden was consistent with the General Plan in the area of open space and pocket parks, but inconsistent because 63 garden plots would possibly generate more traffic than single family uses. He f=elt the garden would introduce an unknown structure to a single family area; and other garden projects have not been in residential areas. He believed the concept was fine and would like to see such a project in the City. Commissioner Sine stated he would not want such a garden next to his home; parking would be a problem, the project is commercial in nature and he concluded it does not conform with R-1 uses or the General Plan. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioner Sine. Commissioner Jacobs felt the applicant should be commended for her intention on this project; however, considering the location, she moved for denial of the special permit. Chairman Taylor felt the concept of the project a good one, noting it is an opportunity for a number of segments of society to come together in a community project. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion for denial and upon roll call the motion carried 6-1, Chairman Taylor dissenting. Commissioner Mink felt staff should be directed to see if there is another location which would be more suitable as such a project would be good for the City. Commission agreed with Commissioner Mink. A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. 2. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE TO A SIDE PROPERTY LINE; PROPERTY AT 1453 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 026-042-060), ZONED R-1, BY GARY E. Summary of Action: Motion that variance be granted with the understanding that the garage would.be 8' from the house and that the laundry area would be built on a solid foundation, noting there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property, carried unanimously 7-0. Asst. City Planner Yost reviewed the application, explaining the circumstances and the problems with the sloping lot. He emphasized the principal difficulty is the distance between the house and the proposed garage, noting that a 4' separation is proposed which meets code but with the narrow driveway it would be difficult to maneuver a car into the new garage. He advised that staff recommended the new garage be located 8' to 10' from the house even though it would require a slightly higher concrete block foundation with more excavation. He reminded Commission that findings would have to be made consistent with Code Chap. 25.54 to grant a variance. Gary Walter, the applicant, stated that he had been approached by neighbors who were glad he was doing something with the present garage. He staged he would be willing to comply with the recommended location and place the laundry area on a permanent foundation. Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 23, 1978 Commissioner Kindig moved that .the variance be granted with the understanding that the garage would be 8' from the house and the laundry area would be built on a solid foundation, noting there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property (i.e., the slope) and with the modifications noted above, the findings pertinent to Chap. 25.54 are in fact applicable. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously (7-0). 3. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CARPORT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND FROM SEC. 25.70.030 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GARAGE RECENTLY CONVERTED TO A LAUNDRY AREA TO CONTINUE IN ITS PRESENT USE; PROPERTY AT 1328 CARLOS AVENUE (APN 027-153-240), ZONED R-1, BY FRANCISCO H. PANIAGUA, JR. (PROPERTY OWNER) Summary of Action: Motion for denial,based on the finding that there has been no testimony submitted to show that.there are exceptional circum- stances, carried unanimously (7-0). Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, pointing out the problems and specifics relating to this item. A previous property owner had converted the single garage to a laundry room and added a non -code family room without benefit of a building permit. (Staff report is on file with the application.) Mr. Yost said staff could find no special circumstances for the parcel consistent with the first requirement of Code Chap. 25.54 to grant a variance. He also noted if the application were denied, all other technical infractions could be corrected with a building permit. He emphasized that the main points to the application are: (1) the proposed new carport encroaches 2' into the required 4' side yard, and (2) the new carport would use up much of the present driveway length not allowing a second car to be parked off street behind the front setback. Two variances are required, one for the 2' side yard and one because of the absence of a second parking space behind the front setback. He noted, in order to approve the application or deny it, findings of fact are required under Code Chap. 25.54. It was noted neither the applicant nor a representative was present. City Attorney Coleman advised Commission as to the alternatives and requested the item not be tabled as it would be put in limbo and action could not be taken by his office as to the violations. Staff noted that an agenda had been sent to the applicant; staff has had no direct contact with:the applicant, but instead with real estate agents. Ernie Schellenberg, realtor, San Carlos stated he listed and sold the property last year (1977). He explained he was not the applicant's representative but might clear up a few matters. The property is owned by the applicant and the real estate companies are involved because there is some question as to who would have to pay for the violations, the present owner or the former owner. There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Mink moved for denial based on the finding that there has been no testimony submitted to show there are exceptional circumstances and the affidavit submitted with the application has not shown sufficient information there are exceptional circumstances. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Commissioner Sine stated he had visited the site and there were possible alternatives available to the applicant. Upon roll call the motion for denial carried unanimously (7-0). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 23, 1978 4. EXCEPTION FROM PERMITTED HEIGHTS FOR NONCONFORMING FENCE AND HEDGE(*), PER CODE CHAPTER 25.78, AT 1516 ADELINE DRIVE, PROPERTY ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. JOHN A. ESCOBOSA. (*) ALLEGED TO BE REDUCED FROM ITS PRIOR HEIGHT, WHICH WAS FOUND BY THE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 5, 1977 TO BE A PUBLIC HAZARD Summary of Action: Commission made findings that there are exceptional circumstances and motion for approval of a 4'-10" fence on a diagonal line with all vegetation over 2 feet high to be removed from the exterior of the fence approved on roll call vote (6-1), Commissioner Sine dissenting. Asst. City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the City Council made a finding December 5, 1977 that the hedge is a "public hazard"; the applicants are requesting permission to have a hedge that has been reduced in both height and width since the Council's action. He stated, as per the Commission's instructions on January 9, the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission had been advised of this new proposal; at their meeting January 12, 1978 a motion was made and unanimously carried the the Traffic,�.Safety & Parking Commission feels the present hedge is a "traffic hazard." He reminded Commission that findings must be made relevant to granting or denying a variance. Mrs. Escobosa addressed the Commission, stating the hedge had been reduced in height and noted that Council had found it a "public" hazard, not a traffic hazard, because it was unsafe for pedestrians since it overhangs the sidewalk. She felt with the present situation the line of sight at the intersection is adequate and that the intersection is a traffic hazard because there is a school, a park and a store within a block. She suggested a 4 -way arterial stop sign to reduce the hazard, insuring safety for children and securing privacy in their yard. She stated they would be willing, as an alternative measure, to put the hedge at a 45 degree angle (not in 15') and noted that the shrubs on the Balboa side had been trimmed back. Commission agreed there is a problem at the intersection. Several Commissioners had visited the site and driven in the area, noting there is presently a traffic hazard. It was also indicated the 45 degree angle alternative would not address the problem without modification. Mrs. Escobosa stated they felt they were being singled out, which is not fair, and they would have very little privacy with a wire fence which was suggested as a possible alternative. It was pointed out the property line is 3' in from the back of the sidewalk and the fence is on City property. On the Adeline side the roots of the hedge are on the property line. Commission briefly discussed the basis of the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission's decision. Commissioner Sine felt a survey of existing properties should be taken to see how many are not in compliance with code before singling out one property; he felt they should deal with all instead of one. Chairman Taylor felt that although Commissioner Sine's point was well taken the application was before them and action should be taken. There being no further discussion the public hearing was opened; there was no public input and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Mink discussed the alternative plan with staff, setting forth specifics which would provide adequate sight distance and protect the applicants' privacy. City Engineer Kirkup reviewed his memorandum dated January 19, 1978 and indicated the proposal set forth by Commissioner Mink would provide adequate sight distance if the hedge -is removed to the first post or break in the fence with a new fence 4'10" in height and of the same material as the existing fence. As this proposal was satisfactory with staff, the applicants were asked if it would be an agreeable Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1978 solution to them. Mrs. Escobosa said this would be satisfactory if it would not interfere with the existing trees and shrubs. Staff noted it would not affect the existing trees and shrubs, and vegetation should not be permitted to grow over the fence again. Commissioner Mink found this property has exceptional circumstances because of the lot and the extensive traffic; that there would be no public hazard .under the modification he would make in his motion; that neighboring properties would not be materially damaged by that modification; and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Commissioner Mink moved that a fence and hedge exception be granted in accordance with the following proposal: to permit a hedge higher than that permitted by code with a 4'-10" fence on the following line; from Balboa Avenue, starting 6' back from the inside corner of the two sidewalks, crossing on the diagonal to the Adeline Drive sidewalk, at a point 8' northeasterly from the Balboa sidewalk; said fence to be constructed of the same materials as the fence on the Balboa Avenue side. Further, all vegetation over 2 feet high is to be removed from the exterior of the fence within the triangular area. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and approved on roll call vote (6-1), Commissioner Sine dissenting (voted in opposition because he felt it would not improve the sight line for motorists). Staff advised that vegetation would not be permitted to grow over the sidewalk or overhang the fence. Chairman Taylor noted this approval would become effective February 7 unless appealed and that a building permit would be required. City Attorney Coleman assured Mrs. Escobosa that when final this action would stand as the City's decision there is not a hazard if the details of the motion are adhered to. 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR HERITAGE MANOR, A 6 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1421 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-013-130), ZONED R-3, BY BARRY L. RAFTER (ARCHITECT) FOR THOMAS SANFILIPPO (APPLICANT) WITH JAMES AND ISOBEL HIMMEL (PROPERTY OWNERS (ND -151P POSTED 1/11/78 Summary of Action: Motion for approval per plans and specifications presented and subject to'seven conditions carried unanimously (7-0). Asst. City Planner Yost reviewed the application and plans, explaining the grade slopes of the property and making reference to Sheet 4 of the amended plans dated 1/17/78, "Grade Analysis." He explained the changes in the present plans that addressed several staff concerns and noted there would be no enclosed secure basement parking for visitors or owners. He said that written consent. from the present owners had been provided so the application was adequate in that respect. He briefly discussed the landscaping, noting that the Park Director had provided comments included in a written staff report and he stated the Commission should review the application for its consistency with Resolution No. 16-75 establishing guidelines for condominium permit applications. Barry Rafter was present representing the applicant. Commission discussed the project with Mr. Rafter including landscaping, private areas and patio sizes. Mr. Rafter stated that public access to each unit was planned on the north side and a hedge along the entire line to be incorporated into the front landscaping forming a "J" shape. He noted a sizable planter would surround the "stair." City Engineer Kirkup discussed drainage with the Commission noting he would recommend the high point in the driveway be 6" from crown line in E1 Camino Real. Mr. Rafter confirmed each patio has drainage that would be collected underneath and go out to E1 Camino Real. Mr. Yost stated the building is less than 35' in height and reviewed the plans, pointing out the grade differences. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1978 There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sine was concerned about the simulated stucco siding and code specifications. Asst. City Planner Yost noted he felt the building generally meets the specifications of the condominium resolution; however, when dealing with larger condominium projects there is greater flexibility in design and higher quality construction. Here, he stated, a much smaller condominium project is being considered and limited design flexibility limits amenities such as landscaping, secure parking, etc. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Kindig expressed.concern about planter boxes on a concrete slab being referred to as landscaping, and felt it was not the intention of the ordinance to have this type of "landscaping." Commissioner Francard felt two or three trees should be planted along the E1 Camino right-of-way. It was noted this would be up to the City. Commissioner Mink moved for approval of the above application as per the plans and specifications presented and subject to the following conditions: (1) first floor kitchen windows be moved approximately 1' so that they will not be directly under the fire escape balcony; (2) details of "knock -out" fence panels be approved by the Fire Department; (3) detailed planting treatment of the front yard to be approved by the Park Director; (4) excavations near the large trees on E1 Camino Real be monitored and approved by the Park Director; (5) planting of shrubs along the northerly side of units 5 and 6 be reviewed to the satisfaction of the Park Director; (6) details of planter boxes and drainage plans on the concrete slab be approved by the Park Director; (7) acceptable 5 gallon plant materials be placed in the 18" wide planter boxes on the northwesterly corner of the property as a substitute for the 5 gallon pittosperum tenuipolium. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously (7-0). 6. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN REQUIRED SIDE YARDS PER SEC. 25.62.080 Summary of Action: Motion for approval per Drawing #4 carried unanimously (7-0). Asst. City Planner Yost briefly reviewed this item and confirmed that this is an underground garage; a great majority of the space is at or below grade and at only one point is it above grade. Commissioner Jacobs moved for approval of this item. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, noting it was being approved as per Drawing #4. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). 7. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 6 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1421 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026- 013-130), ZONED R-3, BY JAMES F. CARROLL & ASSOCIATES FOR THOMAS SANFILIPPO Summary of Action: Motion for approval with two conditions carried unanimously (7-0). City Engineer Kirkup stated the above map is ready for adoption with the conditions that (1) all elevations be placed on City datum and (2) the high point of the driveway be 6" above the crown of E1 Camino Real at Mills Avenue. Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing; there being no public input, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved for approval with the conditions as stated by the City Engineer; Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously (7-0). A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 10:55 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 23, 1978 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1815 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 024-401-500), BY S. E. RONDON OF DOLLAR RENT -A -CAR SYSTEMS (APPLICANT) WITH CARUSO ENTERPRISES, INC. (PROPERTY OWNER) Summary of Action: Motion for approval with ten conditions carried unanimously (7-0). City Planner Swan reviewed the staff report dated 1/23/78 which is incorporated in these minutes and attached. Commissioner Mink felt that as long as all cars are parked on the parcel and an area is provided for pickups and deliveries, a detailed parking layout is.not necessary. Bill Wristen, manager of Dollar Rent-A-Car in Burlingame, was present and took part in the discussion. He emphasized he has no control over the convoy trucks and would be willing to provide an on-site area for delivery operations; however, enforcing such a condition would be difficult and he felt he should not be fined because of this. He also questioned the condition of 10 percent landscaping and moving the fence back 18', noting there are not many similar operations that provide much landscaping. He presented pictures of some similar operations. He stated he would otherwise be happy to comply with the balance of the conditions. City Attorney Coleman felt something could be done to encourage convoy vehicles to utilize on-site areas. This was briefly discussed. Mr. Wristen stated he does have a place for the convoy vehicles to pull in but did not want to be fined because they would not use the area provided, and agreed he would.provide no less than 10 clearly marked spaces for pickups Commissioner Mink moved the special permit be approved with the following conditions: (1) an accurate site plan drawn to scale with the parking layout for no less than 10 cars for pickup and dropoff purposes to be striped and clearly marked; (2) the special permit for the leased area shall be coterminous with the leasehold with Montgomery Brothers, Inc.; (3) there shall be not less than 10%.landscaping of this M-1 District property to satisfy existing regulations; (4) all employee vehicles shall be parked on site; (5) space shall be provided on property for loading and unloading of vehicles from auto transports; (6) all Dollar Rent-A-Car vehicles shall be parked and stored only on property owned or leased by Dollar Rent-A-Car; (7) the car wash system shall be designed and reconstructed to recycle wash water to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, these improvements to be effected before June 30, 1978; (8) a building permit shall be obtained for the pavement and the chain link fencing on the leased property (the fence should be moved back and drainage approved by the City Engineer); (9) the rent -a -car establishment shall pay business license fees retroactive to the point of time when they commenced operations at 1815 Bayshore Highway; (10) the special permit for use of car rental and storage lot shall be subject to annual review in April prior to extension of the leasehold. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously (7-0). 9. AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS TO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (APPROVED AUGUST 22, 1977) FOR PROPERTY AT 751 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (APN 029-053-110) AND 741 SAN MATEO AVENUE (APN 029-053-200), BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR OSCAR PERSON Summary of Action: Motion to reject applicant's request carried unanimously (7-0). City Engineer Kirkup reviewed his staff report dated 1/19/78 (on file with the application), concluding he would recommend the easement not be accepted because to do so would place additional maintenance and liability burdens onthe City. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1978 Oscar Person addressed the Commission, stating he was asked by both Fire and Police Departments to provide this easement for safety purposes and Ile was under the impression the City would take over the liability and upkeep. He felt it was unjust for him to pay taxes on something that is used by the public. Commissioner Mink moved the above noted application be rejected on the basis of the City Engineer's report. City Attorney Coleman noted the applicant could appeal the condition placed on the map to the City Council. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously (7-0). It was noted that appeal, if any, should be filed by February 6. 10. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT (APPROVED OCTOBER 26, 1977 TO SELL AND SERVICE BOATS AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT) TO ALLOW THE STORAGE AND SERVICE OF TEN BUSES ON THE PROPERTY AT 390 LANG ROAD (APN 026-331-370/400), BY HOWARD G. HICKEY (PROPERTY OWNER) WITH MISSION TRAILS CHARTER SERVICE, INC. (LESSEE) Summary of Action: Motion for approval carried unanimously (7-0). Howard Hickey, the applicant, was present.. He noted the request would be an interim use and would be generally to the rear of the property and out: of view, with access to the rear. There being no discussion, Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, spoke in favor of the amendment to the special permit, stating he feels it is most appropriate. There being no further public input, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved for approval of the above application in accordance with the applicant's letter of January 4, 1978. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call it carried unanimously (7-0). 11. APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION THAT A PROPOSED NEW SIGN AT 1115 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (APN 026-191-290) WOULD BE A ROOF SIGN PER CODE SEC. 22.04.390; APPEAL BY DEWEY BELL OF BELL ELECTRICAL SIGNS, INC. FOR VERN GAINES OF SHELLEY'S STEREO Summary of Action: Motion to uphold the appeal carried unanimously (7-0). Asst. City Planner Yost reviewed this application, noting the main concern is whether the sign as proposed is a roof sign. A roof sign is defined as a sign that is attached to the roof of a building or projects above the lowest level of a roof adjacent to the sign. This sign would be adjacent to roof tiles and therefore staff finds it is a roof sign. Vernon Gaines took part in the discussion with the Commission and staff. Discussion followed regarding that portion of the facade which was considered part of the roof and the subject of mansard roofs. Mr. Gaines noted that placing the sign below the facade would make it difficult to see, and this might not leave enough clearance beneath it. It was also noted the purpose of this roof was to protect the front of the building and it appeared this portion is an overhang which was not made to serve as a roof. City Attorney Coleman advised that the Commission would not make a precedent by approving such a sign as they are dealing with one particular case; he noted Code allows the Commission to have a hearing on such matters. Commissioner Jacobs moved the appeal of staff's determination be upheld and Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. Chairman Taylor called for a vote, noting a "yes" would uphold the appeal and a "no" vote would reject the appeal and uphold staff's interpre- tation. The motion carried 7-0 to uphold the appeal. David Keyston, Anza SLT, suggested a study of the definition of roofs and roof signs be conducted. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEM FOR STUDY Page 11 January 23, 1978 12. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DEIR-45P, FOR THE ONE WATERFRONT OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 700 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, PREPARED BY MADRONE ASSOCIATES FOR CITY AND REGENCY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY City Planner Swan discussed this item briefly, noting that corrections and revisions would be required. Chairman Taylor instructed staff to bring this item before the Commission after it is corrected. David Keyston, Anza SLT, discussed the item briefly with Commission and staff. He stated the developer is responsible for improving the adjacent State land north and east of the project site. Mr. Keyston felt there was an implication that the sewer was not adequate and his engineer felt it is far from its capacity and would not reach capacity if fully developed. City Engineer Kirkup did not fully agree on this point. Commissioner Mink felt there was a vagueness about public access to the bayfront and thought this could be enlarged upon. He referred to pages 14 and 15, stating they were very vague and the plot plans themselves are also vague. He added that he would like to know what is planned along the outer lagoon shoreline and what will other projects in the area provide in the way of access. It was felt this information should be ready for discussion of the DEIR at the public hearing scheduled on February 15, 1978. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan suggested Commission look at 401 Primrose Road as the proposed location for for an amended sign exception can be expected ADJOURNMENT the rear wall of Library Plaza at a painted wall sign. An application for consideration on February 15, 1978. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary I tem No. 8 P. C. 1/23/78 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DOLLAR RENT -A -CAR SYSTEMS AT 1815 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY The application was incomplete, inaccurate and can be claimed to be technically a misrepresentation of facts. Corrections and changes are in order to upgrade the present facility and satisfy existing municipal codes. The site plan was not received until Thursday, January 19. It is in error. A site inspection Friday morning, January 20 found 70 vehicles parked in 8 rows on this leased parcel of property. It is not 70 feet wide; it is 78 feet MOL between the chain link fence. I interviewed Mr. Dean Thomas, treasurer of Montgomery Brothers, Inc. at 1831 Bayshore Highway and learned that they had executed a lease with Dollar Rent-A-Car for a space 70' x 175' in area. Lease documents are included for reference. A chain link fence was constructed about 30 feet to the rear of the existing Montgomery Brothers office/ warehouse building. There is a property line 10 feet from the building and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 are 98.97 feet in width according to current Assessor's records. Therefore, the diagram for the leasehold appears to be in error. There is a distance of 109 feet between the rear of the existing building and the westerly property line. Dollar Rent-A-Car System is using a 78' wide portion, not a 70' wide portion. The lease was executed in April of 1977 for a period of one year ending April 30, 1978. Item 6 of that lease states: "All governmental laws and ordinances shall be complied vith by the lessee." (1) Lessee did not obtain a special permit for a car rental and storage lot on this property. (2) Lessee did not obtain a building permit to surface the vacant lot or to erect a 6 foot chain link fence. (3) There is a 15 foot building setback line on the southerly side of Cowan Road and this chain link fence encroaches 8 feet into the setback. (4) Rental vehicles have been parked along Bayshore Highway. "5) Auto transports have parked to load and unload vehicles in a travelled lane in front of the building on Bayshore Highway. (6) There was a name change from Dollar -A -Day to Dollar Rent-A-Car and a special permit was not effected. (7) Dollar Rent-A-Car does not have a valid business license: Background: At the Planning Commission meeting held October 27, 1969 a car rental agency was approved for Dollar -A -Day Rent-A-Car, Inc. at 1815 Bayshore Highway. A communication signed by H. J. Caruso, president advised that "the existing building will adapt readily to the company's needs, as there is ample office space, a sprinklered warehouse and adequate off-street parking; that all of the operations will be conducted within the building except for outdoor parking of 29 automobiles; and that it is proposed to remove an existing concrete pool at the front of the building and relandscape the entire front. . .the Commission was informed that the public utility easement at the rear of the lot will be paved and used as necessary for vehicle storage. . . " The minutes continue: "Mr. Caruso stated thata fence will be installed encompassing the property, that the front will be relandscaped, and landscaping extended along the fence line on both sides. . . Mr. Caruso advised that a maximum of 40 vehicles will be stored on the premises, 29 outside of the building. The hearing was concluded. A motion introduced by Commissioner Brauner to approve the special permit application of Dollar -A -Day Rent-A-Car, Inc., to maintain a car rental agency in an existing office/ warehouse building at 1815 Bayshore Highway was conditioned as follows: (1) the property be fenced on south, east and west sides; (2) the area of the public utility easement shown in the drawing, proposed to be used for parking, to be paved; (3) on the east and west sides of the building, an area 2 feet in width and 50 feet in depth along the fence line to be landscaped and maintained. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sine and irried unanimously on roll call." -2- -,business license application was submitted April 10, 1970, -'Receipt No. A1433 but Was not approved because they had not completed the site improvements by July 8, 1970. A site inspection made Monday, January 9, 1978 found 124 vehicles on the site including two shuttle vans. There were three rental clerks and two service men plus the manager, Mr. Wristen present at that time. City Planner recommends that consideration be given to continuation of this application with the direction to applicant to revise the site plan to show the existing and proposed parking layout. In accordance with Sec. 25.42.030 the use may be permitted as a special use in the M-1 District if the site location and proposed development plans are first approved. Minimum conditions for approval of a special permit will include the following: - An accurate site plan drawn to scale with the parking layout shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission. - The special permit for the leased area shall be coterminous with the leasehold with Montgomery Brothers, Inc. - There shall be not less -than 10% landscaping of this M-1 District property to satisfy existing regulations. (This will require relocation of the chain link fence to a point about 18 feet back from the Cowan Road property line.) - All employee vehicles shall be parked on-site. - A drive-through lane shall be provided and the gate operated so that auto transports may park on site for all loading and unloading of vehicles. - All Dollar Rent-A-Car vehicles shall be parked and stored only on property owned or leased by Dollar Rent-A-Car. - The car wash system shall be designed and reconstructed to recycle wash water to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; these improvements to be effected before June 30, 1978. - A building permit shall be obtained for the pavement and the chain link fencing on the leased property. (The fence should be moved back and drainage approved by the City Engineer.) The property owner may sign the building permit application to authorize the lessee, as agent, to make the physical improvements. - The rent -a -car establishment shall pay business license fees retroactive to the point of time when they commenced operations at 1815 Bayshore Highway. - The special permit for use of car rental and storage lot shall be subject to annual review in April prior to extension of the leasehold. The Planning Commission might consider limiting the number of vehicles to be stored on each of the properties. The property at 1815 Bayshore Highway which is owned by Caruso Enterprises, Inc. might be limited to 40 cars as previously with a maximum of 70. The leased property which is 78'x175' in area should accommodate a drive-through to Cowan Road. Even with 7 rows of cars bumper to bumper it would be possible to park 60 to 70 vehicles on this leased piece of property. Therefore, the total number of vehicles could be specified from 100 to 140 as a maximum.