Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.07.24THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 24,1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Marr Kindig City Attorney Karmel Mink Planning Intern Norberg Hendrickson Sine Councilman Cusick Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of June 26, the adjourned meeting of July 10, and the study meeting of July 10, 1972 were approved and adopted. HEARINGS: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION OFFICE AND MEETING SPACE AT 1448 BE LLEVUE AVENUE, CENTER 50' x 125' OF LOT 1, BLOCK 8, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY, MAP #2, (APN 029-111-130) ZONED R-4 BY JOY CENTER, INC., DONALD DENNY, BUSINESS MANAGER At the onset of the hearings, Chairman_ Cistulli announced that this application had been withdrawn by Joy Center, by letter dated July 23, 4 972 signed by M. Arthur Gump, Program Director. 1. SPECIAL PEP -MIT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RETAIL STORE IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1180 CAROLAN AVE1=1 (APN 026-233-01) BY DONALD D. TATEOSIAN Chairman Cistulli announced this twice -continued item for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read a communication dated June 28, 1972 from John L. Rector of Rector Cadillac stating he would have no objection to allowing customers of the proposed antique shop exit behind his building onto Cadillac Way. He also read a letter dated June 30, 1972 from A. H. Gaffin, owner of Burlingame Animal Hospital, stating he felt the proposed antique shop would be far superior to the previous tenants. Mr. Tateosian addressed the Commission. He stated he thought that in asking for this special permit for only one person and this type of business, he was actually alleviating the parking situation. The previous tenant, Peninsula General Tire, had three employee cars and 8 - 9 trucks. He commented this almost blocked the easement. 2 - Chairman Cistulli reminded Mr. Tateosian that at the June 26th meeting it was emphasized that the easement should not be used for parking, and he was to submit legal documentation regarding the easement so that the problem of possible abandonment could be discussed. City Attorney Karmel added that at this last meeting it was the consensus of Commission opinion that if this application were granted, off-street parking had to be furnished and a circulation pattern provided. The applicant now proposes to use the easement on the property both for parking and for traffic circulation. This raises questions about the nature of the easement, who the owner is, and whether circulation must be provided on the Oscar Person or Rector Cadillac property. Mr. Tateosian was asked to furnish title insurance policies for examination by staff so that ownership of the easement could be determined. At the adjourned meeting his representative brought the policies but was not able to leave them for examination. The City Attorney stated that tonight Mr. Tateosian had produced documents which show that the easement for egress and ingress was granted to Dr. and Mrs. Guyselmans. If the variance is granted with the easement to be used for circulation with egress on Carolan,- a future easement would be required from the owner and a right to use the Rector Cadillac or Person property. He asked Mr. Tateosian if the successor to Dr. Guyselmans would surrender his easement, and Mr. Tateosian replied he would not. Mr. Tateosian went on to say that he could get any kind of document from Mr. Rector with rights terminating at the end of the lease of the tenant. Also, that he had talked with a representative of Mr. Person who would give a verbal agreement for use of the land. He commented that everyone uses it now without permission. No one in the audience was either in favor of or against the application. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine commented that the City Attorney's suggestions were always wise, but added that he was sympathetic with the applicant and felt the parking could be worked out and flow of traffic maintained so that it would not be necessary to back out on Carolan. He voiced extreme disapproval of the tenant's husband who had become arbitrary at the recent study meeting, and who had beleaguered City staff as well as Council with his opinions on this application. Commissioner Sine noted the tenant had obtained a business license on the 13th of June, had already moved in the location, and already is in business. A sign is up and no sign permit granted. Commissioner Norberg thought a vote should be taken. Commissioner Mink stated that the parking should be straightened out or the application denied. Commissioner Taylor was annoyed that this application had been presented at several meetings with still no agreement on the easement or understanding with the applicant. He felt if :fir. Tateosian did not wish to comply with the wishes of the Commission the application should be denied. Commissioner Kindig thought the easement should be finalized and disapproved of the tenant's use of the gasoline pump. Commissioner Jacobs suggested 3 - Mr. Tateosian be given the opportunity to withdraw his application. This was suggested by the Chair, but Mr. Tateosian stated he did not comprehend wherein he had not already satisfied the wishes of the commission. Chairman Cistulli informed him that if the application were denied, he could not apply again for a year, and suggested a continuance. Mr. Tateosian did not indicate his wishes, and Commissioner Sine moved that this application be continued to the adjourned meeting of August 14 to allow the applicant time to'get all necessary information. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. and it carried by voice vote. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW UPGRADING THE EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1452 BELLEVUE AVERUE, BEING SW 50 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 8, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY MAP NO. 2 (APN 029-111-140) ZONED R-4, BY JAMES GONG (TABLED AT JUNE 26 HEARING) Commissioner Cistulli introduced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read letter from G. K. Curtis, general contractor, substantiating the request for variance. City Planner Swan reviewed the application, stating that this building is now non -conforming and will remain non -conforming even after the improvement. He. commented on the Fire Inspector's report, stating that this would be considered a three-story building, since there are common areas remaining at ground level such as laundry and garage. In a three- story building each living unit must have two exits. One unit as 1452 Bellevue does not have a second exit. He continued that the ground level will be remodeled to provide a maximum ten parking spaces, of which five in the rear would have to be small car parking spaces. The City Planner suggested that this application be accepted on its own.merits or suggestions made as to how it could be improved. He showed slides of the driveway between the apartment and the adjacent dwelling and of the garage on the ground floor, commenting on the inadequate height and building foundation. There was no one in the audience either in favor of or against this application and the public hearing was declared closed. ACKNOWLEDGMENT At this point, Chairman Cistulli acknowledged the presence of Councilman Cusick in the audience. City Engineer Marr commented on the application. He stated the parking arrangement was horrible in that every car would have to back out onto the street. In addition, if a proposed fence is built along the property line, it would restrict access to the rear building and this might cause a problem for the Fire Department. He conceded that curb cuts amounting to 70/ of.the street frontage could be made for the driveways, but this would eliminate or_street parking space. Commissioner tlorberg thought that since the building is non -conforming and the parking situation very bad, the application should be denied. Commissioner Sine established the facts that previously there had been 12 units, and now there would be 9; previously there had been only five parking spaces and now there would be 10. This would result in getting several cars off the street. He agreed that the . parking was bad, but thought that with proper realignment it could be better. He voiced reluctance to condone a non -conforming building, but felt the plans would upgrade the property provided the architect could modify the parking. Commissioner Taylor considered that too much emphasis was being placed on the parking and not enough on the building plans. He felt the parking situation was critical, but was more concerned with the apparent minimal improvement to the building and considered that the amount of improvement in that area did not justify support. Commissioner Mink -stated he concurred. He stated any kind of disaster could destroy this structurally unsafe building; and he would like to see a stronger- building even if some parking had to be sacrificed. He questioned the stairway at the front of the lot and was concerned as to how adequate fire exits could be provided. He wished to go on record as affirming that if this application is approved, the safety of the occupants must be a matter of primary concern and that all plans must be approved by the Fire Department. Commissioner Jacobs concurred that fire safety was of prime importance and felt that the Commission should see building plans for reconstruction, showing substantial improvement, before approval is granted. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioner Taylor in that this is now an unsatisfactory building, and even with improve- ments will be unsatisfactory throughout its existence. Commissioner Cistulli agreed with the adverse opinions on the building's condition, and felt there was no way for the Commission to approve unless they were given definite plans for the upgrading of the building. There was much further discussion. Commissioner Sine pointed out definite structural weaknesses of the building and suggested the applicant invest in an engineered plan to correct these and then approach the Commission. Commissioner Mink questioned the City Attorney if it were possible to accept essentially the concept of a special permit contingent upon acceptance of engineered drawings which would improve safety and parking. The City Attorney stated this would be possible. Commissioner Taylor questioned if the Commission could legally approve this application, even if conditions were met, within the limits of the ordinance. He questioned the City Attorney as to condemnation proceedings. He was informed that the fact that the building is dangerous must be established by expert testimony, then there must be a hearing before the City Council, after which several methods may be employed to insure that the building is razed. Commissioner Sire commented on the cooperative attitude of the property owner and suggested granting a continuance of thirty days to allow him preparation time for definitive structural and architectural drawings. Mr. G. Rescalvo, architect for Mr. Gong, protested that the design had been changed several times at the expense of time and money, and he wanted action on what had already been presented. Commission - 5 - members again stated they needed a detailed structural_ plan'and a better parking plan, with Commissioner Mink commenting he would be willing to approve a. plan where the ratio of autos to apartments was only one to one if it was not necessary to back out into the street. Mr. Rescalvo asked what the Commission wanted in detail and again he was requested to bring a plan incorporating structural changes for building safety and better parking. There was further discussion, with the suggestion that he work with Mr. Swan and Mr. Gong during the coming month to formulate acceptable plans. Commissioner Sine moved that a continuance of one month be granted' on this application to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 28 to allow the applicant to come in with structural plans and architec- tural designs as well as revised parking plans. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous voice vote. 3. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUSINESS OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USE OF UNCLASSIFIED LAND AT 290 BURLINGAME SQUARE, BURLINGAME DEPOT, BY MRS. FRANCE S FENA, TENANT ON LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY. Chairman Cistulli announced this hearing for Commission consideration. Secretary Jacobs read City Clerk Herbert White's letter to Mrs. Pena under date of June 6, 1972 which informed her that the special permit became effective as of that date, and set forth the conditions under which it was granted. Chairman Cistulli called upon Mrs. Pena to address the Commission. She told them of her efforts to abide by the conditions of the permit, and that as of this date the whole area was in good shape. She had just completed paving of the parking area. She is getting a stained glass window for the building, and holing to maintain the structure as an historical monument. Chairman Cistulli commented he had been told by several Commissioners that the building does look good. City Planner Swan informed the Commission that maintenance of this property includes the garden area where the grass had been allowed to dry out and that trash, papers, etc. does collect there. He added there is a need for trash receptacles. City Attorney Karmel was asked to give his opinion on dismissing the charges against Pairs. Pena, and he thought it might be best to continue the matter for a time to allow a staff report on further maintenance. Commissioner Taylor questioned if Mrs. Pena could not be asked to furnish a surety bond on her performance of the conditions of the permit. City Attorney !;armel commented that ordinarily such. a bond is required to insure companies against breach of" contract. He was not certain that a bond would be advisable in this instance. Commissioner Sine indicated he had no objection to continuina this hearing, but stated that since he had been the recipient of Planning Commission's censure by the Council on this matter, he would not be tolerant of any departure from the terms of the permit. Com.issioner Mink moved this hearing be continued for one month to the regular meeting of August 28 pending a report from staff. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on voice vote. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT At this point, Commissioner Norberg informed the Commission that Commissioner Thomas Sine had recently been included in "Who's Who of the West" for 1972-1973 Edition. Commissioner Sine was congratulated. ` 4A. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 3 - 10 INCLUSIVE AIND PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6; AND LOTS 17 - 25, BLOCK 7, EASTON ADDITION 01, THE TEN -HUNDRED BLOCK OF CAPUCHIYO, FROM R-2 TO R3-A, BY DANIEL S . FRAr?KO AND NEIGHBORING P ROPE RTY O NE RS . 4B. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOT .26, BLOCK 7; LOT 1, BLOCK 6, AND PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 6, EASTON ADDITION 4ml, BEING nZESPECTIVELY, 1325�1327, 1401-1403 AND 1405 CARMELITA AVEINUE FROM R-2 TO R-3A. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read the petition for reclassification, signed by twelve property owners on this block. He also noted affidavit of publication received from The Advance -Star certifying notice of this hearing had been published on July 12th and 15th, 1972. He also noted receipt of a letter from J. R. Harvey of 1412 Sanchez, protesting this reclassification. City Planner Swan explained that even if the reclassification hearing were successful, no actual decision would be made on this date. After the hearing the Commission could be directed to prepare findings and a resolution recommending this reclassification which would be forwarded to the City Council for another hearing. After this, the municipal code could be amended. He went on to say this proposed reclassification is an innovation - there is presently no R-3A district in Burlingame. It is a moderate density district with 1,500 square feet of land area required for each living unit. In this location there is the additional consideration of the precedent estab- lished in the 1100 block between Carmelita and Broadway, where several variances have been granted for 5 - 6 unit apartment buildings. The lots on the North side of Capuchino are 5,700 square feet in area, and a 50' lot would permit four units. On the south side, the lots vary in depth and land area from 5,000 to 10,000 square fee''. He suggested an additional requirement for parking, 12 spaces for each unit; and a 3-bedroom unit should have 2 parking spaces. He stated the City Engineer would report on public improvements needed for this district, and that there may be a need to reimburse the City `or the cost of public improvements. The City Planner suggested the alternative of reclassification to R-3A for only the south side of Capuchino at present with more study - 7 - being given before reclassification of the north side. He commented that these subsequent studies could explore architectural review and consideration of building design, landscaping and compatability with the neighborhood. City Engineer Marr spoke on utilities for this reclassification. Regarding fire flow and water, he stated this area was updated as recently as three years ago, when 6" and 8" mains were installed in the City's annual main replacement program. He felt this upgraded water system was satisfactory for R-2 and should be fairly adequate for R-3A. He commented there have been few problems on sewer lines in this area where there are 6" - 10" mains, and there would be no objection to a higher density in this one block. Commissioner Taylor asked the City Planner to equate the proposed maximum development of 96 units with that shown in the General Plan. City Planner Swan replied that the maximum density in the R-3A district would be 29 units per net acre in contrast with the general plan's medium density of 20 units per acre. He noted that R-2 would permit 12 units per acre. He commented that possibly not more than 60/ of this area or. Capuchino would redevelop over a long period of time. He also informed Commissioner Taylor he thought that the additional offstreet parking requirements would not reduce the density appreciably. Chairman Cistulli'requested audience comments in favor of this reclassification. Mr. B. Morris of 1325-1327 Carmelita asked information as to how his logs were included without his knowledge. He was advised that the Planning Commission had added them on its own initiative as being supplementary to the other lots included on that block. Mr. Dan Franko told the Commission the request for reclassification was the desire of the group of people living on that block, with signatures on the petition of over 2/3 of the property owners. He thought it would be an asset to the City because it would help the parking problem. Mr. Arthur Castle of 1021 Capuchino went on record as being in favor. Mr. Cha fes E. Perry of 1025 Laguna questioned if this might extend to his own block. The following property owners opposed the reclassification on grounds of encroachment of apartment houses, increased traffic, parking problems, possible higher taxes, and water and sewage facilities overloading: J. M. Fisch, 1011 Capuchino; Louis Monti, 1009 Capuchino; B. Morris, 1325 Carmeli_ta; Paul G. Hinchliffe, 904 Paloma; Clara Mcl?eil, 1411 Sanchez; Diet -mar WiLilf, 1.400 Sanchez. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg stated that from the standpoint of planning, the development of R-3A in this location is a logical and reasonable approach. However, he thought that the timing was inappropriate since many of the properties had not yet reduced in value sufficiently to warrant this yet. Commissioner Sine, after noting that the Planning Commission did not initiate this reclassification, commented that the Commission did, however, have this area under consideration for future rezoning. He felt if it were approved it should be only the side of the street with the large lots. However, he stated that the neighborhood isstill in very good shape,.and he thought rezoning at this time is premature. Commissioner Taylor was inclined to agree, stating he felt the Planning Commission should consider priorities in reclassification, and in his opinion, this area should not be first. He did not feel the meeting had produced enough information for definite action either for or against. Commissioner mink agreed with Commissioner Taylor, and felt the General Plan should be approximated in this area before any change in density is effected. However, he felt that if areas cannot maintain themselves well and do deteriorate, the only way to rejuvenate them is to go to higher density. He stated nothing stifles a city more rapidly than maintaining low density and letting it degenerate. Commissioner_ Jacobs was in favor of this type of rezoning where the Commission had an opportunity to lock in the architectural and structural qualifications. He believed this area is right for garden type apartments that would blend in with single family dwellings, and felt that sooner or later this adjustment must be made in this neighborhood. Commissioner Kindig questioned the timing on the rezoning, but did think the large lots considered would be appropriate for apartments. He felt the neighborhood was well kept. He noted that R-3A permits only two stories and not more than 35' high: single family residences can go that high. R-3A is a restricted density and he was inclined to favor rezoning but was not certain about the time. Commissioner Cistulli concurred that perhaps this particular area was not yet ready for R-3A, although it was unfortunate that so many people were opposed to reclassification when the opportunity presented itself. He noted that if these recommendations are continued to be put aside, there will be no progress. He did feel this is_the wrong time for this.particular location. Commissioner Sine commented that the bulk of this area is zoned R-2 for duplex and there is demand for duplexes in Burlingame on the resale market. Burlingame has not issued a building permit for a duplex in the last eight years becanse it is not economically feasible. Commissioner Mink moved that the reclassification of Lots 1 - 10, Block 6 and Lots 17 - 26, Block 7, Easton Addition #1, the ten hundred block of Capuchino and =1325-1327, 1401-1403 and 1405 Carmelita from R-2 to R-3A be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried 5 ; 2 on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMI S SI ONE RS : MI NK, NOP.BE RG , SINE , TAYLOR, CI STULLI NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RECONVENE After a recess at 10:30 P.M., the meeting reconvened at 10:40. Commissioner Mink moved that staff prepare findings and recommendations to the City Council on the reclassification of Lots 1 - 10, Block 6 and Lots 17 - 26, Block 7, Easton Addition TIrl. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously on voice vote. 5. VARIANCE TO ESTABLISH A 42' WIDE LOT IN THE R-1 DISTRICT NEY.T TO 1348 DESOTO AVENUE BY JOHN AND NTOREEN DEVINE, PURCHASERS Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read the application letter dated June 29, 1972 from George R. Beatty of the firm of Louis A. Arata. Mr. Beatty stated the Devines wished to buy a parcel of land 100' x 120' at 1348 DeSoto Avenue. The existing house was built on the north 52.4' of this parcel, and the,app.lication is for a 42' building site on the vacant portion of the parcel, with a single family dwelling to be built on it. In response to the Chair, Mr. Beatty stated he had nothing to add to the facts contained in the letter. The Secretary then read a letter from Michael and Phyllis Macchiaverna, 1321 Vancouver Avenue, opposing the variance; and a letter_ from William and Ann Butcher, owners of property at 1356 Vancouver Avenue, also opposing the variance. He then read the cover letter to a petition of DeSoto Avenue Neighbors, Ad Hoc, dated July 20, 1972 which transmitted the signatures of 107 property owners opposing the petition. Signatories of this petition present in the audience identified themselves as follows: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Delzell, 1345 DeSoto; Thomas H. Tweed, 1346 DeSoto; Helene Quil.ici, 2208 Easton Drive; Mr. and Mrs. Michael Macchiaverna, 1321 Vancouver; Martin A. Kaufmann, 1366 DeSoto; Marie M. Hungler; 1348 Vancouver; Michael J. Caballero, 1333 DeSoto;- Mercedes Luna, 1362 DeSoto; Elva L. Tweed, 1346 DeSoto; Linda L. Doxwrick, 1353 DeSoto; William Lamb, 1373 Bernal; Mary Landucci, 1349 DeSoto; Ethel Taylor, 1357 Col u.nbus; Daniel B. Dow -rick, 1353 DeSoto; Josephin-e J. 3tea6h, 1322 DeSoto; Mr. and r.rs. 19=anl J. Gar_be.r_, 1318 DeSoto; Mr. and Mrs. Wm. J. Frye, 1325 Bernal; Jack Williams, 1348 Bernal. - 10, - Mr. Martin A. Kaufmann, 1366 DeSoto, was introduced as spokesman of this ad hoc group, and addressed the Commission. He stated that these people are all owners of well -kept homes and they are concerned about subdividing a parcel to create a lot which is substandard by city code. It is unsuitable -for subdivision because there are already two large homes adjacent to this site. Another consideration, he said, was that the variance was not for the purpose of giving a home owner relief but to suit the purpose of a person who only wished to subdivide. Chairman Cistulli asked for audience comments in favor, and Mr. Beatty responded. He stated that in Burlingame there are many 40, lots, and only in that particular location are there only 50' lots; furthermore, that the owner -is asking for two houses on 100' of frontage, and two houses may be built on two lots of 50' frontage. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg stated that to grant this variance would be a violation of the code, and he saw no reason for it. Commissioner Sire stated he had checked city maps and all of the immediate sur- rounding homes have 50' frontage. He noted the applicant had the option of removing part of the existing two story structure. Commissioner Taylor felt that none of the conditions for granting a variance had been met. Commissioner Mink_ agreed. Commissioner Jacobs objected to the variance as a property owner in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Kindig had no comment; and Chairman Cistulli did not favor the variance. Commissioner Kindig moved that this application for establishing a 42' lot be denied. Commissioner_ Sine seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously by roll call vote. The applicant was informed of his right to appeal to the City Council. 6. PARCEL MAP FOR 1348 DESOTO AVENUE,, WITH 100 FOOT FRONTAGE: 1/2 LOT 39, LOT 40, 1/2 LOT 41, BLOCK 58, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7, BY R . C . DAUBEMI RE - This item was introduced by Chairman Cistulli, as directly in connection. with _Application No. 5. Commissioner Taylor moved that this application for parcel map be denied, Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously on roll call vote. 7. VARIAN= TO ALLOW A RUMPUS ROOM AND HALF PATH IN TFE SECOND STORY OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 136 OCCIDENTAL, LOT 26, BLOCK 8, BURLINGA*IE PARK #2, ZONED R-1, BY FREDERICK W. MUNICH Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read the application from Mr. Munich. Mr. Munich had made a deposit on the purchase of this property and wished to install a rumpus room and.half bath in the second story of a garage at the rear of this lot. This second story had been illegally used as a rental unit with kitc:len anabath r<icilit ies, and is presently the sulhject of a lis pendens Suit against the owner, Rent k-ieinand of Diamond Springs, California. Kitchen facilities and plumbing accessories have 'been removed, and illegal wiring must be corrected. Secretary Jacobs read a letter from Leroy S. Welch, 141 Costa. Rica Avenue dated July 24, 1972 attaching 33 signatures,protesting this application; a letter dated July 19, 1972 from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Nieri, 132 Occidental, also protesting; a letter dated July 21, 1972 from Mr. and Mrs. Roy Metzenberg, 128 Occidental, protesting; and a note from Mr. and Mrs. Paul Hart, 144 Occidental, also protesting the variance. Chairman Cistulli requested audience comments in favor of this variance. Upon being queried, Mr. Munich had no comment. City Planner Swan commented that the City staff had spent a great deal of time and energy on this situation_, adding that the proposed variance could be regarded as a solution to a much worse situation - that of an illegal living unit. This use has been discontinued, and the offer to purchase is subject to this variance. He stated that the action of the Commission in this case will set a precedent, and they would be making a policy determination about enforcement by City staff. The question is what would be an acceptable use for an accessory building that has been used as a rental unit. He noted a forthcoming ordinance which would delete sleeping rooms or kitchens from accessory buildings but would allow rumpus rooms. He emphasized that the City filed suit against the property owner only because of the illegal rental unit. Commissioner Taylor questioned why the granting of the variance l would have an effect upon the lis pendens. The City Planner replied that a negotiated settlement can be obtained subject to conditions of a variance with the applicant's meeting City requirements. However, to do this,he must obtain a variance. If he does not get the variance, the City must seek agreement with another purchaser and/or accept the non -conforming accessory building as is. Mr. Gellerman, a representative of ABC Realty, addressed the Commission. He argued that since the present owner had taken out the illegal facilities and purchaser wishes to conform to code with the rumpus room, it is certainly better than having the illegal unit rented. Chairman Cistulli requested audience comments against this variance. Anthony Spare, of 137 Costa Rica, showed the Commission photos he had taken of this garage, and stated the interests of the neighborhood were primarily to see that it was never used as a rental unit again. He suggested the best way to insure this was to eliminate any washroom facilities, and suggested that the inability to find a buyer was a matter of price. Charles _D. Coe, 117 Occidental, expressed the fear that if the City condoned the rumpus room and bath it would revert to a rental unit again, and increases of more than one dwelling or_'R-? lots become a lever for people with financial interests to have the area rezoned.. Leroy S. :Yelch, 141 Costa Rica, thought granting the variance would be another step to:aard ch�nging the R-1 zoning. A Mr. Evans of 113 Crescent opposed the variance because it might lead to another rental unit. The public hearing was declared closed. 12 - Mr. Munich then addressed the Commission, declaring that most people objected to a possible rental unit. He had signed a statement, and would sign other necessary documents, to the effect that he had no intention of using this garage as a rental unit. Commissioner Norberg stated if the variance were granted the building definitely must be brought up to code in every respect, commenting this would take a great deal of effort although the rumpus room and half bath would comply with the code. Commissioner Sine stated that he had inspected the building which had been built in 1908 as a livery stable with the upstairs used for storage. It was then converted to a garage and later used as a rental unit. He noted removal of bath and kitchen accessories, although they are now stored on the first floor, and commented sewer and water pipe and non -conforming wiring are still in. From his inspection he determined that gas and electrical meters are through the front building and the sewer is off the same lateral as the front. He thought the foundations were probably ick and remodeling w u d g P � 9 p involve new foundations. He stated thehfloor was out of plumb oA He stated he wished to alert the owner that financially it would b better to build a new building than to remodel the present one, and he would be very reluctant to see this converted to a rumpus room. Commissioner Taylor questioned if this property were not being sold for more than it was worth because of the accessory building. f Commissioner Mink stated he fully realized that the intended use meets the proposed ordinance submitted to the Council, and his inclination was to approve such a use, but require that the building be brought up to code with the exception of the setback requirements. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the validity of having merely a signed statement from Mr. Munich. The City Attorney informed him that it would be necessary for the City to have an agreement with Mr. Munich in which he would agree for himself, his heirs, assigns, etc. that this would never be a rental unit. This agreement would be recorded. Future buyers would be notified that this would be on record. Commissioner Jacobs asked Mr. Munich if this would be agreeable, and he said it was. Commissioner Jacobs then.stated he would have no objection to the variance if the building were brought up to code, and an agreement made between Mr. Munich and the City. Commissioner Kindig stated he was puzzled as to why the applicant would spend all the money necessary to bring this building up to code merely for a rumpus room, and questioned the City Attorney further about the agreement. He was informed this would be a condition of the variance if granted. Chairman Cistulli had no objection to the rumpus room, but thouu_ht the half -bath should be eliminated. He felt this would remove -the desire to rent this as a living unit. He questioned Mr. Munich if he would accept the variance without the bath, and the applicant stated he would not. On a question from Commissioner Sire, Mr. Munich admitted he had no estimate on the cost of bringing this building to code. Commissioner Tayl.or moved that the application for variance to allow -- 13 -- -- a rumpus room and half bath in the second story of an accessory building at 136 Occidental be denied. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. The applicant was informed of his right to appeal. 8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXTENSION OF NON -CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITHOUT TWO GARAGE OR CARPORT SPACES, AT 1404 PALM DRIVE BEING LOT Q, BLOCK 5, BURLINGAME TERRACE, ZONED R-1, BY EARL W. JONE S, After Chairman.Cistulli announced this application for hearing, Secretary Jacobs read Mr. Jones' letter of application dated June 20, 1972. This communication requested a variance to add a bedroom and bath to the dwelling because of increased family needs, the variance being necessary because the present bathroom extended into the side setback, making the yard less than the required width. The applicant stated he would be forced to move if he could not add more room to his dwelling, and that the addition would not adversely affect any adjoining property. Secretary Jacobs then read letters from Jean Williamson, 1400 Palm Drive; Mr. and Mrs. John O'Donnell, 1401 Palm Drive; and George Netechailo of 1408 Palm Drive stating they had no objections to Mr. Jones' addition. Building plans were distributed to the Commission. Mr. Jones then addressed the Commission. He stated his application letter was written before he realized that with the addition of another bedroom !- he would have a parking problem necessitating a variance on the two -car garage required. He said there was no way to build a two - car garage on his lot, and brought photos of his carport illustrating it as an integral part of the house design. (Photos of his two cars showed he can park them in tandem on his driveway.) He noted the cars are not visible from other areas in the neighborhood. In reply to a Commission question he stated that the addition would not cause more than 40/ lot coverage and that it was not designed by the same architect who designed the house. There were no audience comments in favor of or against the variance. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg commented it seemed to be a well-built house, and apparently the two cars could be accommodated. He cautioned, however, that the Fire Department should approve for access. Commissioner Sine thought the design was excellent and he had no objections, except there was a parking problem. Commissioner Taylor had no comment. Commissioner Mink thought it would enhance the neighborhood, the only disadvantage being the parking. Commissioner Jacobs had no objections. Commissioner Kindig had no comment. At this point Mr. Jones informed the Commission the Fire Inspector had visited the p r nerty and said there was no problem with he 1 Fire Department . �-j"4lr ,N �� '" do rN D ' pm� w S , x;,o ' Chairman Cistulli emphasized the fact that the code provides that a three -bedroom house requires a two -car garage and that provision must be made for two parking spaces. He asked Mr. Jones if it would be possible to put a slab at the front of the house. Mr. Jones replied - 14 - it would ruin the design, and he had parked two cars tandem for seven years with no problem. Commissioner Sine moved that the application for variance to allow extension of non -conforming single family house without two garage or carport spaces at 1404 Palm Drive be approved. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried 6 - 1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, NORBERG, SINE, TAYLOR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 9. VARIANCE TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF 3-BEDROOM HOUSE DAMAGED BY FIRE AT 129 STANLEY ROAD, BEING LOT 8, BLOCK 35, LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION, T0WN OF BURLINGAME, ZONED R-1, BY HAROLD AND E STHE R BUZAN . Chairman Cistulli announced the hearing for this application, after which Secretary Jacobs read application letter under date of July 3, 1972. This communication states that this house and a rental unit on the rear of the lot have been on the tax rolls Since 1947 and the Buzans have owned the property since 1970. They wish to rebuild and improve the front dwelling. Mr. Buzan addressed the Commission. He declared that the fire actually offered an opportunity to improve the property by way of redesign, and mentioned that better parking would be accomplished by building a two car carport, and allowing room for a third car to park tandem. He reported it was his intention to rebuild the house using the existing shell, although it had not been possible to draw complete plans yet. This will be a lZ story house, with redesign and the addition of another bath. He felt rebuilding would enhance the value of the property and those near it. The 40/ lot coverage requirement would be met. Secretary Jacobs read a letter from Jeannette and Lloyd Kennady of 122 Stanley Road, attaching the signatures of 5 other property owners, objecting to the variance. The City Planner, in clarifying the application, commented that the reason for the variance is the non -conforming building with a rental unit on the rear of the property. The property had been on the tax rolls many years and the owner is interested in meeting the city codes; also, that it would not require on -street parking. Chairman Cistul.li requested audience comments in favor of this. variance. Mr. Helfrey of 133 Stanley stated he had no objections, there was plenty of space for parking, and there had never been any trouble wi'.h the property. N:r., Staner, also of 133 Stanley thought the increase of parkin; would be a real asset to the location. Comments against the variance: Mr. Thomas Bellucci of 114 Stanley feared this would be the start of changing to R-2. Mr. Lloycl Kennady of 122 Stanely objected - 1.5 - because this is an absentee landlord and the property has not been well maintained. Mr. Romoli of 29 Stanley objected for the same reasons. Mr. Basovich of 21 Stanley also objected. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned the issuance of building permits on this property. The owner stated he had been informed that building permits had been issued for both structures. Commissioner Sine thought the owner should not be penalized for rebuilding the front structure but considered the cottage in the rear a substandard structure with questionable utilities. Commissioner Norberg did not object to rebuilding the dwelling front but thought the rear building should be changed so it could not be used as living quarters. Commissioner Mink stated the front building should be rebuilt, but felt the one in the rear should be abated. Commissioner Taylor agreed that the rear structure should be either removed or brought to code. Commissioners Kiindig and Jacobs agreed. Commissioner Cistulli asked Mr. Buzan if he would be willing to remove the rear dwelling. Mr. Buzan countered with the idea that he could keep the cottage and not rebuild the front, since with present building costs he would be better off financially. The point was made that actually the cottage could not be brought up to present code since it is only 9" from the rear property line. Mr. Buzan asked if he could withdraw the application, and he was cautioned by the City Attorney that this withdrawal would limit reapplication for a one-year period. Commissioner Taylor moved that this application for variance to allow reconstruction of 3-bedroom lhouse at 129 Stanley Road be rejected. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. The applicant was informed he had the right of appeal to the City Council. 10. SPECIAL PEP.MIT ' FOR A LADIES READY-TO-WEAR STORE IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1047 BROADWAY (PORTION OF APN 026-233-010) OWNED BY DONALD D. AND N. L. TATEOSIAN) BY RHODA SMALL Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing, and Secretary Jacobs read application letter from Mrs. Small dated April 6, 1972. She stated she wished to rent this area from the lessee, Peninsula General Tire, for retail ready-to-wear, sample rooms, storage, and office. Because of part-time and evening hours and her specific type of business, there would be need for no more than two parking spaces. Secretary Jacobs also read letter from Louis Segal of Peninsula General Tire, approving Mrs. Small as their tenant. He read a letter from Burlingame Animal Hospital objecting to this use unless ample parking is provided. Mrs. Small addressed the Commission. She repeated that her retail business was not for foot traffic, but customers by appointment to pick up merchandise already sold them in their homes.. She needed an established business area for her business, and said she understood the space at the rear of the store will be closed off, enabling her to have the parking required. She would have a sign on - 16 - the door "By Appointment Only." There was no audience comment either for or against. Mr. N. L. Tateosian, owner of the property, stated that Peninsula General Tire had a five-year lease on this property with option to renew. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg questioned if the garage were included as part of the rental area. Mr. Tateosian stated he thought they plan to fill that.in to use as parking with the driveway that is there now. He commented that Dr. Gaffin had written his letter_ because other people had parked there. Commissioner Sine had no objections providing there was code conformance. Commissioner Taylor had no objections to the use. Commissioner_ Mink questioned if Mrs. Small would be agreeable to any consideration that would terminate at the termination of the lease. She indicated that would be acceptable. Commissioner Mink commented that this corner had outgrown its function and should be rezoned, but he felt the code requirements should be met. Mr. Tateosian stated he had long-range plans for improving the area. Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Kirdig questioned if the garage in question would be fixed so that the applicant could use as parking space. City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that this use would require ore parking space for every 400 feet of store area; the store is more than this area and at least 2 parking spaces would be required. There are no designated off-street parking spaces and the loc'ation has no on -street parking spaces. He noted that if the rear garage is used for parking, people must back out on to Broadway, which is a dangerous situation. He suggested that if this special permit is approved, it be limited to this particular occupant only. City Engineer Marr questioned fire requirements. Mrs. Small replied that the City Fire Inspector had only three requirements - a hand fire extinguisher, no additional electrical extension cords, and metal wastebaskets and containers. Commissioner Mink questioned if it were possible to combine this property with that of the antique store for purposes of parking, and he was informed by the City Attorney that the applications must be acted upon separately. Commissioner Mink then suggested that this application be continued for resolution of the parking requirements. Mrs. Small objected. The additional time element would damage her business, adding that she would not rent the upper floor and that area used would be only 650 square feet and that the open area in front of the garage could be used for two parking spaces. Commissioner Sine moved that this application be continued to the study meeting of August 14, Conpiss_oner Mink seconded the motion and it carried unanimously on voice vote. 11. RESCIND RESUBDIVISION MAP OF BLOCK.,LO. 1, "ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 4" 'PASSED BY CITY PLANNINIG COMMISSION AT REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1969 FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION. -17 - After Chairman Cistulli read application letter munication requested the with the recent agreemen the construction of the Bureau. announced this application, Secretary Jacobs from David Keyston of Anza Pacific. This com- resubdivision map be rescinded in accordance t with the Planning Staff in connection with San Mateo County Convention and Visitors There was no audience comment for or against. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig moved that the resubdivision map of Block No. 1, Anza Airport Park, Unit No. 4 be rescinded. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried unanimously on roll call vote. 12. RECLASSIFICATION OF 30 ACRES MOL BEING PARCEL A AND LOTS 3 - 7, BLOCK 3, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 5, DOTS 1 - 19, BLOCK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PA:ZK UNIT NO. 6, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND THE CONTIGUOUS ACREAGE BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED ANZA PACIFIC BOULEVARD, FROM A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) DISTRICT TO A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL _(C-4) DISTRICT BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION. Commissioner Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read letter of application from Anza Pacific Corporation which requested reclassification of this parcel in view of the settlement approved by the State Lands Commission with Anza Pacific requiring the development of this property in accordance with the restrictions of C-4 zoning ordinance. The letter commented this area should be rezoned prior to title being transferred to the State. There were no audience comments either for or against and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink moved that the staff be instructed to prepare a summary of hearing on this application, with findings and a resolution recommending this reclassification to the City Council. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. 13. AMEND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REVISION OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SERVICE STATION AT BROADWAY AND ROLLINS.ROAD This application was announced for hearing by the Chairman. Secretary Jacobs read application letter from Atlantic Richfield stating that variance was desired to conform with a recent change in the company's marketing policy eliminating service and using the station only for the dispensing of petroleum products. The letter stressed that the other conditions of the special permit with regard to easement, participation in street improvement costs, and parcel map would not be altered. There was no audience co --cent for or against this application and the public hearing was declared closed. There was no Commission comment with the exception of Commissioner Sine who questioned ARCO representative, T. T. Clausen., as to why IW there was onli rest room. Mr. Clausen replied that with the new n sales policy, cars move very fast and there is no delay. Commissioner Sine asked if Mr. Clausen would consider the cost of one more restroom prohibitive, and Mr. Clausen stated he would not. Commissioner Sine moved the amendment of the special permit issued to Atlantic Richfield Company for the station at Broadway and Rollins Road be approved in accordance with ARCO's letter of July 10, 1972 and contingent upon there being two restrooms. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously on roll call vote. 14. AMEND SPECIAL PERMIT FO,D REVISION OF OFFICE BUILDING AT SW CORNER OF BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND HINKLEY ROAD BY BOMAR INVESTMENT COMP A_NY . Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read letter of July 10, 1972 from Charles Boone of Bomar Investment Company stating site plan revisions were necessary because of several factors including engineering findings of a subterranean slough. This requires a piling and foundation system at excessive cost which can be recouped by adding a third story to the building. Secretary Jacobs also read a letter dated July 11, 1972 from Founders Title Company which stated they would insure the easement required on this property. Grant of easement has been executed by Henry and Lorraine Threefoot and agreed to in absentia by Alvin Christensen, evidenced by wire of June 29, 1972. City Planner Swan distributed the revised plot plan t.:o the Commission with explanations. He made the point that another factor to be con- sidered in building design is noise reduction to protect tenants from aircraft noises. There was no audience comment for or against this application, and the public hearing was declared closed. There was Commission discussion of a letter received from R. David Martin, Chairman, San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee, referencing this building, and stating that the Noise Exposure Forecast indicates that construction should be undertaken only after analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and necessary noise insulation features included in the design. City Planner Sean indicated to the Commission he thought the City was obligated to inform the Airport Land Use Committee of developments for their advisory action. Charles Poone, Bomar representative, stated they were quite concerned with this requirement, and were well aware of airport noises. Commissioner Kir_dig felt the Committee's action might be advisory at the present, but that they might well be more rigid after the building.was developed, Commissioner Mink moved that the application to amend the special permit for revision of office building at SW corner of Bayshore Highway and Hinkley Road by Bomar Investment Company be approved - 19 - and that the applicant be aware of the statement from the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee to help him in working with his noise protection problem. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous roll call vote. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADDING TWO SCREENS AND ALTERATIONS TO BURLINGAME AND PENINSULA DRIVE-IN THEATERS BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION FOR TENANT SYUFY ENTERPRISES. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for reconsideration. City Planner Swan explained that this application had been returned to the Planning Commission by action of the City Council after .revisions had been made to the plans which incorporate addition of only one screen. He distributed revised plans to the Commission, and showed slides of the existing screens. There was no audience comment for or against and the public hearing was declared closed. City Planner Swan commented he had conferred with BCDC about the limits of their jurisdiction_ in the Burlingame area. The proposed screen would be located within 100 feet of the drainage easement, and BCDC claims jurisdiction within this limit. David Keyston protested that he had specifically eliminated the screen he thought was within this jurisdiction, and wished to revise i the plan if the City must report this to BCDC before a building permit is issued. The City Attorney was requested to clarify the City's responsibility in this regard. He replied he thought the Commission had received specific direction from the Council on a past application approved by the Planning Commission on condition of BCDC approval where the Council, on appeal, approved the application unconditionally, expressly leaving to BCDC the enforcement of its own regulations. He felt that this does not present a problem to the Commission, and that the action of the Commission in this case will be a recommendation to Council either to approve or disapprove. There was further discussion of BCDC jurisdiction. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of revised plans for the special permit to add one screen and for alterations to Burlingame and Peninsula Drive-in Theaters by Anza Pacific, this permit to run concurrent with the existing lease and the existing tenant. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and it carried on the followings roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,CISTULLI NOES: C&U41SSIONERS: KIr7DIG,MI 1K ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - 20 - NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:15 a.m. to an adjourned meeting of August 14, 1972. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary