Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.02.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL' The above named members were present. CALL TO ,ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M. COMMENDATION At the onset of the meeting, Chairman Mink introduced Vice -Mayor Amstrup who addressed the Commission. The Vice -Mayor stated he personally wished to thank the Planning Commission and staff for their full attendance at a study meeting of the City Council for the purpose of discussion revision of the General Plan. He praised their cooperation and efforts in working out this joint problem. 1. APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND AN ORDER BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO VACATE PROPERTY AT 201 VICTORIA ROAD, ZONED R-1, BY CARMEN ROSE POINDEXTER. Chairman Mink requested report on this appeal from City Attorney Coleman. The City Attorney stated this is a hearing under the Uniform Housing Code subsequent to a notice by the Chief Building Inspector of a sub- standard building and his order to vacate. He stated Mrs. Poindexter had filed an appeal to this order; hence the hearing of this date. He informed the Commission their action should be to either uphold or deny the appeal. Subsequent to this action, he would prepare formal findings of the case for presentation and adoption at the meeting of February 24, 1975. City Attorney Coleman reported that Mrs. Poindexter had elected not to be present at this meeting and he received confirmation from the City Planner that the Commission had copies of her letter delivered in late afternoon of this date advising she would not attend. The City Attorney then briefly reviewed circumstances surrounding this order to vacate. On July 2, 1972, this structure had been heavily damaged by fire started by juveniles. Damage has never been repaired, and subsequent February 10, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg Councilman Amstrup Sine Fire Inspector Pearson Taylor Bldg. Inspector Calwell ROLL CALL' The above named members were present. CALL TO ,ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M. COMMENDATION At the onset of the meeting, Chairman Mink introduced Vice -Mayor Amstrup who addressed the Commission. The Vice -Mayor stated he personally wished to thank the Planning Commission and staff for their full attendance at a study meeting of the City Council for the purpose of discussion revision of the General Plan. He praised their cooperation and efforts in working out this joint problem. 1. APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND AN ORDER BY THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO VACATE PROPERTY AT 201 VICTORIA ROAD, ZONED R-1, BY CARMEN ROSE POINDEXTER. Chairman Mink requested report on this appeal from City Attorney Coleman. The City Attorney stated this is a hearing under the Uniform Housing Code subsequent to a notice by the Chief Building Inspector of a sub- standard building and his order to vacate. He stated Mrs. Poindexter had filed an appeal to this order; hence the hearing of this date. He informed the Commission their action should be to either uphold or deny the appeal. Subsequent to this action, he would prepare formal findings of the case for presentation and adoption at the meeting of February 24, 1975. City Attorney Coleman reported that Mrs. Poindexter had elected not to be present at this meeting and he received confirmation from the City Planner that the Commission had copies of her letter delivered in late afternoon of this date advising she would not attend. The City Attorney then briefly reviewed circumstances surrounding this order to vacate. On July 2, 1972, this structure had been heavily damaged by fire started by juveniles. Damage has never been repaired, and subsequent -2 - to the fire there was a series of investigations and reports by various city and county inspectors. There had been many efforts to get Mrs. Poindexter to vacate the house because of its hazardous and uninhabitable conditions. However, the City Attorney stated that a recent inspection by Fire Inspector Pearson and Building Inspector Calwell indicated she still lives in the property with no gas, no electricity, and only one water faucet functioning. The City Attorney distributed a letter of November 12, 1974 from the Health Department of the County of San Mateo listing conditions in each room of the dwelling which are hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the occupant, and stating the building should be vacated. He added that Fire Inspector Pearson had photographs of the damage and debris in this dwelling. Fire Inspector Pearson distributed to the Commission thirteen photographs taken on inspection on October 30, 1974. He identified these as being of the exterior of the house, the kitchen area, the living room, the rear bedroom, and the garage. These photographs depict fire damage, broken windows inadequately covered with plastic, and debris sometimes three feet deep. Inspector Pearson indicated he had a voluminous file of correspondence on this case which he offered as evidence. The City Attorney commented that all efforts to get Mrs. Poindexter to move have been futile. He gave the opinion that she needs help to get her out of the house before she hurts herself. He stated he is asking the Commission to uphold the decision of the city officials. Upon inquiry from the Chair, Building Inspector Calwell confirmed the statements of the Fire Inspector and the testimony of the pictures, adding that there have been many complaints from the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Francard's questions, the Fire Inspector confirmed there did not appear to be any way of cooking food or heating the dwelling. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if Mrs. Poindexter had ever been reimbursed for the damage to her property and if the juveniles had been apprehended. The City Attorney stated Mrs. Poindexter had not yet been able to reach a settlement with her insurance company, and remarked on the statute of limitations on insurance claims. Fire Inspector Pearson stated that he had talked to the Juvenile Probation Department but that the matter of reimbursement had not been pursued and he felt it was not within the province of the City. Chairman Mink summarized that her appeal is based on the fact she cannot vacate the property until she is convinced the property can be repaired; and that there is no doubt the property is an attractive nuisance at this time. Commissioner Sine questioned what the disposition of the property would be if the appeal is denied by the Commission. City Attorney Coleman replied that Mrs. Poindexter would be informed of the decision of the Commission, and he probably would have to enforce the notice and order in Superior Court. He added he was considering contacting the County with regard to a conservator. There was a discussion of legal competency. Commissioner Sine questioned what remedial measures would be taken by the City to protect the property from vandalism if she vacated it. The -3 - City Attorney stated Mrs. Poindexter should be required to board it up, clean out the debris because of the fire hazard, and eventually to repair it. Commissioner Taylor moved that the appeal of a notice of substandard building and an order by the Chief Building Inspector to vacate property at 201 Victoria Road by Carmen Rose Poindexter be denied. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Mink directed staff to prepare findings for approval at the meeting of February 24, 1975. ADJOURNMENT The adjourned meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M. following which the study meeting was conducted. 2. FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS ON METHOD OF OBTAINING FIRE PROTECTION AND SAFETY IN EXISTING APARTMENT HOUSES. Fire Inspector Pearson distributed copies of Section 1313 of Uniform Building Code which deals with fire measures for safety in apartment houses. He made particular reference to Paragraph (m) which deals with alternatives and requested Commission attention to this. Speaking with reference to interior stairway enclosures, he stated he is asking for approval of alternative to (f) which states in part, "Doors to such enclosures shall be protected by a self-closing door equivalent to a solid wood door not less than 1 3/4 inches thick." The alternate would be a built-up door which would have a 1 3/4 hour equivalent. Inspector Pearson noted that any fire which goes up a stairwell would go against the door. Many of the older apartment houses have interior doors in these locations rather than exterior doors. Their owners could build up the door rather than install a solid core door. Commission discussion followed of the cost of solid core doors versus built up doors. Mr. Robert Church entered the discussion with a suggestion that since most corridor walls are of 3/8" sheetrock and would be more exposed to the fire than the doors,that the walls be made one hour. One Commissioner agreed with Mr. Church; however, the Fire Inspector stated that at this time he is concerned with the doors. He noted that most apartment house walls are of wood lath and plaster which the Fire Department can accept, according to the code. There are no wooden corridors. Chairman Mink announced that this alternate as proposed by the Fire Inspector would be set for hearing on February 24, 1975. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A STRUCTURE MORE THAN 35' HIGH (PER ORDINANCE NO. 1025) IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 33 PARK ROAD (APN 029-223-010/020/ 100/110/120) BY SIDNEY BADGER FOR BURLINGAME CONDO ASSOCIATES. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 22 UNIT CONDOMINIUM (PER ORDINANCE NO. 1015) IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 33 PARK ROAD BY SIDNEY BADGER FOR BURLINGAME CONDO ASSOCIATES. Chairman Mink requested report from City Planner Swan on this application. -4 - The City Planner distributed revised plans for this condominium previously approved by the Commission. He noted the presence of Mr. Badger and of Mr. Tai Lam, architect. City Planner Swan reported the present project contemplates five floors for living units and one underground floor for parking. The lot is now vacant; has been rezoned to R-3. The previous number of units was 23; the number proposed is 22, composed of 18 two-bedroom and den units; two two-story units; and two units with a family room. Height of parapet wall is 54'9". The area calculated for lot coverage is 30.8.$. He stated his figures show coverage, excluding the pool, as 34%, and the area covered by the deck which covers the parking is 52%. He disapproved of the parking shown as being substandard in two areas. In an underground bay of 3 spaces, total width is 24'6"; 27'is required for 3 standard 9' wide parking spaces. Another parking area next to the pool shows 25'4" for three spaces. Emphasizing that a requirement for a condominium permit is parking which meets code regulations, he added that 38 spaces are shown for condominium parking and 6 guest parking spaces are shown. Condominium requirement is two spaces for each unit, and outdoor spaces designated for guest parking cannot be counted. He concluded there are problems with the proposed parking layout. Commission discussion of plans followed, with some concerns voiced about the possibility of dens and family rooms being used as bedrooms. Mr. Badger addressed the Commission relative to the substandard parking spaces. He stated many communities are allowing parking spaces designed for compact cars; and added that the guest parking shown could be considered as condominium parking instead since the code provides that only 80% of parking need be covered, and there was no mention in condominium requirements of guest parking. He stated, however, that if it is not possible to have compact car spaces, the parking could be redesigned. Commission disapproval of the compact spaces was indicated, and the City Attorney confirmed there appeared to be no requirement for guest parking in condominiums. City Engineer Davidson was of the opinion that a new condominium application should be made; and added with reference to the 60 degree surface parking that there was not sufficient driveway width to back out of stalls in the front setback. City Planner Swan remarked that Agenda Item #4 was an application for condominium permit, and requirements for such had not been satisfied to the point of setting this application for hearing. There was further discussion of methods of satisfying parking require- ments. Mr. Lam commented that the reason for this new proposal was the extreme expense of compliance with Fire Codes on the previous design. He considered that parking could be redesigned to meet Commission requirements. Chairman Mink stated these applications would be set for hearing at a later date after applicant had worked with staff in satisfying requirements. -5- 5. SIGN PERMIT FOR EXISTING 161 SF POLE SIGN 25' HIGH AT 1288 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY SAN FRANCISCO NEON FOR THOMAS LEONARDINI OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENT -A -CAR. Assistant City Planner Yost displayed colored rendering of this sign which he described as having three poles to support the sign and hold the two surfaces; one side of the sign is 7' x 10'; the other is 7' x 13' with a total area of 161 SF. The sign has interior illumination, white background with blue letters and red logo. He noted the sign has been in this location for some time, and the application is from a new owner with new copy. The sign height of 25' is non -conforming in this C-4 district; but the property was formerly zoned M-1 with a permitted sign height of 351. He introduced Mr. Dennis Clark, property manager, as applicant's representative. Chairman Mink noted the sign extended over the roof, and questioned application of roof sign ordinance. It was established, however, that it was a pole sign. Commissioner Sine questioned why the building inspector had not notified the new owner that the non -conforming sign must be taken down with change of ownership. The Assistant City Planner stated this had been done; hence the application for new permit. Mr. Clark added that the sign had been in existence for 8-10 years, and they are applying only for new copy. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. City Planner Swan remarked that with the approval of the special permit for Gulliver's Restaurant, American International Rent-A-Car was forced to move, and they had purchased this existing car rental property. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the 3' setback to the sign and asked what the setback was in C-4. The Assistant City Planner stated a sign in the front setback is not now permissible in C-4. Commissioner Taylor considered that the sign, if granted, should be in conformance with new zoning, and not more than 20' in height. Commissioner Francard questioned the width of the planting strip and was informed it was 4' behind the sidewalk. On a question from the Chair, the Assistant City Planner stated the application as presented should include an exception from setback requirements. Commissioner Kindig indicated he would prefer to see the sign before voting on it. Other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Sine questioned possible interference of colors with nearby traffic signal; and added a request that such sign exception hearings be shown as such on the agenda so that inspection could be made prior to the hearing. Chairman Mink announced this hearing would be continued to February 24, and requested staff to note specifically on study meeting agendas the exceptions which would be formally heard. Commissioner Sine requested that Mr. Leonardini be present at the hearing of February 24. 6. SIGN PERMIT FOR TWO WALL SIGNS OF 48 SF EACH AT 23 BRODERICK ROAD BY YALE INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS - BAY AREA. Assistant City Planner Yost distributed a drawing of the proposed signs. He stated this application is for a new firm which has no signage at WE present. The first sign is 48 SF located on the front of the existing building and comprises 3% of the front area. It is mounted within 1' of the top of the building. The second sign is also 48 SF mounted on the side of the building and comprising 2% of the surface area. The signs are interior illuminated, dark blue plastic with white letters. The signs fall within the tentative design guidelines. He stated the signs require no variance, and staff considers this to be a minor permit. He introduced Mr. Brewer as the applicant. Mr. Brewer stated these signs are.produced by an Eastern firm as standard signs and are flush mounted with a thickness of about 5". Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the sign touched the roof. Mr. Brewer stated it did not, and would be 2-1/2 to 3' below the roof line. Chairman Mink requested audience comments. There were none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned if the sign would be lighted through the evening. Mr. Brewer stated it would with low intensity fluorescent lighting. After several other Commission comments, Commissioner Jacobs moved that this sign permit be granted as per drawings submitted. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 7. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF BUS STOP SHELTERS (INTRODUCED AT JANUARY 27, 1975 REGULAR MEETING). Chairman Mink stated the plans for the proposed shelters had been submitted for review to the Beautification Commission. He noted this Commission's response which was a request that the Planning Commission table consideration until a proposal utilizing wood and natural materials was submitted in keeping with the identity of Burlingame. He asked for comment from the City Planner. City Planner Swan remarked that aluminum would be in keeping with the existing aluminum moldings in the Plaza area, but suggested that a bronze anodized finish could be obtained for $150 more per shelter. He indicated that unless the City contributes, money for shelters must come out of the Burlingame Transit budget which is submitted to the County this year. He was doubtful of budget money for bus shelters in the future. He stressed these shelters are immediately available from a South San Francisco vendor. Commission discussion followed, during which it was established that the Beautification Commission had no positive suggestion regarding an alternate bus shelter. One Commissioner thought the aluminum bus shelter on Murchison might do temporarily, but suggested the California Drive shelter as a starting point for the redwood shelters. Other Commissioners approved of the practicality of the inexpensive shelters and the fact they would fill a need which otherwise would be neglected. Chairman Mink requested the City Planner to investigate both the anodized bronze finish and the possibility of substituting earth tones for the white ceiling of the shelter. He also suggested colors comparable to the metal work on Burlingame Avenue. He announced decision on shelters would be made at meeting of February 24. -7- 8. COMMISSION REPORT ON ANZA MASTER PLAN. Chairman Mink referenced mailout of draft of report on Anza Master Plan with appendices A and B. This report is a statement of general findings with alternatives and recommendations. He stated the intent is to submit to Council in an abbreviated and useful form a summary of the information received while the Planning Commission was hearing this EIR. Chairman Mink reviewed the report in detail and asked for Commission comments. The consensus of the Commission was that the subcommittee had produced an excellent summary. Mr. David Keyston stated he would like to read and comment on the report before it was adopted by the Commission. This was considered appropriate by the Commission since hearings have been closed. Chairman Mink announced that this sub- committee report would be clarified and either adopted or rejected at the meeting of February 24. RECESS There was a brief recess at 9:30 P.M., after which the study meeting reconvened. 9. CODE AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN AND FENCE ORDINANCES The Commission briefly discussed draft ordinance incorporating these code amendments, with the consensus it was satisfactory. This was set for hearing at the meeting of February 24, 1975. 10. SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS IN M-1 DISTRICT. REFERRED BACK FROM CITY COUNCIL. City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that the Council subcommittee appointed to review the EIR for Code Amendments had approved all but two sections in the M-1 District Regulations, Section 25.42.055 - Coverage and setbacks, and Section 25.42.070 - Landscaping and design requirements. He suggested their thought could be that these sections as proposed are too restrictive. He referenced draft of proposed changes to these sections mailed to Commissioners and also to Messrs. David Keyston and Robert Brown for their review and comments. The City Planner reviewed a new draft which covered the following points: 1. Exclusion of lots of less than 10,000 SF from these requirements. He cited several lots of less than 10,000 SF where these requirements would cause a real hardship. 2. Front setback.of 25' to apply to buildings fronting on Rollins Road and Bayshore Highway. 15' front setback for other streets. 3. Side street setbacks of 15'. 4. Question on side and rear yards of 10'. 5. 10% landscaping. 6. Landscaping plans and specifications to be submitted to Park Director for approval. m¢m Commission discussion followed. The question was raised of specifying landscaping in the front and preventing parking. The City Planner pointed out that in some cases this would be too restrictive, especially since most projects are subject to review and would have to stand on their own merits. The City Engineer also stated that an occupancy permit would not be granted until the landscaping meets the require- ments of the Park Director and the Building Inspector. Mr. Keyston commented that the developer also wishes to make his project more attractive, and would certainly want to put landscaping in the front. Mr. Brown stated he thought originally proposed requirements were too restrictive and a waste of industrial property. He approved 70% lot coverage for all lots, irrespective of size. He considered the rear and side yards a waste also, stating they were originally set up for utility and emergency vehicle access, and had not proved workable. Instead they are often used as storage space. He thought the 25' front setback should apply to Old Bayshore and on the west side of Rollins Road, but pointed out that lots on the east side are subject to setbacks on two streets. He approved 15' front setback for this and all other streets. He thought 10% landscaping should apply to lots of all sizes. He approved landscaping plans subject to approval of the Park Director. However, he thought this specification should be subject to a time limit so that the developer is not held up on his project. He also questioned the use of the word, "structure" in Paragraph a. of the draft. Mr. Keyston agreed with all of Mr. Brown's points, stressing that when 10' side and rear yards are eliminated, it is practical to apply these restrictions to all lots - not just those over 10,000 SF. There was general Commission agreement that restrictions should apply to lots of all areas. Discussion followed on the "time limit" for Park Director approval. It was pointed out that there is no probability of wasted time on approvals with the present situation, but future change in the City's personnel should be considered. Chairman Mink pointed out that it is not the province of the Planning Commission to establish administrative rule. However, it seemed logical to him that an applicant to the City should have a reasonable time for staff consideration. He suggested a thirty -day "turn around" period. There was general Commission agreement. City Attorney Coleman stated he could draft this provision, but cautioned that care must be taken in the definition of a reasonable time and of staff respon- sibility. Considerable discussion followed on the other items, at the close of which Chairman Mink summed up Commission consensus as. - 1. s:1. Elimination of the 10,000 SF minimum lot size for restrictions. 2. "Improvement" in Paragraph a. to be deleted. 3. 25' front setback to apply to the west side of Rollins Road and Old Bayshore Highway. All other streets to be 151. 4. Side and rear yard restrictions to be eliminated. 5. Minimum of 10% landscaping required, subject to the approval of the Park Director. Tentative 30 -day approval period. Chairman Mink requested staff to prepare EIR amendment. The City Planner indicated it might be possible to have this considered at the hearing of February 24. 11. PROPOSAL TO PREPARE NOISE ELEMENT FOR GENERAL PLAN BY EARTH METRICS City Planner Swan told the Commission this element of the General Plan is due September 25, 1975.. He stated San Mateo County has not elected to do a joint noise element; the cities of San Bruno, Pacifica, and. South San Francisco are making a joint study; Millbrae has adopted a noise element; and Hillsborough is in the process of preparing theirs. He stated an unsolicited proposal had been received from Earth Metrics Inc. which would encompass preparation of noise control ordinance; noise mitigation; and guidelines to establish review techniques of noise producing developments. Their price is $8,000. He stressed the fact that this is highly technical data. Contracting for a firm to compile it would be a matter for Council allocation of funds. If this proposal were accepted, Earth Metrics Inc. has projected a date of June to have the material ready for hearing by the Commission. Commission discussion followed. It was considered advisable to have an outside firm prepare this General Plan element. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they enter into a contract with some firm to develop the technical data for the preparation of the Noise Element of the General Plan. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A STRUCTURE MORE THAN 35' HIGH IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 236 MYRTLE ROAD (APN 029-215-220,1230) BY ROY JOHNSON OF JOHNSON, COOK & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS) FOR CASA AMIGO-BURLINGAME City Planner Swan displayed site plan and floor plan for this develop- ment which he described as a conceptual approach for a four story group residence for the active elderly. He stated it satisfies parking and setback requirements and needs a special permit since it is over 35' in height. He stated it would satisfy a great need in this city, and he personally approved the idea. Mr. Roy Johnson elaborated on the development. He stated several have been built in other cities as alternatives to nursing homes or convalescent hospitals. In response to the City Attorney's question as to how the continued use could be guaranteed, Mr. Johnson stated the development would have a 40 -year FHA mortgage, the terms of which involve the age of the occupants and the approval of the licensing body, the Welfare Department of the State of California. Cost to the occupants would be between $450 and $550 per month. City Engineer Davidson remarked that he considered services in this area marginal, but would have more information by meeting date. Mr. Johnson introduced Mr. Blaine Walling, representative of the operating company, who went into details of the operation. People over sixty years of age, physically mobile and mentally capable of following directions are taken. Lodging is in single or shared rooms, and three meals per day are served., with attention to special diets. People who became bedfast or confused while at the home would be referred to their families for transfer elsewhere. The building would be 100% sprinklered and conform to fire codes. After Commission discussion, City Attorney Coleman was requested by the Chair to check the FHA documentation for evidence of continuing use; and the applicant was requested to bring evidence of a real - 10 - interest in the property. Mr. Johnson stated he had made an offer to buy the property.. The City. Engineer remarked that a parcel map would be necessary. A design of a sign for the development was displayed to the Commission. Chairman Mink set this application for hearing February 24, 1975. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-080) BY BRUCE FOX OF RAMADA CAR FOR RAMADA INNS,INC. Assistant City Planner Yost distributed plans for this project which he described as a motel -related car rental office with gasoline tank and car cleaning facilities located in back of the present motel. Unresolved issues are: the number of existing parking spaces at the hotel that will be lost with the installation -of the service facilities, the number of spaces to be designated for rental vehicles on the Ramada site, and the location of the long term, offsite storage area for additional vehicles. Mr. Art Ray of Ramada Car told the Commission long term vehicle storage was being negotiated with Anza Pacific. He did not know the actual parking figures on the Ramada property, but thought not too many spaces would be lost. Commission discussion included the necessity for complying with sewage regulations on the car wash and the location of the gasoline storage tank. The question of BCDC interest in the possible pollution of the nearby drainage channel was brought up. Chairman Mink summarized these unresolved concerns, and suggested the application be continued for one month to give staff time to receive adequate reports. in the course of the discussion following, it was established that no business license has been applied for, but the car rental is currently being carried on on the premises. It was also established that a sign for this property is already up. Chairman Mink suggested to the applicant that his company be informed to cease operation at the site until permit is obtained. City Attorney Coleman stated he would communicate with the Ramada operation to this end. Mr. Ray was requested to confer with staff to get proper material for presentation; and Fire Inspector Pearson was requested to work with staff on the fire requirements. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-PROFIT PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 731 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 028-141-070) BY ROBERT MASON OF "MR. BUILDER" FOR DAVID ADLER, PENINSULA CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC. Assistant City Planner Yost distributed drawings and updated site plans. He stated -proposal is to add a new second story to the existing 2 story main structure. He said that he, the Fire Inspector, and the Building Inspector had visited the site. They observed three illegal parking spaces in the front setback and other spaces which were substandard. They also observed the apparent use for school purposes of the second story of the main building. The original permit specified that only the first floor would be used for the school. Existing building "B" does not conform to the fire code. Building "C" contains studio apartment built on the rear and side property line. He noted this school is a nonprofit institution and is a conditional use requiring a special permit in an R-3 zone. Fire Inspector Pearson added he was disturbed by conditions on the site and had given notice to Mr. Adler to correct one of the fire hazards. Mr. Adler addressed the Commission, stating that the existing second floor of the main building was used for storage purposes, not for school. He.stated he could submit documentation of non-profit status of school, and added that 21 parking spaces were planned. Commission discussion followed. Because of unresolved aspects of the application, such as parking, this application was continued to a later date to allow the applicant and staff to determine the best approach. 15. UPDATE ON FLORIBUNDA GARDENS PROJECT AT 545 ALMER ROAD FOR PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS. Mr. Robert Church addressed the Commission requesting permission to have this application continued for 30 days because of a change in plans and contractor. City Planner Swan commented it would be advisable to have an updating of the permission of the property owner to continue with this project. Mr. Church agreed to obtain this permission. Chairman Mink announced this application would be continued for the 30 day period. 16. RECLASSIFICATION OF SEVEN (7) LOTS IN BURLINGAME PARK FROM R-1 TO R-3. City Planner Swan reviewed that at a joint study meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on the 15th of January there was agreement that 7 lots could be rezoned so that the General Plan could be made identical to the zoning map in Burlingame Park. Discussion of mechanics of noticing property holders followed, and it was agreed that detailed letters would be sent to surrounding property holders as well as the formal noticing in the newspapers. This item was set for hearing at the meeting of February 24. 17. RECLASSIFICATION OF THREE (3) LOTS IN EAST BURLINGAME FROM R-1 TO R-3 OR R -3A. City Planner Swan stated that these three lots had also been agreed upon for rezoning at the January 15 study meeting, and questioned if they should be made R-3 or R -L -3A. Commission consensus was that rezoning should be R-3. It was decided that detailed notices and newspaper advertising would also be sent on this reclassification. This item was set for hearing February 24, 1975. 18. ANZA PACIFIC REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AVIS CAR SALES AT 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY City Planner Swan presented this agenda item as instigated by Council request to process an application to.permit Avis Car Sales in the waterfront commercial district. For information he referenced the August, 1966 Commission action by which Avis was given a special permit to operate a car rental agency. Anza Pacific letter of application of August 8, 1966 was for this rental agency ". . . with storage of rental cars, used car sales, and a nominal shop facility ." However, the Commission motion granting the permit did not detail useage, simply approving the special permit ". . . in accordance with - 12 - site plan on file, the property frontage to be fenced and landscaped ." Therefore he considered that Avis Car Sales does not have a permit to retail used cars, hence the request for special permit application from them. He stated Mr. David Keyston considered they do have a permit, by virtue of the earlier action, and opposes this request for another application. Mr. David Keyston confirmed he considered that this request for car sales permit had already been granted. City Attorney Coleman stated the crux of the matter is to determine whether or not Avis Car Sales is acting in violation. He questioned that there was necessary Commission action in this matter, since it is an apparent difference of opinion between Avis and the City as to whether or not they have the right to sell cars. He stated he wished to research the matter to determine the City's position. There was some Commission discussion. Chairman Mink stated he considered the matter to be in the hands of staff; and for the purposes of record, there was no special permit request submitted, and one was not considered at Mr. Keyston's request. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan announced the Commissioners' Dinner would be held on March 14, 1975. In response to questions from Commissioner Jacobs, City Attorney Coleman stated the Pro Ski and Sports case was to be set for trial; and that the Snappy Photo Shop on Broadway had changed its awning sign to conform. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary