HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.03.22THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
March 22, 1976
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
Sine
Taylor
ROLI. CAT.T.
The above named members were present.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular.meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P. M.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of March 8, 1976 were approved as written
with the following corrections:
Page 1, last line, 2,000 cubic feet
Page 3, 4th paragraph, first line ". .could not disclaim . ."
if .it it , fourth line ". was able to distinguish ."
Page 5, under DRIVEWAYS: ". . .eventual self -containment of some lots."
it 11 : delete ". .58 more parking spaces." and
add a number of added parking spaces."
Page 8, second paragraph, fourth line: .above the review line
of 200 SF for this . ."
SPECIAL COMMENDATION FOR COL. E. L. NORBERG
At this point Chairman Sine announced that a special event would
take place honoring Col. E. L. Norberg on the occasion of his retire-
ment from the Planning Commission after 20 years of service.
Chairman Sine noted the presence in the audience of Mrs. Hollis
Norberg, and the Norbergs' children, Bettina and David Coleman and
Willard and Mrs. Norberg. Also present were Councilman and Mrs.
Amstrup, Councilman and Mrs. Crosby, former Councilman Dorothy
Cusick, Councilman Martin, Mr. and Mrs. Burress Karmel, former
Planning Commissioners Stivers and Cistulli, City Clerk Hill, Mrs.
Sine, Mrs. Kindig, Mrs. Swan and others. The following program
included remarks by Chairman Sine and City Planner Swan, reading of
resolution from Commissioner Taylor, a poem, presentation of plaque,
and special presentation of Viking helmets by the Burlingame
Historical Society. Chairman Sine then invited friends and press
to a reception for Col. and Mrs. Norberg in the coffee shop.
Commissioner Taylor moved adjournment of the meeting, Commissioner
Jacobs seconded and the motion carried by voice vote.
RECONVENE
The regular meeting reconvened at 8:30 P. M.
- 2 -
1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 11
AND 12, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 2 (RSM VOL. 65/28) AT 383-399
BEACH ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORP.
(LESSEE) AND LAWRENCE CRIVELLI (PROPERTY OWNER.)
Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. Staff report
by City Engineer pointed out that this is a division of one lot
into two parcels "D" and "E" and the creation of another Parcel "C".
One lot line is the centerline of a 6" wall of an existing building
and this must be a common wall. The City Engineer indicated he
wished a designation to show on the final map of this common wall
property line. There is a designation on the tentative map but
none on the final. He noted the tentative map shows the fire
system for the building with the two parcels separately valved and
the valves accessible from outside. He stated it does seem that
the sprinkler system can be operated individually. He requested
that the existing property line on Parcel C that is being eliminated
be designated on the final map as abandoned., Also the applicant is
designating the 20' easement for channel maintenance along the west
property line of Parcel C but it is not clearly designated as to
what is existing and what is proposed, and this should be clearly
indicated. The City Engineer added he would like to see all of the
new property corners established in the field. As a last point, he
stated in regard to signatures on the title page, one sheet is in
error, and asked that map be conditioned upon correction of signatures.
The City Engineer reported that with the exception of the above
points, the map appears technically correct. He deferred to the City
Attorney and the City Planner for additional comment.
City Attorney Coleman spoke to the requirement of the building code
which states that openings in building walls must be 20' from the
property line. This is in relation to the building on Parcels D
and E. He was not sure if the window in the building on Parcel D
was 20' away from the diagonal property line which is the boundary
of Parcel E. He commented that the Commission has the authority
to waive this building code requirement. The City Attorney also
noted that on the map is a section about the common wall agreement.
In his opinion that section is unnecessary since the common wall
agreement is between two lessees. He considered important only
the designation of a common wall on the map.
Mr. David Keyston told Commissioners that he did not object to any
of the conditons brought up by the City Engineer, and he could have
the map corrected by the next day. He noted that his engineer had
been instructed to draw the diagonal line 20' away from the opening,
and stated if it is within 10'-20' he would have wire glass put
into the windows that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Jacobs brought up minimum requirements for M-1. Mr.
Keyston commented with relation to landscaping that open water near
this building tends to offset landscaping.
Commissioner Mink moved that the Commission accept the tentative and
final maps with the agreement of the property owner that signatures
be withheld until the conditions are met that are enumerated by
the City Engineer. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it
carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioner Norberg absent.
- 3 -
2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS
32,33,34,35 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 28129,30 AND 31, BLOCK NO. 5,
.EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2 (RSM VOL. 52/4,5&�' 6)
AT 845,855 STANTON ROAD, ZONED M-1 BY MARTIN M. RON ASSOCIATES
FOR UNITED AIRLINES (LESSEE) AND WELLS FARGO BANK (PROPERTY OWNER.)
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. City Engineer
Davidson reported that this was a resubdivision to eliminate interior
property lines; that it was technically correct and he recommended it
for approval.
Commissioner Mink questioned the change in wording for property
owner mentioned at the study meeting. Mr. A. J. Kaiser of United
Airlines stated that United Airlines is not the lessee but the
beneficiary under a trust, and that Wells Fargo Bank holds the
property for them.
There was little Commission comment.
Commissioner Mink moved acceptance of this tentative and final
parcel map for United Airlines, beneficiary of a trust held by
Wells Fargo. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried
on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioner Norberg absent.
3. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-35P, FOR PROPOSED
3 STORY OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 1203 HOWARD AVENUE, BY JOSEPH
GELLER
After Chairman Sine introduced this application for consideration,
he called upon the City Planner for report.
City Planner Swan distributed copies of a letter received this date
from Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson, Horn. He also distributed
a diagram which indicated the boundary between C-1 and R-4. He
commented on EIR 7-P for a building at 1240-60 Howard Avenue. This
EIR referred to a DeLeuw Cather report that recommended developments
higher than two stories or with more than 15,000 SF in floor area be
required to obtain a special permit from the City Council, and suggested
an "in lieu" contribution to the Burlingame Parking Authority. The
present regulations require a special permit when a building covers
more than 75% of the total lot area. The net result of this zoning
code amendment would appear to be betterment of the Burlingame Avenue
parking district. He noted that Resolution 2-74 recommended that
new downtown parking district regulations be implemented.
The required special permit makes it a discretionary project.
A discretionary action is subject to environmental assessment. An
Assessment was made on this project and the recommendation by the
City Planner was that an EIR should be prepared. The applicant was
to prepare an EIR. He stated that such has been done, but whether
it is adequate, accurate, and complete is a decision for the Commission
to make. He then quoted from his report to the Commission on why
an EIR was required, "An EIR is an informational document. The
purpose is to inform public decision makers and the general public
of the environmental effects of projects they propose to carry out
or approve. The EIR should determine significant effects, explore
reduction of adverse impacts and consider alternatives."
- 4 -
The City Planner told Commissioners the draft EIR was received
March 8 and there was insufficient time for review and thorough
evaluation before the March 8 meeting. He said his preliminary
evaluation states a reasonable alternative would be a commercial
building of less than 35' in height that covers less than 75% of the
lot. One of the requirements of an EIR is to consider alternatives.
The draft EIR does not present any alternatives. One of the alternatives
must be a "no project." If less than 75% of the lot was covered,
the project could go ahead with a building permit. The rear property
line is the boundary line between C-1 and R-4 districts. This is also
the boundary line of the parking assessment district. If as an
alternative a three story apartment building were proposed, it would
be required to provide a 20' rear yard. This would provide sufficient
light and air for the people living 10' from,the property line.
The City Planner contended they would notice an impact of a building
located 10' from their windows. Therefore he recommended that the
three story office building be permitted with a 20'3" rear yard and
3' side yard along Lorton Avenue. There would be a setback. A
tree would be saved and coverage would be 74.96%.
In reply to questions from Commissioner Francard, the City Planner
stated that tenancy was not determined on the ground floor and this
would make a small difference in the parking area required.
Mr. Joseph Geller was granted permission to address the Commission.
He stated he had been a member of the Millbrae Planning Commission,
practiced law, and considered he was intelligent and would not
misunderstand regulations. He had met with Mr. Swan a number of
months ago and knew what he could do with the property, since he had
read the code. He knew that a special permit would be required if
it was desired to exceed 35' or 75%. However, he stated, the ordinance
reads that a special permit is granted by the City Council, and he
understood that the material is first heard by the Planning Commission
and then by the City Council. He stated he did not think that the
staff made decisions; that it was his prerogative to apply.
Mr. Geller stated he was advised on February 9 that an EIR would
be required and was given a copy of a previous EIR covering the
Security Pacific building addition as a guide. He said he used this
EIR, copied it almost verbatim, and delivered it for the March 8
meeting, at which time he was advised it was incomplete.
Mr. Geller referenced City regulations (Resolution No. 26-73)
which provide that if the City Planner finds that a project has a
significant impact, he should so report, then shall prepare an EIR.
He noted he was told to prepare his own.
Mr. Geller then went on to reply in detail to written critique of
his EIR from the City Planner. Some points of the critique and his
replies follow:
Critique states his EIR does not include sufficient information
about the immediate area: in his EIR there is a description of the
project on Page 1, and a section on "characteristics." This
language was taken directly from the Security Pacific EIR 7-P.
The only difference is that there is an R-4 district behind Mr.
Geller's property. The critique has a discussion about rear yard
- 5 -
setbacks: there is no ordinance requiring rear yard setbacks in a
C-1 zone. The critiquestates that front yard setback could be
considered to apply to street frontage in C-1: Mr. Geller questioned
if this is legal opinion. Critique states EIR is deficient because
no mitigation measures have been proposed: EIR 7-P for Security
Pacific states "No mitigation measures have been proposed by the
applicant . ." and was approved. Critique states, "There was no
mention made of increased demand for parking space": Geller's
EIR states ". . impact of the improvement will be felt within a
block radius, except that parking spaces within walking distance
may be affected with an increased demand for parking." This language
also came from EIR 7-p. Mr. Geller stated he doubted his project
would have more impact than Security Pacific. He commented on a
recent newspaper article on an EIR study which declared that the
process of EIR reporting had grown to a "paperwork blizzard."
Mr. Geller noted critique statement that "Reasonable alternatives
to the project have not been included.'.': He stated none had been
included because he did not see any in the sample EIR given him.
Mr. Geller pointed out that the restriction on buildings of more
than two stories had been in effect only during the emergency ordinance.
A new ordinance had permitted a height of 35', which in his opinion
meant that a three story building could be erected without a special
permit.
He then referred to a recent Planning Commission approval of a project
in the downtown parking district where, he stated, it was the opinion
of staff and Commission that because the applicant had paid into
the parking district he could cover 100% of his lot because he had
taken no credit on his bonds. Mr. Geller suggested that his
property was in the same category. Noting that he could build
without a special permit if he covered only 75% of the lot, he stated
that if he chose to put parking in he could get only four spaces
in tandem. Mr. Geller went on to say he did not mean to suggest that
the construction of a building does not add to the parking situation,
but he would suggest that any parking problem is a problem of the
parking district unless people want to stop all development. He
was not suggesting that the parking problem be ignored, but he did
not think the City was going to be able to require each site to have
its own parking if it is in the parking district and has been paid.
Again, he submitted that parking is a problem of the district and
not a problem of the building itself, and requested that the Planning
Commission .aDnsider his EIR adequate in proceeding to consideration
of the special permit.
There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment
and the public hearing was declared closed.
In response to a question from Commissioner Jacobs regarding ground
floor use, City Planner Swan replied that if it is a.walk-in
commercial use there will definitely be an impact on parking. If the
proposed project were located outside of the parking district 48
parking spaces would be required, but if it covered 75% of the lot,
37 parking spaces would be required. He said that it would be
rather short-sighted to say that a project that would require
- 6 -
at least 37 parking spaces would have no impact. He thought the
relative distance to parking space must be considered because
tenants will come by bus and by car. The people who live there do
not wish that type of impact.
Commissioner Mink made the following suggestions for the EIR:
Page 1, paragraph 1, line 5. Correct typo "Assessors Parch No."
Under "Characteristics", inasmuch as this EIR will be the report of
this Commission, he felt it is imperative that the relationship of
this site to a 4th residential district be made a part of this
section. Page 2, "Impact of Project on People." This site will have
an occupancy of 40 or more people. He suggested that in the section
called "Impact" . .he would like to have some statement included that
because of the lack of parking on the site and in the immediate vicinity
of the site additional vehicular traffic will occur on and near the
site. Next section "Effects of the Completed Project" he would add
under paragraph 1 "Because of the lack of on-site parking pedestrian
traffic will be increased:t Next section "Noise Level" - It has become
the Planning Commission's custom to have a demolition statement. He
would like to have a statement from the applicant that during the
demolition and construction period noise will be controlled in the
site area. "Air and Water Pollution" - Because an older building will
be demolished and because construction will take place, there will
be dust in the area. During the demolition period there should be
some statement of air quality. Page 3, "Adverse Environmental Effects" -
he would suggest that at a minimum, because this is adjoining a
residential district, some mention of the adverse effect of a 35'
building on the property line of an adjoining residential area
should be there. Also, increased auto traffic in the site area is
adverse. Under "Mitigation Measures", he thought there were many
and some should be listed. He suggested as a mitigation that estab-
lishment of setbacks be included and that the EIR should contain some
statement of parking on site. With regard to the dust and debris
which will occur, there should be some statement about sprinklering
or monitoring the building to protect the R-4 district. There should
be some estimate of the traffic caused by construction vehicles.
He suggested there be discussion of possible excavation of sub-
surface parking. At the very minimum he thought mitigation should
include the following four:
1.
2.
3.
4.
No project
Reduce.coverage to 75%
Alternate use
Inclusion of parking at or below surface.
In the section "Relationship Over Time", he thought it should be more
explicit that the property will be used as an apartment building
until construction commences. Next section "Environmental Changes" -
it must be stated that because there will be a loss of sight distance
and setback this will create environmental change. Another change:
increased auto and pedestrian traffic. Also reduces the housing
stock of the city.
"Boundaries of the Affected Area" - would like to separate into
two sections: impact of pedestrian traffic within one block area.
Impact of parking in the SE quadrant of Burlingame Parking district.
- 7 -
"Summary and Conclusions" - typos - in two places area should be
15,000 SF rather than 1,500.
For these reasons, he thought a new draft was needed.
Commissioner Francard remarked he was uncertain as to the respon-
sibility of the Planning Commission in regard to the parking district
and the setting of maximum or minimum requirements.
Commissioners indicated agreement with Commissioner Mink's remarks.
Mr. Geller repeated that he understood the Planning Director was to
draw up the EIR but that he was told to do it himself. However, he
suggested that the comments that Commissioner Mink had made be
incorporated into the EIR by addendum so that hearing could proceed
on the special permit. Commissioner Taylor objected that the environ-
mental impact would not be adequately covered by this method.
Commissioner Mink added that in his opinion the last sentence in the
EIR, "Construction of the proposed building will have no adverse
effect upon the urban downtown area." /1br1anTM1%%6d some discussion
relative to rewriting the EIR. Commissioner Taylor moved that this
EIR be referred back to staff to prepare it for examination and
evaluation of the remarks by the Commission as to adequacy. Commissioner
Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote,
Commissioner Norberg absent.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned whose obligation it is to rework
this EIR so that it is adequate. City Attorney Coleman stated that
the rules do say that staff does prepare the EIR. It has been the
practice to have the developer do it, but certainly the Commission
can direct staff to do it. City Planner Swan referenced Resolution
26-73, Section 7.5, "The City Planner may require the applicant to
provide all or part of the base data on the proposed project and
its environment." He stated that when the Council studied Resolution
26-73, their intent for the preparation of.EIRs was that the City
Planner shall prepare or cause to be prepared an EIR for the project.
He added that he thought all concerned could work together to come
up with what has been recommended, encompassing all that has been
discussed and it could be returned to the Commission at the April 12
meeting for action with the assistance of Mr. Geller.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT
COVERAGE AT 1203 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-224-060) ZONED C-1,
BY JOSEPH GELLER.
Commissioner Taylor moved this agenda item be continued. Commissioner
Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT ON UNCLASSIFIED LAND AT
1190 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY NAJIM M. KHAN (LESSEE) WITH SOUTHERN
PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER). (ND -80P
POSTED 3/11/76)
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing and requested
staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners this
request was to allow the existing railway depot to be used as a
restaurant. There had been two previous applications, of which the
first had been approved in 1970 for Joseph Fena for "Broadway Joe's"
- 8 -
This was a non -transferable permit. Three years later Mr. James
Lewellyn appeared before the Commission for a similar permit, since
he had leased the restaurant and had not been informed of the non-
transferable status. The permit was granted to him, and it too was
conditioned as non -transferable.
The Assistant City Planner reported that Mr. Fena had again sold
Broadway Joes on January 2, 1976 to Mr. Khan. Mr. Khan concluded a
5 -year lease with SP on January 17, 1976 with a condition that the
depot should be used solely for the operation of a restaurant. Mr.
Khan's first information that a special permit was required was when
he had come to the City for a sign permit for his opening. He
had subsequently filed an application for special permit. Negative
Declaration ND 80P has been completed and filed March 11 and states
the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The Assistant City Planner commented that if Mr. Khan is granted
this permit he intends to install signs which are within the code,
and he has been informed that roof signs are prohibited and his
temporary sign should be removed.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment
and the public hearing was declared closed.
The Chairman noted receipt of a racially biased letter on this
application and stated it would not be read because it was unsigned.
Commissioner Jacobs noted this is the second time the business
has been sold with the purchaser not knowing that the permit was not
transferable. She questioned the City Attorney if this could not
be made a matter of record on the property as with some other special
permits. The City Attorney commented that previous restrictions on
conditional use permits have been a matter of property record by
resolution, but that would be difficult to do with an SP lease. He
suggested this type of problem would exist until all business licensees
are required to read city codes.
Commissioner Mink suggested that documents such as Mr. Khan's
report of 2/26/76 specifying 12 points for granting this application,
and copy of his lease agreement be made a part of the record.
Commissioner Taylor suggested the permit be conditioned by a statement
by Mr. Khan in writing that he is aware of the prohibition of roof
signs. Mr. Khan informed Commissioners of the difficult construction
of the building which limits where signs can be posted. Assistant
City Planner Yost agreed that this is a difficult building, but
emphasized that installation of the new restaurant sign in its
proposed location over the entrance door would be prohibited as a
roof sign.
Chairman Sine reminded Commissioners that the decision at hand was
that of the special permit.
In response to question from Commissioner Kindig, Mr. Khan averred
that both lunches and dinners would be served. Commissioner
Kindig stated there could be problems with noon -time parking on the
SP lot.
- 9 -
Commissioner Jacobs moved this special permit be granted to Mr.
Khan only and that it be non -transferable. Commissioner Kindig
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote,
Commissioner Norberg absent.
Chairman Sine commented Mr. Khan was imposed upon by the person from
whom he bought the business. On a question from Commissioner Jacobs,
City Attorney Coleman stated it should be clearly understood that
any erection of a roof sign on these premises would be a basis for
revocation of this permit.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITIES IN
M-1 DISTRICT AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-262-270) BY ANN MORI
OF PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER (REAPPLICATION: EXPIRED SPECIAL
PERMIT APPROVED SEPTEMBER 23, 1974)'(ND-81P POSTED 3/11/76)
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. Assistant
City Planner Yost.reported to Commissioners that part of this application
is for eight tennis courts located under the P.G.E. wires to the
rear of 1730 Rollins Road. This area is presently undeveloped and
is approximately 140' x 570'. In addition to the tennis courts
there are also proposed a basketball court, volley ball court, tennis
practice area, running track, and a grass picnic area. He noted that
Commissioners had copies of preliminary plans. However, these plans
do not have sufficient detail for the City Engineer to review the
drainage nor the Park Director to review the landscaping. A
minor code exception will also be required in that tennis fences
will be about 12' high, twice the code maximum of 6'. A fence up to
12' has been approved by P.G.E., if properly grounded. The Assistant
City Planner noted that the 8 courts will be in two phases. The
first four courts will be built this year and the remaining four
in 1977-78. He went on to say that access would be from the
existing facilities on Rollins Road over a spur line owned by the S.P.
Railroad. A private agreement has been executed by the SP for this.
The Assistant City Planner mentioned parking as a concern. There
are 36 parking spaces at 1730 Rollins Road at present and no
additional spaces are proposed to serve the 8 new courts. He stated
that the City zoning code has no parking standards for an establishment
of this type. However, he thought that the peak hours of operation
of the Sports Center will probably not overlap those of industrial
firms in the area, and that street parking might be available. The
Sports Center has represented that it is now the owner of the property
under the P.G.E. wires, but no documentation had been presented yet.
A letter had been received from the property owner of 1730 Rollins
Road agreeing to this application. However, if the lease should
lapse, the tennis courts would have no parking and no direct access
from a public street. He suggested conditioning the permit on the
maintenance of a valid lease at 1730 Rollins Road.
Miss Ann Mori of Peninsula Sports Center was given permission to
address the Commission. She told Commissioners that the leased
property at 1730 Rollins Road and the property under the P.G. & E.
wires could never be separated. The tennis courts could not exist
by themselves because they have no restrooms. All facilities of
this type are at 1730 Rollins Road.
Commissioner Kindig asked her to verify that she would have no
-- 10 -
objection to incorporation in the motion to approve that the
permit would be valid only as long as the lease was in effect. Miss
Mori agreed to this.
Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Jack Bellevue
addressed the Commission and stated the Commission had given him
the original permit for this establishment four years ago. He
considered that the parking had been overestimated, and stated he
had never seen the parking area over one-third full.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Mink noted the negative declaration. He informed
Commissioners that he and Miss Mori had worked for the same
organization for the past several months on a study of private and
public recreational facilities. He did not consider this a conflict
of interest.
Again, the Assistant City Planner questioned the present ownership
of the property under the P.G. & E. wires. Miss Mori stated it was
in escrow, awaiting final cost analysis. There uas a probability
of closure on March 24. She has an option until March 31.
City Attorney Coleman confirmed that the permit could still be given
on this basis. City Engineer Davidson suggested that the permit
be conditioned upon receipt of drainage detail.
Commissioner Jacobs moved that this special permit be approved
conditional upon.plans being given to the City Engineer for drainage
and to the Park Director for landscaping. In addition, the 12'
fence is to be allowed, and the permit is to run concurrently with
the lease on the 1730 Rollins Road property. Commissioner Kindig
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote,
Commissioner Norberg absent.
RECESS
There was a short recess at 10: 30 P. M. after which the meeting
reconvened.
7. VARIANCE FROM SIDEYARD REQUIREMENTS AT 1315 BENITO AVENUE
("N 27-194-050) ZONED R-1 BY MICHAEL & ANNE MC GETTIGAN.
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing and requested
staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners this
is an application to allow an existing two bedroom one bath house to
be expanded. There are three children in the family and they share
one bedroom at present. The applicant wishes to add a two -car garage
to the house with a master bedroom and bath over it. This addition
will be built to the boundary line of the adjacent 7' public easement.
The lot coverage with the addition and the present single car garage
will be 38.5%. He noted the exceptional circumstances of this property
and drew attention to the location plan. He stated that this lot
is 25% smaller than the average observed between the 18 neighboring
properties. He gave as staff opinion the idea that this addition
would allow the existing house to be enlarged with less visual
impact than if a second story were constructed according to
code over the main portion of the house. He noted, however, that the
addition will result in reduced access to the rear yard. The Assistant
City Planner commented that possibly a gate or removable section
of fence should be required to the rear of the addition for fire
department access from the public easement. He thought with this
reservation the addition could be recommended. He -introduced Mr.
Michael McGettigan, who had nothing to add to his remarks.
At the Chairman's request for correspondence, Secretary Jacobs
read a petition with seven signatures from neighbors who indicated
they had no objection to the addition. She also read letter from
Mr. and Mrs. A. D. Dingle, 2704 Easton Drive, in opposition'to the
application.
Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Al Tucker, 2710
Easton, responded. He questioned if this variance would set a
precedent. Chairman Sine replied that each application had to stand
on its own merits. Mr. Tucker questioned how it would affect the
value of the property and if it would crowd the area. Chairman Sine
replied that in his opinion it would upgrade the property and noted
it was within legal 40% lot coverage. Mr. Tucker then indicated
he had no objection to the application.
Mr. William Gullett of 1312 Alvarado complained that there were
more and more applications for variances and(bjected because this
addition would limit the open space. Chairman Sine again noted that
the lot coverage is within 40% and commented that it is within
anyone's right to ask for a variance at any time.
Mrs. McGettigan spoke to the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Dingle and
pointed out that the addition would only be 2-3' higher than the
existing house, and no one's privacy was being violated because the
easement was next to the addition, and no windows would be located
on that side of the addition. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was declared closed.
Chairman Sine stated he had visited the site March 21. Commissioner
Jacobs said she had visited the site and she considered the addition
would be less obvious than some in the city. She questioned ownership
of the easement, and while it was identified as a public easement,
no definite assignment of ownership was made. She was concerned
with fire access to the property. City Attorney Coleman suggested
the variance be conditioned upon sufficient access.
Commissioner Mink referred Commissioners to Code Section 25.54.020
for review of conditions for granting a variance. He considered
the requirements met as follows: Section A, exceptional circumstances -
lot is smaller than others and side yard easement is a matter of
record and abuts rear yards of two other properties. Section B,
variance necessary for enjoyment of property - from evidence
presented it is. Section C, variance granting not to be detrimental
to public health, safety and welfare - if fire access from the easement
is accomplished this would be met. Section D, zoning not to be affe:ted
- no. Commissioner Taylor identified Commissioner Mink's remarks as
a finding of fact for a variance, and stated he.concurred with it.
In reply to a question Mrs. McGettigan stated the present single
- 12 -
garage would be taken down.
Commissioner Jacobs moved that this variance be granted with the
condition of appropriate access in conformity with Fire Department
regulations and Building Department approval. Commissioner Taylor
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote,
Commissioner Kindig noting he voted for it in view of the 7'
easement.
8. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
WITH MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS AT 2000 DEVEREUX DRIVE (APN 025-212-280)
ZONED R-1 BY EDWARD AND BERNADETTA DOWD.
Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested
staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners it is
proposed to expand this 3 bedroom 2 -bath house with 2 more bedrooms
and one additional bath. This addition is to form a second story
over the existing two car garage.
A variance has been requested because the present garage is only 17'
wide, or 3' too narrow to meet code. The Assistant City Planner
quoted Code Section 25.70.03 which prohibits the addition of
bedrooms to single family homes with 2 or more bedrooms unless two
full size parking spaces are available.
He also noted a second variance is required from side yard requirements.
The rear portion of the garage has been reported by Mr. Dowd to
be just under 1' from the.side property line. A second floor addition
on this garage would normally require a side yard of 6'. Commenting
that plans of the existing house and the addition had been distributed,
he noted there had been a question at the study meeting of whether
elevations were adequate. He introduced Mr. Dowd for comment.
Mr. Dowd displayed a new elevation of the plan. This was not an
architectural rendering, but for informational purposes. He affirmed
there was no practical way to enlarge the existing garage, and stated
he had made a mistake on the side dimension, which was shown as 2'
and is actually 3' or more. He added that on that side yard he
also owned a triangular shaped piece of the adjacent lot. He
considered this was added at the time the property was developed to
get a side yard clearance for the house and garage. Mr. Dowd also
submitted photos taken of the neighborhood from the top of his
garage, to illustrate that the addition would not overlook any windows.
Commissioners were confused by the drawing which seemed to indicate
a larger addition than two bedrooms and bath. Mr. Dowd explained
that this drawing was merely an artist's rendering. Several
Commissioners considered they needed a final architectural design.
Mr. Dowd explained he did not want to go to the expense of an
architect until he knew if the project would be approved. In
response to question from Commissioner Kindig, Mr. Dowd indicated
he presently had two cars. Mrs. Dowd commented they had no intention
of adding more than two bedrooms and one bath.
At the request of the Chairman, Secretary Jacobs read communication
dated March 22, 1976 from Mrs. Howard Watkinson, 1544 Bernal Avenue,
opposing the application. She also read petition dated March 16,
- 13 -
with 17 signatures opposing the application.
Chairman Sine then requested audience comment.
Mr. James Finch, 2015 Devereux opposed the variance because he
thought Mr. Dowd would be enlarging his garage and there would be no
parking on the driveway. He was informed the garage would stay at
its present size.
Mr. Gilbert Silva, 2004 Devereux, was concerned that if Mr. Dowd
were given the variance, he might sell the property, and a larger
family might move in with more cars.
Mr. Innocenti Luciano, 1556 Bernal, stated he favored people improving
their property, but this was not the right way.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Mr. Dowd told Commissioners his parking situation would in no way
change in the future. In response to a question from Commissioner
Taylor, Assistant City Planner Yost confirmed that Mr. Dowd owns
a triangular piece of property adjacent to his original lot which
runs for 40' from the front of the property. The Assistant
City Planner stated this is pie shaped, 0' wide at the street and 2'
at its widest. He added that if the present garage has a side yard
3' wide, the only variance needed would be for the substandard
garage. A surveyor's report would be necessary to confirm this.
Commissioners in general agreed that the drawings were not clear.
Mr. Dowd stated he was not aware of a requirement for a scaled
architectural drawing but would be glad to submit one if he had
some assurance of approval. Chairman Sine commented that he as a
construction man, was confused by the drawings and suggested the
Commission take no action until Mr. Dowd had submitted satisfactory
architectural drawings. He also suggested that staff notify people
who had written opposing this application of the date of the meeting
when Mr. Dowd could make a complete presentation. Commissioner
Taylor added that Mr. Dowd should clarify the side yard by a surveyor's
report, and Commissioner Mink suggested that applicant be made aware
of the requirements for fulfilling a variance request.
Commissioners agreed Mr. Dowd should submit satisfactory plans and
correct information on the side setback. Mr. Dowd was so instructed
by the Chairman, and City Attorney Coleman warned Mr. Dowd that
submittal of this material would not necessarily imply approval by
the Commission.
Commissioner Taylor moved this application be tabled. Commissioner
Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous voice vote.
Chairman Sine instructed staff to notify people who had signed
petitions and letters of the date of a future meeting.
- 14 -
9. VARIANCE FROM LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS AT 1011 CAPUCHINO
AVENUE (APN 026-214-080) ZONED R-12 BY MILAN CVITANOVIC
Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested
staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners
Mr. Cvitanovic proposes to add a second dwelling unit to his R-2
property. His lot is 50' wide, 196.5' deep. The present two bedroom
house on the front of the lot meets all side and front yard requirements.
The proposed new house is very large - 3 bedrooms and den, living room,
separate family room, 23�.baths, separate laundry room and a full
sized 2 -car garage. Future lot coverage would be 42.4% and
requires a variance from the code maximum of 40%.. A second variance
is required since code also requires 201 clear area between the front
dwelling unit and the rear dwelling unit on a R-2 lot. His plans
reduce this to about 15'. ,
The Assistant City Planner noted distribution of plans to the
Commission. He introduced Mr. Cvitanovic for comment.
Mr. Cvitanovic told Commissioners he wished to build this large
house on the rear because he wished to live there and had a large
family. The two car garage would be for his use and the carport
for.the use of the house in front. On question by Commissioner
Kindig, Mr. Cvitanovic stated he definitely would live in the rear
house and he would have a rear yard of 20'.
Secretary Jacobs read correspondence received on this application.
This included letter dated March 18, 1976, from Joseph E. Harvey Sr.
opposing the application; petition dated March 18, 1976 containing
six signatures, which opposed the application; petition dated
March 22, 1976 containing 15 signatures opposing the application.
Chairman Sine requested audience comments. Mr. David Turner,
1012 Capuchino responded. Mr. Turner opposed this variance because
this house could be sold as a duplex and the parking problem on the
street might be compounded.
Mr. Louis Monti, 1009 Capuchino, spoke against the variance, not
because of two dwellings in this R-2 zone but because of the fact
that a variance was needed. He feared that another variance could
be granted in the future to make the rear house a duplex. He
considered that Mr. Cvitanovic could reduce the size of the proposed
house and comply with the 40% lot coverage. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was declared closed.
In response to question from Commissioner Jacobs, the Assistant
City Planner stated that the garage and carport arrangements shown
on the plans conformed to code. Commissioner Mink attempted to
find facts which would support a variance grant, such -as exceptional
circumstances for the lot. However, Mr. Cvitanovic testified that
the lot might be larger than others in the neighborhood. In view
of these and other circumstances., Commissioner Mink concluded there
was no hardship or exceptional circumstances which would support a
variance. Other Commissioners agreed that Mr. Cvitanovic would be
able to build his new dwelling and still comply with the code.
Commissioner Mink moved that the variance be denied. Commissioner
- 15 -
Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
Chairman Sine informed the applicant he had the right of appeal to
Council.
10. VARIANCE FROM SIDEYARD REQUIREMENTS AT 1515 BERNAL AVENUE
(APN 026-034-090) ZONED R-1, BY CYRUS J. MC MILLAN FOR MR.
AND MRS. ROBERT DAVENPORT.
Chairman Sine announced this application for consideration. The
Assistant City Planner reported on circumstances which had brought
it about. The first of the year there had been a fire in this
dwelling which has a non -conforming side yard which is 2' too narrow.
The Building Department, after estimating the damage to this non-
conforming building, had not issued a building permit for repairs.
The owners of the property have decided that in addition to the fire
repairs they would like to add a 6' addition at the rear of the house
and also add a second story, consisting of two bedrooms and one
bath, over the rear half of the house. With these proposed changes,
the remodeled house would have four bedrooms and 21� baths, with a
lot coverage of 30%.
This application is for two variances. One is to repair a non-
conforming structure which has fire damage that exceeds 100% of
the assessed value; the other is to add on to and remodel a
structure with a non -conforming sideyard. The Assistant City Planner
quoted the appropriate code sections for these two variances. He
pointed out that the fire might suggest special circumstances and
also a degree of hardship. He introduced Mr. Davenport.
Mr. Davnport reported that it would cost him about $4,500 to correct
the sideyard non -conformity by taking the extra 2' off the side of the
house; it would also destroy an existing bedroom closet and much of
the bathroom. In addition, he wished to expand his house because
he has four children and one bedroom at present for them.
Chairman Sine requested audience comment.
A Mr. Stanford, 1519 Bernal, stated the house had been built for
fifty years, and he saw no reason why the owner should have to cut
part of it off.
Mr. Frank Burri, 1512 Bernal, stated he was against removing part
of the house to make it conform. He noted the extensive damage to
the house, the fact that the Davenports are good neighbors, and
the fact they have four children, which makes this situation a
hardship upon them.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the Davenports do have a need
and do not seem to have an alternative. Commissioner Francard
commented that after seeing the property and realizing that the
house had been there about 50 years, he thought it would be wrong
to penalize the Davenports. Commissioner Kindig agreed, but specified
-16 -
there must be adequate fire access. Commissioner Taylor summed up
findings of fact for variance that there were special circumstances;
there would be no detriment to the neighborhood by the granting of
the variance, but rather an improvement; and that the variance would
not be contrary to the purpose of the General Plan. However, the
Commissioner was concerned with the design of the addition and its
effect on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Mr. Davenport explained
that the structure would be stucco, Spanish style. He added that he
is a licensed painting contractor and his work is known in this city.
Chairman Sine questioned Mr. Davenport about the long structure at
the rear of the lot near the greenhouse. Mr. Davnport informed
him it was used in its entirety as a garage, with no possibility of
residential use, and that the greenhouse might be taken down.
Commissioner Kindig agreed there were exceptional circumstances, and
moved that this application be approved. Commissioner Francard
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote,
Commissioner Norberg absent.
Chairman Sine noted that Attorney Cyrus McMillan had been absent
from this hearing because of a previous commitment.
11. REQUEST FROM JOAN MC LELLAN TAYLER, J. M. TAYLER COMPANY
REALTORS, FOR IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AT 100 EL CAMINO REAL.
Assistant City Planner Yost stated this anticipated application had
not materialized, and that a letter had been received from Ms. Tayler
asking that the item be removed from the agenda.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
The City Planner remarked he considered that more firmness must be
employed in judging applications for completeness before they reach
the Commission.
He noted meeting to be held at San Francisco Noise Abatement Center
on March 23 which he will attend.
He remarked a letter had been directed to the San Francisco Airport
to ask if they would consider establishing additional noise monitoring
stations in Burlingame. No reply had been received as yet.
He remarked on Planning Department efforts regarding a flag decorated
building on California Drive.
The City Planner discussed letter in the hands of Commissioners from
the Attorney General on the State requirement for a Housing Element.
He noted that the City now has only a preliminary evaluation, and
failure to comply with the State requirement could result in the
loss of funding from Federal or State agencies. There was discussion.
There was some discussion of findings of fact on variance applications
and methods of implementing this process.
- 17 -
Chairman Sine thanked Commissioners and staff for their efforts
on Commissioner Norberg's behalf.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:30 A. M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Jacobs
Secretary