Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.03.08THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 8, 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 ROLL CALL 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 February 23, 1976 were approved as written with the following corrections: Page 5, "Acknowledgments", second sentence, add "from the podium." Page 13, 3rd paragraph, add sentence to end of paragraph, "She commented that since his business has grown, the traffic problem could be increased in the future." 1. PRELIMINARY DRAFT: NEW SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 22 City Planner Swan informed Commissioners that the Sign Users Council of California had been contacted, but no written information had been received from them. He indicated that Mr. Heymann had stated it would be difficult to put anything in writing, but that he would be glad to meet with the Commission and go over the code in detail. In view of this, Chairman Sine suggested that a special meeting be held on the sign code, and that the Council be invited. After some discussion, it was decided that at this preliminary stage the Commission would be involved mainly in draft editing, and the Council should be invited to participate later. On Commission agreement, the Chairman set the date of Saturday, March 27, at 9:00 A. M. as a special meeting to consider the draft sign code. 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Chairman Sine initiated discussion of this subject with suggestions. He considered that since most people do not use the services of an architect or a designer for accessory buildings, the most effective control would be by regulating the cubage. He suggested a cubage up to 2,000 SF which could involve various combinations of building - 2 - measurements. He also 'suggested 5' side and rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Taylor considered the idea good, but wanted the possibility of a variance with such a restriction. Commissioners Jacobs and Norberg considered that such a restriction would discourage pitched roofs. Chairman Sine noted that variances could be granted, but Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that people sometimes would rather have a flat roof than the difficulties of applying for a variance. Commissioner Norberg considered it too restrictive, noting that many people want shingled garages to match their houses. There was more discussion of flat versus pitched roofs, with Commissioner Francard approving the cubage idea as a good means of control. Commissioner Mink suggested 5' setbacks with a restriction that the highest point of a building could not be more than twice its distance from the lot line. City Planner Swan asked Commissioners what they considered as problems with accessory buildings beside the height. Chairman Sine considered the main problem the possibility of illegal apartments. Commissioner Mink was concerned with open space encroachment - interference with sunlight and view in a neighborhood. Commissioner Jacobs agreed, but did not want to vote for so restrictive an ordinance that it would result in flat roofs, even though Chairman Sine reaffirmed that variances could be granted. Commissioner Taylor approved of the general concept'of the tubage control but also thought it should not be so restrictive as to result in flat roofs. He wanted the Commission to develop an ordinance that would allow people to build the kinds of accessory buildings that they need for their individual uses, and suggested the original concept of a plate line height. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how much loft could be specified above the plate line. The City Engineer stated it could be whatever the Commission wishes - 5', 4', or less. The Commissioner remarked she would rather have a crawl space allowed than have a flat roof. City Planner Swan suggested another method of control as being restriction of utilities. This idea was explored, with Chairman Sine suggesting that no storm drain or sewer connections be allowed inside the structure. He also questioned the inclusion of 220 wiring. City Engineer Davidson commented that these utilities would be necessary for people who wish to have washers or driers in their garages. There was comment that 220 would be hard to control since it is easily undergrounded. City Planner Swan suggested that staff prepare an extensive list of possible regulations for Commission consideration and revision. Chairman Sine approved this and suggested more discussion at the April study meeting. Commissioner Mink stressed his concern that the rear yard be kept as open as possible for open space and fire protection access. Commissioner Kindig agreed. City Planner Swan noted that another aspect of this was the fact that while many existing accessory buildings are built to the property line, 10' utility easements at the rear provide space in many instances. He considered this a permanent open space. - 3 - There followed discussion of easements and the difficulty of determining ownership in some cases. City Engineer Davidson noted that even under the program of moving water meters to the street, easements would not.be vacated in most cases because there are other utilities there. Commissioners agreed that staff should prepare a list of possible regulations for further study. 3. PRECEDENT: POLICY FOR STAFF GUIDANCE City Planner Swan initiated discussion of this subject by distributing a list of 12 past actions by the Planning Commission which, in his opinion, seemed to establish a type of precedent. Included with the list were two dictionary definitions of "precedent." In discussing this list he noted that where there is a physical manifestation on a particular lot, people tend to feel that the same type of action should apply to them. He noted that from the standpoint of land use planning, the Commission is considering proposed projects and changes. Much later there is a public reaction to the development. Commissioner Taylor thought the Commission could disclaim any precedent -setting intent. He thought one way to avoid setting a precedent is to make a finding of fact which applies to that application only. He thought the Commission was unable to distinguish between the legal impact of one application over another. He questioned that any action taken by the Planning Commission sets a precedent unless the Commission chooses to allow it. City Attorney Coleman stated there is no legal precedent set by these actions. Commissioner Jacobs considered that the only precedent the Planning Commission has is the City code. She thought every application should be considered on its own merits. Commissioner Taylor suggested there was a difference between a precedent and a set of guidelines. Commissioner Kindig had anticipated a more extensive list of precedents. He did consider that only the first three items - apartments on Capuchino - had been a type of precedent setting. He stated he under- stood the difficult position of staff in their relations with the public when a development is apparently a precedent. There was Commission discussion of several items on the City Planner's list. The City Planner then acknowledged that Commission opinion had been noted, and questioned.if staff could be given direction for future dealings with the public. City Attorney Coleman thought that if the City tells people it cannot do certain things, it may be in trouble. Chairman Sine commented that anyone who comes in for a variance or a special permit is entitled to file it and to have a public hearing. He added that the Commission abides by the rules and guidelines of the code, but suggested that in certain specific areas the Commission should have the direction of Council. He hoped there could be future joint meetings with Council. - 4 - Commissioner Mink suggested that the Commission make a finding of fact on all of the four conditions for a variance with each application. This should be made a part of the record. This action could not be construed as a precedent, but would give subsequent applicants direction. 4. RECLASSIFICATION; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - WEST SIDE OF BAYSHORE HIGHWAY; NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD; BROADWAY INTERCHANGE ENVIRONS; CALIFORNIA DIRVE, BETWEEN BURLINGAME AVENUE AND HOWARD AVENUE The City Planner compared the two guidelines of General Plan and zoning ordinance in the area of Bayshore Highway. The east side is zoned C-4. On the west side the General Plan projects industrial and office use. This area is zoned M-1 and there have been many applications for commercial use there in the last four years. He suggested as one approach that there could be consideration of changing the requirements of the M-1 district. Another approach could be rezoning. He reviewed the scope of work necessary to investigate the area. This would involve reports on lots which are still vacant, properties that have already received special permits, types of uses that need to be described. He suggested that a time schedule for this work be set up to be consistent with other priorities. The City Planner pointed out inconsistencies of the General Plan with zoning in the areas of the west side of Bayshore Highway, the north side of Airport Boulevard, westerly and southerly from the Broadway interchange, and southwesterly of California Drive between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. In the following Commission discussion Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the west side of Bayshore could be rezoned C-4 for a depth of one lot, which would take care of the commercial uses, but not be so intrusive as C-1. Commissioner Francard questioned if this would change the parking, and Commissioner Mink suggested an overlay zone instead. He stated he had not been satisfied with the M-1 uses there for a long time. Commissioners Kindig and Jacobs disapproved of C-1 in this area because more types of businesses would be allowed and because of traffic. Commissioner Mink questioned the City Planner on the possibility of a limited C-4 overlay in this area. The City Planner suggested the possibilities in this method, noting that C-1 and C-2 districts in Burlingame are not capable of absorbing many more uses. He cautioned, however, against removing the designation of M-1 in this area because of possible future needs for M-1 zoned land. He suggested specification of only certain C-4 uses. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how many office vacancies there are in the area of west Bayshore. Assistant City Planner Yost noted that business license applications are mainly along Old Bayshore. Commissioner Taylor made the point that retail services might be needed to fill the needs of people in the offices. Chairman Sine suggested that the City Planner start with an overlay zone for the consideration.of the Commission. The City Planner stated a land use map could be prepared to indicate categories from the Hyatt House to Millbrae, and questioned what priority the Commission would assign to this project. He considered the sign code top priority and noted - 5 - the large number of applications in the last two months. Commissioner Mink considered the highest priorities the sign code and accessory buildings. He suggested that first investigation of rezoning be made in the Broadway to Oak Grove area of California Drive, which he defined as a jumble of uses. It is zoned C-2. After considerable discussion, Commissioners indicated this area would be a reasonable start in investigating rezoning. City Planner Swan said he could bring a report to the April study meeting. DRI VF.WAYS Commissioner Jacobs brought up the subject of shared driveways in the R-1 district. She was concerned that this ties up legally each lot that shares a common driveway. She suggested a survey of such cases with a view to eventual self -containment of every driveway. Commissioner Mink pointed out the advantages of shared driveways in that every curb cut reduces street trees and lot area. Chairman Sine commented there are many areas in downtown Burlingame where driveways could be closed. He estimated this procedure could bring about 58 more parking spaces. There was further discussion with no specific conclusion. 5. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE GROUND SIGN WITH 48 SF OF COPY PER FACE AT 380 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1 BY LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY WITH ANZA PACIFIC CORP., BEACH ROAD ASSOCIATES, LUTHER IZMIRIAN AND FREDERICK WURLITZER (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 9, 1976.) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed previous Commission concerns with this sign. The phone number on the sign is for a listing office on Bayshore Highway. Title 22 prohibits advertising services other than those on the site of the sign. Also, this sign is to be viewed from the Freeway. He went on to say that Mr. Lavenstein has submitted a written summary of Title 22, Chapters 22.22 and 22.24, and he concludes that this is a real estate sign which is exempt from these prohibitions. The Assistant City Planner noted that the City Attorney and the Planning staff believe that Mr. Lavenstein's interpretation of this sign as a real estate sign is valid. Staff believes this application could be approved as a real estate sign for a six month period and could be renewed biannually. He went on to say the sign, therefore, is before the Commission because it is in excess of 32 SF, not because it violates other requirements of the code. The Assistant City Planner noted the new sign code has no provision for a development sign, and requested commission reaction to having this type of sign included in the proposed draft. Mr. Lavenstein referenced agreement dated February 26 with attached exhibit outlining the extent of properties covered. This agreement was signed by the respective property owners and authorized Lavenstein and Company to act as leasing agent. The agreement listed certain specifications with regard to the group sign. Mr. Lavenstein - 6 - noted the sign code states there may be one "tract" sign permitted per acre when the property consists of five or more contiguous parcels. He then pointed out that here the land incorporated in the agreement for this one sign is 23 separate parcels comprising eight acres. In answer to question from Commissioner Jacobs he stated this would be a permanent sign. Commissioner Francard was concerned because the agreement states that in the event of certain circumstances the City of Burlingame shall have the right to remove the sign. In his opinion, the owner should remove the sign. City Attorney Coleman stated that there is a code provision for the owner to remove the sign. However, if the City had to remove it, they could do so and then recover their costs from the owner. Mr. David Keyston declared he was in favor of this sign which limits several pieces of property to one sign. Commissioner Kindig stated the agreement resolved all questions he had. Commissioner Jacobs noted that under the present code any five contiguous lots on Bayshore Freeway could have a real estate sign. The Assistant City Planner agreed but noted that if these signs exceed 32 SF, each would have to have a hearing and be judged on its merits. Commissioner Taylor thought he could accept Lavenstein & Company's sign for a limited time. Commissioner Mink questioned Paragraph 3 of the agreement which states there will be no freeway exposure on other properties, stating he thought there was only one lot fronting on the Freeway. Mr. Lavenstein pointed out that several lots with undeveloped land between them and the freeway at this time do have freeway identity. Commissioner Mink thought that Paragraph 3 of the agreement would not prevent property owners from putting up signs on their individual property. Mr. Lavenstein noted it excluded other group signs, and the City Attorney commented that it excluded any other signs related to freeway exposure. Commissioner Mink asked if the Commission was dealing with a real estate sign with a time limit, or a permanent sign? Mr. Lavenstein requested this sign be considered a real estate sign of a permanent nature. Assistant City Planner Yost referenced code section which states that building permits for real estate signs are issued by the building inspector and can be renewed at six month intervals. On Commissioner Mink's question,City Attorney Coleman stated that the Commission has no authority to waive the six month's limitation except as a condition to the sign permit. Mr. Lavenstein received confirmation that if the new code did not include development signs the Building Department could refuse to issue a permit after six months. Chairman Sine questioned if the applicant could withhold the application until the new code was written. Mr. Lavenstein indicated this would not be possible. Commissioner Mink suggested an alternate design for the sign which would incorporate a removable "space for lease" area. Mr. Lavenstein - 7 - replied that these properties would always have space for lease. Again he commented that -this is an effort of a group of people to work together for the betterment of this area. In response to Commission question, he noted that the lettering is not removable and the name of the realtor has been deliberately omitted. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Again, Mr. Keyston spoke in favor of the sign,pointing out it was an improvement over what could be placed there, and was an effort at cleaning up the area. There was no further response, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink objected to the phone number inclusion as advertising offsite services, which is not appropriate for a permanent sign. Commissioner Jacobs was in favor of delaying this application until the new sign code was approved. Chairman Sine commented this would not be for another six months. Commissioner Kindig stated he had no objection to this sign's erection for a year or so but he did disapprove of a permanent sign. Mr. Lavenstein pointed out that they have a 13 -year lease for this sign, and it would come down at the end of the lease. There could be a definite time limit put on it. He offered to make an arrangement whereby the "space available" part of the sign could be hung on hooks and removed at will. Commissioner Mink moved that this sign permit be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,MINK,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,SINE Chairman Sine requested a positive motion. Commissioner Kindig moved that the application for a sign permit be approved for a two-year period and that the agreement signed by the five property owners be made part of the approval. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,MINK,TAYLOR 6. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE GROUND SIGN WITH 32 SF OF COPY PER FACE FOR AUTOHAUS BURLINGAME AT 1315 ROLLINS ROAD, BY WILLY OSTERTAG (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 1976) Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost reminded Commissioners that on January 26, 1976 they had approved an application for six wall signs at this location. Total signage approved was 190 SF. These signs are now up on the building. With this earlier application was a proposal for a new ground sign with a total area of 75 SF on each side; however, this sign had been withdrawn from the application before the motion was taken. Now a modified application has been submitted for this ground sign. The area has been reduced from 75 SF to 32 SF per face; the height is 12'. It will be unlighted with a possibility of ground lighting in the future. It will be placed on the corner of Rollins Road and North Carolan. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed its placement and has no objection as to sight distances. Commissioner Jacobs noted that this sign would give a total signage of 254 SF on Rollins Road. She questioned this relation to the new sign code. Assistant City Planner Yost replied that this would be slightly above the review line for this zone. Commissioner Kindig was informed that the sign was approximately 15 feet from the curb. Chairman Sine noted this is in the same location as the temporary sign which is still up. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Ostertag said that the sign will be unlighted. However, he might put in some ground lighting in the future. There was Commission comment that he must come back before the Commission for this. Commissioner Mink moved the granting of this sign permit for an unlighted sign as per drawings submitted. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,SINE RECESS There was a short recess at 10:00 P. M. after which the meeting reconvened. 7. 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) City Engineer Davidson reviewed revised parcel map. He noted that Parcel D has a 28' frontage on Beach Road. He then pointed out that Parcel C is a landlocked parcel, but does have two access easements, both coming from the Lang Road Cul-de-sac. He emphasized that the property line between Parcels D and E would run through the existing building. The proposal is to make the wall on the line a common wall. There is a sprinkler system in the wall, and it would be necessary to have an agreement for the common wail and responsibility for the sprinkler system. If this application is set for hearing, he requested that closure and title reports be submitted in advance of public hearing date. The City Engineer also stated it would be desirable to extend the maintenance easement on the west side of Parcel C up to where it meets the existing 20' maintenance easement - 9 - which comes diagonally from Parcel D. Mr. David Keyston said he had no objection to the extension of this maintenance easement, and reported that he had delivered to the City a party wall agreement which also covers the fire sprinkler service. On Commission question, he stated that Parcel C is presently being used as a bus storage yard. This application was set for hearing March 22, 1976. 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 32,33,34,35 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 28,29,30 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.) City Engineer Davidson told Commissioners this simple map was for the elimination of a lot line between two parcels, so that they are joined as one. He had no comments and recommended that the application be set for hearing. City Planner Swan added that United Airlines is in the process of modernizing their kitchens which are on these two parcels. The County Assessor's roll shows one parcel number for these two parcels. He introduced Mr. A. J. Kaiser of United Airlines. Mr. Kaiser commented that the parcel map would allow the development of the parcel as one unit regarding parking requirements. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing March 22, 1976. 9. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-35P FOR PROPOSED 3 STORY OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 1203 HOWARD AVENUE, BY JOSEPH GE LLE R City Planner Swan reported that draft EIR had just today been received for this three story office building which will cover 100% of the lot. He considered this would require the addition of an evaluation by the City Planner and suggested that distribution be made at the end of the week along with his evaluation. He questioned several statements in the draft EIR. One was that because the project will cover the entire parcel, the curb cut on Lorton Avenue will be eliminated, adding extra parking to the street. Another, the project is considered to have no adverse environmental effects, therefore mitigation measures are not appropriate. The last paragraph stated that a special permit is being sought because the lot coverage is to exceed 75%. The City Planner noted that this project will employ a number of people, probably with cars, and it is questionable that there will be no effect. However, he suggested that the economic benefits might offset the parking impact. He thought the EIR should be set for hearing. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Geller stated there would be no parking under the building and the first floor would be recessed approximately 10.feet in front with planter boxes in the recessed - 10 - area. He stated that the EIR does refer to the fact that parking spaces within walking distance would be affected, but the building is within the Burlingame Parking District and there has been no credit taken for parking spaces. He did not consider that any involved EIR evaluations would be necessary because of this project. . Chairman Sine scheduled this EIR for hearing on March 22, 1976. 10. 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. City Planner Swan requested comment from Mr. Geller on the fact that the first floor will be for commercial use rather than offices. Mr. Geller replied that he had not been able to commit office tenants for the first floor, and hoped to use commercial activity there. There was little Commission comment. This application was set for hearing on March 22, 1976. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT ON UNCLASSIFIED LAND AT 1190 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY NAJIM KHAN (LESSEE) WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER). Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed that on October 14, 1970 the Planning Commission had approved a permit for "Broadway Joe's" restaurant at this location. The permit was granted to Mr. Joe Fena on a non -transferable basis. Three years later, Mr. James Lewellyn appeared before the Commission, stated he had purchased the restaurant and was ignorant of the fact that the special permit was non -transferable. Permit to Mr. Lewellyn was granted, and also made non -transferable. On January 27, 1976 Mr. Fena resold the restaurant property to Mr. Khan. On February 17, 1976 Mr. Khan concluded a five-year lease with the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. This lease was conditioned upon the property being used solely and exclusively for the operation of a restaurant. Mr. Khan then arranged to have a grand opening for his restaurant and contacted the city to get a sign permit. He had then been informed that he needed a special permit for this restaurant. The Assistant City Planner stated a complete application had been filed and recommended that it be set for hearing. Chairman Sine requested comment from Mr. Khan, who confirmed that the restaurant is open and a sign is on the ground without a permit. The real estate company had not informed him that a special permit was necessary, and he had already stocked his restaurant for a month at a cost of about $2,500. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing on March 22, 1976. At this point City Engineer Davidson announced he had researched the question of minimum width on Anza Pacific lots, and there is no code requirement for commercial or industrial property, only for residential lots. 12. 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 Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application. He told Commissioners that a 1974 special permit was approved for construction of four outdoor tennis courts and one handball court. The tennis courts were to be placed under the P. G. & E. wires, and access was to be over the Southern Pacific spur track. Permit approval was conditioned on receipt of letters of authorization from property owners, including P. G. & E. and S. P., and approval of the landscaping plan by the Park Director. Letters of authorization were never received by the City, and term of this special permit has expired. The present proposal is to build 8 tennis courts and delete the handball court. A running track is to be installed as well as a basketball court. The Assistant City Planner explained the site plan, noting that parking adequacy should be reviewed. Parking for the 1974 plan was found to be adequate, but this plan is for 8 tennis courts instead of 4. He went on to say that the main building is under one ownership and letter of authority has been received from that property owner. However, the area of new construction is to be acquired from a second property owner. While there is a copy of the purchase agreement by Peninsula Sports Center, approval of this application should be contingent upon their actual acquisition of the area under the P.G. & E. wires. Letters of authority must also be received from P. G. & E. and S.P. The Assistant City Planner introduced Miss Ann Mori. In response to Commission question, the Assistant City Planner said that landscaping plan had never been received for the previous permit and that none of the four tennis courts had been put in. Miss Ann Mori told Commissioners that delay in construction under the original permit was cuased by difficulties in financing. Financing has now been arranged. Approvals by S.P. and P. G. C E. have taken a year to resolve. They are forthcoming. She noted that most of the land is taken up by the tennis courts, and there will not be a great deal of landscpaing. City Engineer Davidson requested that the City Engineer's office have the right of approval of the site plan since the P. G. & E. right of way is also for drainage purposes. Commissioner Mink noted that as a matter of record in his capacity with the San Mateo High School District he had been working with Miss Mori in another area of interest. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing on March 22, 1976. - 12 - 13. VARIANCE FROM SIDEYARD REQUIREMENTS AT 1315 BENITO AVENUE (APN 027-194-050) ZONED -R-1, BY MICHAEL & ANNE MCGETTIGAN Assistant City Planner Yost explained that this is a proposed expansion of a two bedroom house to include a two car garage with a master bedroom and bath over it. The addition would be in the 20' side yard. Mr. and Mrs. McGettigan have three children and need the extra_ bedroom. The variance is required because they propose to build to the side property line. This is a property line beyond which there is a 7' wide strip of public land which runs along the entire length of their property. The Assistant City Planner noted plans have been received, and distributed photographs of the site. He stated the application is complete and recommended it be set for hearing. In response to Commission questions, the Assistant City Planner stated the house is 23' back from the sidewalk, and the addition is 15-20' behind that. This addition is an attachment to the existing house and lot coverage is within that permitted by code. There was some discussion as to who owned these 7' "open easements," but it could only be verified that they are not privately owned. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on March 22, 1976. 14. 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. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners this application is to allow an existing three bedroom two bath house to be expanded. The applicant wishes to add an additional two bedrooms and one bath over the two car garage. This proposal requires two variances: the garage is 3' too narrow to conform to code, and must have a variance. A variance is also required from side yard requirements since the garage is only l'-2' from the property line. The Assistant City Planner distributed plans for this addition and pointed out that the application is complete and could be set for hearing. The applicant explained the plans to Commissioners, who considered the proposed building elevations should be more detailed. City Attorney Coleman suggested Mr. Dowd confer with staff toward getting a better drawing. In response to Commission question Mr. Dowd indicated that two full-size cars would not fit in his garage, but that cars could be parked on the driveway. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing March 22, 1976. 15. VARIANCE FROM LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS AT 1011 CAPUCHINO AVENUE (APN 026-214-080) ZONED R-2, BY MILAN AND DOREEN CVITANOVIC. Assistant City Planner Yost showed site plans to Commissioners and explained that this is an application to add a second dwelling house on this 9,825 SF lot. There is now one 2 -bedroom house on the front portion of the property. The new house is to be at the rear of the lot, and have three bedrooms, a den, a living room, separate family room, 23� - 13 - baths. Total lot coverage will be 42.4%, 2.4% over permitted meximum. Another reason for a variance is that code requires there be 20' between the front dwelling on an R-2 lot and the rear dwelling. In this instance there is only 15' between the rear and the front dwellings. The Assistant City Planner stated the application is complete and could be set for hearing. There was little Commission discussion. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on March 22, 1976. 16. VARIANCE FROM SIDEYARD REQUIREMENTS AT 1515 BERNAL AVENUE (APN 026-034-090) ZONED R-1 BY CYRUS J. MCMILLAN FOR MR. AND MRS. ROBERT DAVENPORT. The Assistant City Planner explained that there was fire in this dwelling last year which did a considerable amount of damage. The house has a non -conforming side yard along one side of the property. An 18' section of the house is only 1' away from the property line. The Building Department was hesitant to issue a building permit for this non -conforming property. The owners of the property have decided that in addition to making fire repairs, they would like to add a 6' extension at the rear of the house. He noted that the code states that a non -conforming building may be added to only if it then conforms to code. Additional material that should be submitted was a cost estimate for repair for fire damage, and a better site plan. He stated dimensions on the plan submitted are not consistent and there are errors on the drawing. Cyrus McMillan, attorney for the applicant, told Commissioners new drawings would be submitted within 3-4 days. He said fire damage was $18,400. This, he noted, is substantial damage, but none of it was in the area of the non -conforming use. The date of the fire was January 1, 1976. In response to question, Assistant City Planner Yost gave lot coverage as 30%. There was Commission comment that firemen cannot get around the present house because of the non -conforming sideyard. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on March 22, 1976 contingent upon new plans being received by Thursday, March 11. 17. ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT - STATUS REPORT City Planner Swan reported that a letter had been received today from the R. & R. Auto Service on the Dore property stating, "As of now the shop is clean. All wrecking operations are stopped." CITY PLANNER REPORT The City Planner reported that the Gordon Strocher appeal is scheduled for Council hearing March 15, 1976. Thorstenson and V & T Investments have both been scheduled for Council hearing on April 5, 1976. The City Planner requested and received permission to be absent from the special meeting on March 27 because of previous commitments. - 14 - Chairman Sine told Commissioners that this was the last study meeting that Colonel Norberg will be attending. He will be retiring from the Planning Commission as of the regular meeting on March 22, 1976. Chairman Sine declared he considered it an honor and a privilege to have served with the Colonel on this Commission for the last seven years. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:10 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary