Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.06.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 27, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Cistulli City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Attorney Coleman Mink Assit. City Engineer Rebarchik Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. C. Cistulli was absent due to the death of his younger brother. Chm. Taylor expressed the concern and sympathy of Commission and announced time and place of the services. MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 1977 were approved as mailed. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FROM CODE SECTION 25.28.060 TO CREATE A NEW LOT OF 15,660 SF ON A PRIVATE ROAD AT #2 LA MESA COURT (APN 027-022-370), ZONED R-1, BY FLORIN RHOADS Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application by Florin Rhoads, who owns a 15,660 SF portion of the Lands of Kilbourne, to formally establish this parcel as a separate legal lot. It is the back 40% of a larger 36,000 SF lot, formerly owned by Thomas Leutzinger, on which Mr. Rhoads would like to construct a new home. The proposed subdivision requires a variance because Title 25 requires all new lots to have frontage on a public street. The resubdivision, as designed, would give the back portion (Parcel B) a 50 foot frontage on La Mesa Court which is a private street. Mr. Yost reviewed the four requirements for approval of a variance and noted that a previous approval for resubdivision by Commission and Council included the condition that "any building foundation shall go to bedrock." This previous map has expired since Mr. Rhoads neglected to file it with the County Recorder. Mr. Yost advised Chm. Taylor that to his knowledge there have not been subsequent changes in the City's ordinances or in the adoption of new amendments to the General Plan which would make this application inappropriate. Florin Rhoads, 1530 La Mesa Court, addressed Commission, noting there had been some changes in the Subdivision Map Act since the previous application and advised he had complied with requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act. C. Kindig asked for clarification of Parcel C. Mr. Yost advised that Parcel C was part of Viewland Estates and was included because a portion of Parcel C was to become part of Parcel B to give access to the private road, La Mesa Court. Asst. C. E. Reba rchik advised that Parcel C has frontage on La Mesa Drive. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 27, 1977 C. Mink established the property appeared to have been subdivided originally in excessively large lots for that particular neighborhood; that the original lot was long and downhill into an area where there are no public streets; public streets were developed without providing access to normal R-1 size lots in that neighborhood. It was determined there was no other access to Parcel B than through La Mesa Court; the proposed action would not change the configuration in that area; the applicant owns Parcel C from which a small portion of land will be cut for Parcel B access to La Mesa Court. C. Mink stated Commission findings that there is a hardship and exceptional circumstance in that the public streets in this area were not developed to service typical R-1 size lots; that Parcel B is unusable without proper access to La Mesa Court; that there would be no adverse effect upon the neighbors or the neighborhood; and there is consistency with the General Plan of the City. The Commissioner moved approval of these findings and of the variance. Second C. Sine; approved on unanimous roll call vote of members present. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LANDS OF KILBOURNE (APN 027-022-370/380) AND LOT 8, VIEWLAND ESTATES (APN 027-022-460), ZONED R-1, BY PETER ROYCE FOR FLORIN RHOADS AND THOMAS LEUTZINGER Asst. C. E. Rebarchik told Commission this proposed resubdivision would establish as a legal lot property that Florin Rhoads has owned for a number of years. The City cannot issue a building permit for a house on the present parcel. Public Works requirements for conditional approval are: a private drainage easement to be provided over Parcel B for Parcel C; provide sewer lateral for Parcel B; provide water service for Parcel B; satisfactory geologic report. Mr. Rebarchik reported the geologic report indicates the lot is safe to be built upon. C. Jacobs inquired about Council's require- ment on the previous map that any building foundation go to bedrock. She was advised that present laws and the building code itself would handle this matter sufficiently. John Muntain, currently living in Millbrae, told Commission. he would be the owner of the proposed new home and referred to engineering studies, soils reports and the geologic report. His plans were to remove most of the fill that wasn't properly compacted; the design calls for a retaining wall, refill and recompacting. Mr. Rebarchik assured C. Mink that construction would be engineered and built according to the requirements of the Building Code. C. Mink moved approval of this tentative parcel map with three conditions: (1) that a private drainage easement be provided over Parcel B for Parcel C; (2) that a sewer lateral be established for Parcel B; (3) that water service be established for Parcel B. Second C. Kindig and approved unanimously on roll call vote of members present. 3. VARIANCES FROM CODE SECTIONS 25.28.060 AND 26.16.080 TO CREATE SIX LOTS, FIVE OF WHICH WOULD BE WITHOUT ACCESS ON A PUBLIC STREET; PROPERTY ON MILLS CANYON COURT (APN 025-370-010/020; LOTS 1 AND 2), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. HARRY SMOOKLER (ND -115P POSTED 6/17/77) Asst. C. P. Yost reported that Lots 1 and 2 of Mills Canyon Court have more than 76,000 SF of land area which has been vacant and unimproved since its subdivision in 1968. This is a proposal to take two lots and resubdivide into six lots, each of which would have more than the minimum 7,000 SF required lot area. A question was raised as to whether the property could be safety developed. Information available in the soils report and geologic report indicated the land is buildable; with proper precautions the proposed six houses would be safe. However, there are a number of other concerns: whether the 400 foot street extension should be a private road or public road; should Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1977 the design and construction of street improvements be to minimum public standards or to lower private standards; would possible future adoption of a substandard street require extra City expense for reconstruction and maintenance; if two lots are too few, are six lots too many; are the boundaries of the six lots reasonable, establishing buildable sites with reasonable yards; how important is public access to Mills Canyon Park and what is the future -of the canyon area; should there be public vehicle access via the proposed resubdivision or is the suggested 10 foot wide pedestrian easement at the end of the cul-de-sac adequate? These questions start from the premise that the Smooklers will be allowed to subdivide Lots 1 and 2; if this premise is invalid, there would be very little point in conducting a hearing on the design. Mr. Yost noted Sec. 25.28.060, that all lots "shall have frontage on a public street," and Sec. 26.16.080, "the maximum length of cul-de-sacs shall be restricted to 250 feet." This new proposal would lengthen the 300 foot private road by 400 feet to a total of 700 feet. Each of the variances require findings: (1) exceptional circumstances so that denial would result in undue property loss; (2) the variance is necessary to preserve property rights of Mr. and Mrs. Smookler; (3) granting of the variance would not be detrimental to adjacent property owners nor to their quiet enjoyment; (4) that such action would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City. It was stressed that if any one of the four conditions is found to be incorrect, the variance and parcel map must be denied. Mr. Yost directed attention to the applicants' affidavit, and suggested Commission act on the variance before considering design requirements for the subdivision map. Neil Vannucci, 1555 Bayshore Highway, (designer of the proposed project), addressed Commission. He said the street improvements were planned to meet all City standards. With the configuration of the land, the cul-de-sac must exceed 250 feet. The average site would be approximately one-third of an acre. Lots 1 and 2 are not conducive to two building sites, and are more compatible for six sites. Chm. Taylor reminded that the four requirements for granting of a variance were the subject of this particular hearing item. Mr. Vannucci remarked on the excessively large lots with no public streets available for development. C. Jacobs did not believe a one acre lot was a disadvantage, particularly on a hillside. C. Francard questioned the purpose of the private street. Mr. Vannucci commented that the width of the street would be 4 feet less than required by code. The configuration of the cul-de-sac made it questionable whether to go private or public. The actual construction improvements would be done to City standards. He said there was a very low traffic count and there would be enough width for on -street parking. Chm. Taylor thought perhaps the advantage to the developer in a private street was that it might be unlikely the., City would construct a cul-de-sac of more than 250 feet. C. Jacobs envisioned problems with finding the necessary legal requirements for a variance. Secy. Sine read correspondence received: a letter in favor received at 8:05 P.M. this evening from Sandra J. Geller of Coldwell Banker in San Mateo, stating they felt the development of Mills Canyon Court would enhance the area; a letter dated June 24, 1977 from Mr. and Mrs. Max Hein, 2823 Arguello Drive opposed to the applications because of danger of slippage and the undesirability of a private road; letter dated June 22, 1977 from Marie Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive protesting with several concerns, namely, cutting of the hill and danger of slippage, objection to the private road, fire protection accessibility, traffic and congestion. Letters in favor were read: one dated April 18, 1977 from Mr. Yoshinori Tekao and Mrs. Y. Tekao, 21 Mills Canyon Court, whose home was built by the Smooklers and who felt this development would enhance the area; another dated June 18, 1977 from Frank and Lorna Chang, 11 Mills Canyon Court, who purchased their home from the Smooklers and would welcome further development. Chm. Taylor then requested audience comments in favor of this variance. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1977 William Caplan, 1614 Granada Drive, said he had concern at the time of the first application but believed the development had produced some of the nicest homes in the Mills Estate. He now believed reasonable development of this land would be more desirable than leaving it in a scrubby condition. Since the soils and engineering reports concluded the land would be safe for construction, he would look forward to more homes on the remainder of the parcels, especially since the previous development had increased the value of his home on Granada Drive. Shelly Caplan, 1614 Granada Drive,believed the addition of six homes would result in only slight additional traffic or parking problems, and commented on the excellent homes the Smooklers have built. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in opposition. Donald Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive, protested the variance and subdivision because of increased traffic, denser development, homes on a private street being inconsistent with the 'rest of the area, access .to the canyon reduced, interruption of views, increased danger of landslide and because the prior request was turned down by the City. He noted the 14 lots requested at that time had been reduced to nine. He commented on the risk of sliding and the homes above the proposed development; and questioned the basis of the argument that these two large lots were unbuildable. Thomas Z. Marshall., 2715 Martinez Drive, commented: that the Smooklers have built fine houses and stated he could understand this request on an economic basis, but felt the codes of the City of Burlingame should be adhered to. He noted existing traffic and debris problems, and felt a substandard street, with more families, would add to this. He questioned there was hardship on the part of the developers. John R. Wilkinson, 1609 Granada Drive, was opposed because of the additional traffic six more homes would generate. He stated he was an architect and thought the proposed design was poor. Chm. Taylor reminded that the question of design was not at issue in consideration of the variance. Robert Bailey, 2819 Arguello Drive, noted the concern 10 years ago with the springs in the canyon and the possibility of slippage; he felt that the Smooklers were aware of this when they settled for nine lots previously. He spoke of the right of enjoyment of surrounding property owners, and was concerned with their views which might depreciate the value of their property. He also was hopeful Commission would take into account the width of the private street to allow access for fire trucks. Mr. Bailey requested Commission respect the rights of the property owners in the Mills Estate area. Joseph Budro, 2901 Arguello Drive, stated his opposition, fearing destruction of the amenities of his property; he objected to adding six more homes. John Chaney, 2827 Arguello Drive, spoke to the four requirements for consideration of a variance, noting passage of this variance would be 'exceptional' in light of all the arguments 9/10 years ago. He objected to the private street:, was concerned about slippage and suggested that more than one soil expert test the whole area. He also had concern regarding views and questioned the height of the proposed housing.. It was his belief the proposed development would be a detriment to adjacent property owners. Asst. C. P. Yost advised the soils report for the property was sent to the County Geologist who had reviewed it and reported it would be safe if the new work were done properly with professional supervision. Mrs. Beatrice E. Rossi., 15 Mills Canyon Court, believed the cul-de-sac is dangerous at present and was concerned with motorcycles particularly. However, she stated her feeling that the land should not be left vacant; if the soils report was in order she thought the applicants should have the variance. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1977 David Kinert, 2839 Arguello Drive, was concerned with slippage. He noted the previous history of this matter and believed there was a stipulation that the developers would not ask for any further resubdivision, this being part of the conditions under which nine lots had been approved. He commented on motorcycle noise in the area and was concerned with possible additional noise— Mr. Kinert asked about environmental requirements and was told by Asst. C. P. Yost that a negative declaration had been posted which declared the addition of four new lots would not be an action requiring an environmental impact report. Reasons for a conclusion in the negative declaration, signed and posted June 17, 1977, were quoted: "The project would add four R-1 lots to Mills Canyon Court. Traffic would increase by about 50 ADT„ an insignificant amount. Preliminary site plans and elevations propose roof tops at or below the ground elevation at the property line which is between the subdivision and existing single family dwellings on Arguello Drive." With this negative declaration, the environmental requirements of the State have been complied with. Mr. Kinert stated his concern about any overcutting of the existing natural slope. Basil Canellos, 2831 Arguello Drive, said the proposed new lots: would be located just behind his property. He, too, was concerned about slippage. Cora Cecchi, 2716 Martinez Drive, was concerned about access for fire trucks and hoses if there were a fire in the Mills Canyon area after this development is completed. Mr. Yost advised a Fire Dept. memo had requested an access easement be provided to the canyon area. Mr: Kinert noted the concern of people living on Arguello Drive regarding fire in the canyon. He questioned the amount of access into such a long cul-de-sac and the ability to handle enough equipment for a major blaze. He also questioned whether the developers were planning to develop themselves or sell on speculation; it was his thinking that in the latter case any past history would not apply. John Morgan, 2720 Martinez Drive, talked about the private road and asked about parking privileges. C. A. Coleman advised the road is private property but, when called, the police would enforce parking laws on the private street. Mr. Morgan had concern about campers and other vehicles parking in the private street with the possibility of blocking Fire Dept. access into the canyon. Chm. Taylor commented that the property was owned by the Smooklers now and, if they wished, they could put a fence around the property at the present time. Mr. Morgan's opinion was the decision in 1968 should remain. Virginia Bailey, 2819 Arguello Drive, talked about the size of an acre, noting that 76,000 SF is approximately 1-3/4 acres; she did not believe two home sites on that land would be too large. Carol Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive, commented that the area was beautiful and she would be distressed to see it paved over. Discussion continued between Commission, staff and the applicants' representative. C. Mink requested commentary be restricted to the variance application based on the proposed six lots, no street frontage and the cul-de-sac in excess of 250 feet. Neil Vannucci stated his understanding that the 1968 approval was for 14 lots which was dropped back to nine because the Smooklers found it infeasible. Asst. C. P. Yost read excerpts from the May 13, 1968 P.C. study meeting at which time.the tentative map was first brought to Commission. *In essence these stated that nine lots were now proposed by the property owner, the average size being 18,000 SF, and the smallest 9,000 SF. This was developed as an alternative proposal after a soils investigation indicated that a previously approved 12 lot subdivision was not economically feasible. It was pointed out the previous approval had been for 12, not 14, lots. Mr. Vannucci told Commission he had designed the development with particular concern for the neighbors and the environment. All roof lines are below the ground lines of the adjacent property. The average lot is over 13,000 SF. He did not believe any views would be obstructed by the development and stated it could not be seen unless Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1977 one was standing by the back fence and looking down. He commented on the present laws and geologic restrictions, and said the soils condition under these new restrictions would be far better than those of the existing homes. Only six; homes were planned in order to have quality residences; all proposed sites have views. Mr. Vannucci said that the private street is identical in width with the existing Mills Canyon Court and it was his belief there would be just as much traffic with an eight unit apartment house as with the planned development. He added that Howard Hickey, Civil Engineer, had gone over the plan with the Fire Dept. and gained approval. Access to the canyon and public property had been provided in addition to the existing fire trail. Chm. Taylor questioned the need for a private road and why it was an exceptional circumstance. He asked for comments on the suitability of the turning radius of the cul-de-sac for adequate fire protection. Howard Hickey told of his meeting with the Fire Chief and reported the Chief appeared to find the turning radius acceptable. He believed the development would be enhanced with a capability of protecting fires in the public property, including 400 extra feet for penetration and two fire fighting easements through the lots down to the park. It was proposed to build the private street to City standards and Mr. Hickey thought it could be either a public or private street. Shirley Lapic, 2835 Arguello Drive, discussed a portion of the City Council meeting minutes of July 1, 1968. She noted when the nine lot subdivision was approved a representative of the owners stipulated the larger parcels would not be subdivided to create additional lots. It was her belief these were binding agreements by the owners at that time, and questioned the legality of the present request to increase these two lots. Chm. Taylor recessed the hearing at 9:34 P.M. in order to inspect the map approved in 1968. Meeting reconvened at 9:46 P.M., and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. He then requested legal opinion from the C.A. C. A. Coleman advised the map contained only the condition regarding height; however, the 1968 minutes were very clear there was a covenant by the representative of the Smooklers that the larger parcels would not be subdivided to create additional building lots. He stated that in his legal opinion the Smooklers are bound by their agreement made in 1968. Chm. Taylor, noting that Commission is bound by the opinions of the C.A., asked for a motion. C. Mink moved removal of Items 3 and 4 from the agenda and tabling them. It was the C.A.'s opinion Commission should vote on a motion to deny. C. Mink moved denial of this variance. Second C. Sine and denied on unanimous roll call vote of members present. Chm. Taylor told the applicants they had the right of appeal to City Council. 4. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE LOTS 1 AND 2, MILLS ESTATE NO. 27 (R.S.M. VOL. 68/23), BY H. G. HICKEY FOR MR. AND MRS. HARRY SMOOKLER C. Jacobs moved denial of this tentative subdivision map. Second C. Kindig and denied on unanimous roll call vote of members present. 5. VARIANCE FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT TWO ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOUSE AT 211 CHAPIN LANE (APN 028-313-100), ZONED R-1, BY MICHAEL NILMEYER (ARCHITECT) WITH MR. AND MRS. CARL KUHN (OWNERS) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the two additions requested in this application. One would increase the length of the existing garage by 5'9" in order to increase the interior parking area to approximately 16' x 20'. As presently designed and constructed the garage is partly filled with an area containing laundry tubs and a china cabinet. However, this extension would bring the garage to within less than 6" of the front Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes property line on Pepper Avenue. The second proposed bedroom by 4'0" and bring the exterior wall to within line. Mr. Yost referred to the applicant's affidavit Commission had received. Mr. Kuhn and his architect, Page 7 June 27, 1977 addition would lengthen the master 13'3" of the Chapin Lane property and letter of June 8, 1977 which Mr. Nilmeyer were present. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments -in favor. Michael Nilmeyer related the reasons for the proposed additions to the bedroom. When the Kuhns inspected the house the man from whom they purchased was quite ill and they did not want to disturb him by looking at the master bedroom. Later they found their furniture would not fit in this room; and by bringing the wall out four feet their furniture could be accommodated. It was believed any addition would not impede views from down the street. The Kuhns needed this one level house due to their age and inability to get about. David Keyston also spoke in favor of this application, stating that he had once lived next door to the Kuhns, they were ideal neighbors and he was sure they would.bring credit to the neighborhood. There were no audience comments in opposition and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs commented that enlarging the garage to accommodate two cars would improve the property, and determined this addition would be in front. Commission was told there is no sidewalk at that point at the present time, merely a gravel type walkway. C. Mink asked about the china cabinet in the present garage, and Mr. Nilmeyer told him it was not built according to present code, but would be corrected; consideration was being given to tearing it out. C. Mink stated Commission findings: that there are exceptional circumstances in that there is a single bedroom home with less than adequate size bedroom; that in an area where most homes have two cars this garage is substandard and by today's standards inappropriate; that to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property, a bedroom of adequate size and the ability to park two cars safely off the street on this unusually shaped lot are necessary; due to the brick wall around a majority of the property there would be no visual change, and these additions would not detract from the aesthetics of the property or be detrimental to the neighbors; this proposal would be consistent with the general zoning plan of the city. C. Mink moved approval of these findings and of the variance. Second C. Sine and approved unanimously on roll call vote of members present. 6. VARIANCE FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT A WORKSHOP ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE AT 1250 JACKLING DRIVE (APN 027-332-040), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. JOHN COCKCROFT The Asst. C. P. told Commission this proposal would add a 10' x 22' workshop to the front wall of the applicant's existing two car garage, thus reducing the front setback from code minimum of 15' to 7'0". He called P.C. attention to the applicant's affidavit and June 9, 1977 letter which gives further explanation of the need for an addition. John Cockcroft advised of a letter submitted this evening signed by all his immediate neighbors on five sides of this intersection which stated they had no objection to his proposed plans. He did not plan -to remove any trees and, in his opinion, the addition would not impair traffic vision at the corner. He believed the addition could not be built in any other way without destroying the architectural appearance of the home. C. Mink determined that at that intersection each street is a stop street. The Commissioner also questioned if an expert had been contacted to determine if there would be any root damage to the two exceptional trees in front. Mr. Cockcroft believed one would be in no jeopardy from his proposed plans and doubted if the other would. C. Mink preferred to have it reviewed by an expert. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 27, 1977 Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments; there being none, he declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink stated findings: that due to the shape of the lot there is an exceptional circumstance; that granting of this variance is necessary to preserve the present and projected enjoyment of the house by the owner and his family; that because of the location of the building on the lot and the stop signs at this corner, the addition would not adversely affect the neighborhood, particularly with regard to traffic and architecture; that it would not affect the general zoning laws of the City. C. Mink moved approval of these findings and of the variance, with the condition that the foundation be placed in such a way as to do minimum damage to the City trees, these plans to be to the satisfaction of the City's Park Director. Second C. Kindig and approved unanimously on roll call vote of members present. 7 VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FOURTH BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH NON• -CONFORMING GARAGE AT 724 LEXINGTON WAY (APN 029-171-.210), ZONED R-1, BY PAUL L. MARKOFF Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. Mr. Markoff has a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house at present and would like to add a 16' x 22' family room with adjacent 12' x 16' bedroom at the ground floor level, off the dining room. At the second floor level a 10' x 17' study is proposed off the existing master bedroom. There is an existing garage with interior dimensions of 13' x 33' with 17' to the edge of the sidewalk. Therefore, the property has only one covered parking space to code standards. Additional off-street parking has been provided with enlargement of the driveway area. Except for covered parking, the addition fully meets code requirements. Mr. Markoff confirmed that the height and planes of the house would remain the same, and that plans for the addition would meet code. There were no audience comments and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs found exceptional circumstances in this property with a one -car garage, but with room for two czars to park in the driveway according to code; that the family requires room to expand to preserve continued use and enjoyment of this property; that the proposed addition would not interfere with the property rights of the surrounding neighborhood; and that 'it would not contradict the General Plan. C. Jacobs moved approval of these findings of fact and approval of the variance. Second C. Kindig and approved on unanimous roll call vote of members present. 8. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A THIRD BEDROOM TO A HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING GARAGE AT 34 CHANNING ROAD (APN 029-303-240), ZONED R-1, BY JAMES P. NUSS Asst. C. P. Yost reported that the applicant has a two bedroom, one bath house at present and would like to add a 12' x 23' family room at the Mick of the present kitchen. A third bedroom and second bath is proposed at the second floor level. Presently there is an attached garage 13' x 36' with 26' from the front of the garage to the back edge of the sidewalk. The property has only one covered parking space to code standards, although there is adequate room on the present driveway for a second car in the setback area. Present lot coverage is 23%, proposed coverage 28%. Except for covered parking the addition fully meets code standards. Attention was drawn -to the applicant's affidavit and the need to make findings consistent with code requirements. James Nuss was present and had nothing to add to Mr. Yost's remarks. There were no audience comments and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs advised she had visited the property and stated findings: there are exceptional circumstances in that the garage is small but there is room to park one car in the driveway to code standards; for continued use and enjoyment of his property the applicant does need another bedroom; the addition to the back of the house would not be a detriment to the neighbors;. and it would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 June 27, 1977 C. Jacobs moved approval of these findings and of the variance. Second C. Sine. Replying to C. Francard, the applicant advised he planned to add a fireplace in the rear which would conform to building code. The motion was approved unanimously on roll call vote of members present. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A TRAVEL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 29 EDWARDS COURT (APN 026-102-100), BY WADE PERRITT OF CONTINENTAL MORTUARY AIR SERVICES FOR AIR CARE TRAVEL SERVICE (ND -116P POSTED 6/17/77) Chm. Taylor asked C. P. Swan if 29 Edwards Court was within the area covered by Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1107. Mr. Swan replied that it is within the area of the land use study requested by Council; however, this application is not for construction but for use of an existing building. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application. Continental Mortuary Air Services has a current business license to receive caskets delivered by funeral directors and forward them to San Francisco International Airport for destinations throughout the United States. In an April 21, 1977 letter from Wm. P. Covington, general manager of CMAS Air Care, it is stated that approximately seven funeral directors arrive per day at 29 Edwards Court and the heaviest traffic is after evening visitation which lasts until 9:00 P.M. As an accessory service they would like to operate at small travel service from 29 Edwards Court to handle ticketing for the bereaved family and to offer travel services to nearby businesses as well. The applicant did not foresee any increase in traffic with the expansion of this business as ticketing details for the bereaved families would most probably be handled by the funeral directors. Wade Perritt, the applicant, had nothing to add to Mr. Yost's remarks and believed Mr. Covington's letter was quite complete. During Commission discussion C. Mink stated he would have no objection to offering service to neighboring businesses and asked the applicant if he would be agreeable to a restriction that there be no external identification. The applicant advised that CMAS had opened travel businesses in Los Angeles and Chicago with no additional signage; advertising, went only to the funeral industry advising them of the service. There were no audience comments and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. The Chairman commented this might be considered an extension of an existing use, not a change in use.. C. Jacobs remarked it was a considerate service to offer. C. Mink suggested allowing extension of the use for the mortuary service at this time; then, when the City's land use study is completed, Commission could reconsider extension of this permit application. Chm. Taylor thought the proposed travel agency was consistent with the needs of the applicant's business. C. Jacobs moved approval of this special permit to allow a travel agency in the M-1 District for the applicant's clients in the mortuary business, with the restriction that there be no external signage. Second C. Kindig and approved on unanimous voice vote of all members present. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCK RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD (APN 026-111-120) AND TRUCK STORAGE AT 855 MAHLER ROAD (APN 026-322-190) BY DARYL NICK FOR AZTEC RENT-A-CAR/RYDER TRUCK RENTALS (ND -117P POSTED 6/17/77) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the background of the present special permit granted to Aztec Rent-A-Car in 1975. The January, 1975 approval was subject to the restrictions that in the event the lease between Vorelco and Aztec were cancelled, the use permit would terminate; also that eight parking spaces are to be maintained at 808 Burlway Road and 25 parking spaces at 855 Mahler Road; and that all spaces are to be allocated and properly marked. Vorelco presently leases seven spaces at 855 Mahler to E.D.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 June 27, 1977 Investments; E.D.M. Investments owns the property at 808 Burlway and through its agent, California Management Company, leases these same seven spaces to the new owners of the Aztec franchise. Mr. Yost advised Aztec no longer has a lease with Vorelco and that the 1975 special permit conditions should be changed to reflect current arrangements or Aztec should be asked to comply with the original conditions. Staff did not believe there had been any complaints about Aztec from adjacent property owners, and present arrangements seem to be working. The present proposal is to add the Ryder Truck Rental agency to the car rental business at 808 Burlway Road. Mr. Yost noted that the 1975 application proposed two employees and a daily car rental up to 25 cars. The application this evening is for four full time and two part time employees with a 60 car/2 truck Aztec fleet and perhaps 10 Ryder truck rentals per week. There was considerable further discussion regarding working arrangements of this business, turnover of the vehicles and the amount of parking. Concern was expressed regarding parking with a proposed 60 car fleet and only seven parking spaces on Burlway Road; and why so few spaces were needed at night. The applicant advised that 80-85% utilization of the fleet was quite constant. If utilization got much lower it would not be a money -making business. Mr. Nick also advised that six or seven spaces are leased on the Mahler Road property; concern was expressed should those spaces become unavailable. The applicant believed parking could be found elsewhere in the general area. He told Chm. Taylor there are eight spaces available at 808 Burlway Road. C. Mink raised questions regarding servicing of the vehicles and was told they are presently being serviced.at Bayside Shell with washing at 808 Burlway Road. The applicant was advised there are code requirements regarding drainage in such cases and it was suggested he discuss the matter with staff. C. P. Swan stated his belief the previous special permit should be revoked in view of the concerns being expressed, after which this present special permit could be discussed with staff and presented in a more complete form. C. Sine related his visit to the site. There had been two Ryder trucks at the Mahler Road lot, and none of the area was properly marked. At 808 Burlway there were eight spaces designated for Aztec but none of their cars were there; they were washing cars at the front near their office. Chm. Taylor suggested the applicant might want to consider withdrawing at the present time and resubmitting his application in proper form, with the formal lease conditions. Planning Dept. could take steps to revoke the other permit. C. A. Coleman commented the testimony seemed to indicate that the 25 parking spaces were not needed. C. Mink said he could accept the fact of an 80-85% turnover of cars but felt Commission needed further evidence in order to make a decision. There appeared to be general consensus that a more complete application was needed. C. Kindig suggested continuing the application for one month in order to allow the applicant to confer with staff about the concerns expressed. C. Mink listed concerns and evidence needed for a decision: counts of cars in the parking lots over a significant period of time, two weeks or a month, at varying times such as 12:00 Noon and 12:00 Midnight; arrangements for washing, cleaning and servicing of vehicles; hours of operation of the business with shift requirement for employee parking; a notation as to the variation of parking space requirements for rental vehicles, employee parking and trucks; and, specifically, what lease rights or opportunities the applicant was prepared to exercise for parking spaces. He also requested a staff report on review of signage. Chm. Taylor continued this agenda item for one month to the meeting of July 25, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 June 27, 1977 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF A NON -CONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING AS A PLAYROOM; PROPERTY AT 1517 NEWLANDS AVENUE (APN 028-294-210), ZONED R-1, BY TEOFILO C. MEDEIROS Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the history of this property. There is an older house at the back of the lot built to the side and rear property lines. A double car garage at the front was converted to a second dwelling unit in the 1930's or 40's. In February, 1975 a City inspection found it was being used at that time as a painting studio by two women from Hillsborough; the owner was required to remove a stove and refrigerator. Since then the property has been sold. The new owner lives in the back house and the front part of the accessory building with remodeled skylights installed is still being used as an art studio. The back portion of this accessory building is a large storeroom. The applicant hopes to remodel the storeroom, rewiring and repaneling, and use it as a playroom for his 10 year old daughter and grandchildren. In his May 26, 1977 letter the applicant asked for permission to putin a 4' x 4' window and two closets. Mr. Yost suggested Commission review this application with care, noting the many changes to this property some of which are non -conforming and some illegal. The focus of the hearing should be the future use of the existing storeroom, not its modernization, which is prohibited by code. The applicant was present and had nothing to add. C. A. Coleman advised this accessory building had been used as an art studio for some time. C. Mink commented on the situation created if Commission were to grant this special permit; the applicant would then apply for a building permit and no doubt have problems with the Building Dept. Asst. C. P. Yost noted that normal maintenance and repairs to a non -conforming building are permitted, but remodeling is prohibited. If Commission approved the use, staff would have to settle the difficult question of what are maintenance and repairs and what is remodeling. C. Mink had concern this might be used for sleeping quarters and was also concerned about the fire hazard in a building of this age without fire separation; he noted the carport had a potential for fire as did the art studio. He commented on the dilemma of allowing the applicant to use it, but not to make it safe. The applicant stated his belief it would be safe and could be inspected at any time. It was determined the plans were for one of the closets to open into the art studio; there is a bathroom in the hobby room; there is a shower in the small area behind the carport; an icebox and a hot plate have been put back into the studio. C. Sine pointed out the skylights that were put in with no building permit; there is a TV antenna; plumbing and water come from the house and there is a hot water tank. He did not believe a playroom was a proper use in this garage. C. Sine also commented that the paintings of the two ladies are being sold and therefore it was a commercial enterprise. C. Jacobs was concerned this.accessory building might be improved and the use enlarged. The C. A. and Asst. C. P. noted it had once been an apartment and could be such again with no physical changes to the present building. It was C. Sine's feeling Commission would be condoning an illegal use. The C.A. told him the previous owner was well aware of the limitations to this property. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Sine moved denial of this special permit. Second C. Jacobs, and the application was denied on unanimous roll call vote of members present. The applicant left before the vote was taken; Chm. Taylor commented he would have been advised of his right of appeal to City Council. C. A. Coleman told Commission he would put this vote on record with the County. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 June 27, 1977 12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 AND A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY; PROPERTY AT 1206/1210 BELLEVUE AVENUE (APN 029-133-210/220)., ZONED R4, BY LOU ARATA FOR GLYNN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Asst. C. E. Rebarchik advised this parcel map is recommended for approval, and referred to the C.E.'s memo of June 10, 1977. It is a simple abandonment of an existing lot line; all public improvements are in and there is only one building on the two lots. Engineering has not imposed any conditions. C. Mink moved approval of this tentative and final parcel map. Second C. Jacobs and approved on unanimous voice vote of members present. 13. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A MERGER OF A PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 23, 24 OF BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5 (APN 028-131-020/030); PROPERTY AT 911/915 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-1 AND R-3, BY MARTIN M. RON ASSOCIATES FOR ZEV BEN-SIMON AND NOAM AND HELEN RAND At the beginning of this hearing Mr. Ben -Simon advised he was now the sole owner of this property. Secy. Sine read a June 22, 1977 letter from Martha Bruce, 1506 Forest View, stating her opposition to any combination of properties for the purpose of multiple dwelling. This property is presently zoned R-3 with the rear one-third zoned R-1. Asst. C. P. Yost advised that technically one legal lot could be created; however, rezoning should perhaps be recommended to the owner. Without rezoning the applicant would still be entitled to construct an apartment building on the portion of the lot that is in -the R-3 District. The Asst. C.E.'s memo of June 22, 1977 listed Engineering conditions for approval of the map. Mr. Ben -Simon told Commission that unless rezoning is approved he did not plan to proceed. The C.A. advised that Commission could make rezoning a condition on the final map. There were no audience comments in favor, and Chm. Taylor asked for comments in opposition. Lillian.Judson, 1514 Forest View, said that she and her next door neighbor at 1510 Forest View were opposed to an apartment development. She noted the privacy they now have in their yards and the beautiful trees. It was felt construction of an apartment house would take away their privacy. The C.A. and the Chairman told her she would get adequate notice in the mail of any rezoning procedures by Commission. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. A. Coleman commented on the need for this map to clean up the lot lines, after which rezoning might be processed. C*Mink moved approval of the submitted parcel map with.the following six conditions: (1) that the subject parcels be rezoned to a single zone; (2) that a new sewer easement be dedicated; (3) that a portion of the existing sewer easement should be vacated; (4) that existing buildings be removed as per code; (5) that water service be provided by the owner from Sanchez or Forest View; (6) that a site plan of the new apartment building be provided showing driveways clear of the street trees, and be to the satisfaction of the Park Director regarding saving two specific trees. Second C. Kindig and approved unanimously on roll call vote of members present. Chm. Taylor told the applicant that a zoning change requires an environmental impact report in accordance with the statutes of the State of California; this would be prepared by the City through staff or consultants at the applicant's expense. He requested Mr. Ben -Simon discuss the matter with the City Planner. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 June 27, 1977 14. ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY AND SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE BAYFRONT AREAS: SUGGESTED SCOPE OF WORK C. P. Swan commented on this matter and advised City Council had approved the draft Request for Proposal which was sent to consultants for them to submit proposals to prepare a land use study. There is to be a briefing session Tuesday, June 28 at 10:00 A.M. in Conference Room B, City Hall to give the same information simultaneously to all interested consultants. Mr. Swan noted a question as to whether this study was to result in a regulatory document or a specific plan for the area. The C.P. was not sure of Commission or Council wishes in this regard. He suggested the possibility of a consolidated report which would indicate the impacts and effectively become a specific plan, with an EIR in conjunction with it. Thereafter, any particular building plan could be found to be consistent with the specific plan. He asked how Commission intended to use the material and to what extent economic studies and market analysis should go. Chm. Taylor told of his comments at the last Council meeting. He had suggested that in addition to land use, consideration should be given to economic impacts and the highest and best use of the land in the area. Councilman Martin had said at that time this was what he had in mind. David Keyston addressed Commission, noting the many projects being considered. He remarked the Emergency Ordinance was costing Anza and its buyers many thousands of dollars and was somewhat concerned about how specific or restrictive a specific plan would be. He wished to be present at the briefing meeting on Tuesday, and hoped for close coordination between Anza and the City. Mr. Keyston noted the history of the Anza property and the delays over the past three or four years in view of the tight money situation. Since more than 18 months had been spent studying the Anza Master Plan previously, he hoped the present situation would not unnecessarily delay proposed projects and that the studies could be expedited so that development could move forward. Chm. Taylor commented the Commission had worked hard attempting to get the Anza Master Plan implemented; Mr. Keyston advised that costs of solving all the problems made implementation prohibitive. C. P. Swan asked that the Chairman assure Mr. Keyston he was welcome to attend the briefing session and requested a member of Commission also attend. He advised the RFPs for the land use study and bayfront traffic study would be transmitted to Council for consideration at their July 13 study meeting. C. Mink discussed options for procedure: (1) incrementally or (2) in order to cut down the time lag of development, proceed 'full bore,' assuming the probability of massive changes such as code amendments, zoning changes and changes in the General Plan. He pointed out Commission had gone on record that the Anza Master Plan looked good, referred it to Council and strongly urged that studies be started at that time. The necessary municipal improvements for further bayfront development were also discussed. Mr. Keyston thought that when someone bought a property he should know what he could do with it. C. P. Swan reported on the Charles King project and advised the EIR would not be brought to Commission until staff was satisfied with it. C. Jacobs commented on her concern regarding variances, and hoped that at some future time Commission might consider using special permits instead of variances for review of garages and the like. AO.IOURNMFNT The meeting adjourned at 12:32 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine, Secretary