Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.04.25COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Fra ncard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 25, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Cistulli OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present; C. Cistulli absent. MINUTES The minutes of the April 11, 1977 meeting were approved as mailed. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-40P, FOR PROPOSED 90 FOOT HIGH OFFICE BUILDING AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-430), ZONED C-4, PREPARED BY DEL DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CHARLES KING & ASSOCIATES Del Davis, president of Del Davis Associates, Inc., environmental consultants retained by the City of Burlingame to prepare this EIR, addressed Commission. He noted that he had given a rather extensive review of the proposed 90 foot high office building project at the study session, April 11; his discussion this evening would concern key features that had been brought out since that meeting. Mr. Davis said that four communications with regard to adequacy of the EIR had been received by the City: (1) from Wayne M. Swan regarding C. Jacobs' comments; (2) from John R. Yost; (3) from the Director of Public Works, Ralph Kirkup; and (4) a phone call from the architect of the proposed building with his comments. All of these comments would be addressed and incorporated in the final EIR. The feature receiving considerable discussion was the proposal to develop this project in three independent stages relative to granting of permits by the City and by BCDC. The total building would have a net area of approximately 148,000 SF. Phase One proposes to occupy about 120,000 SF and to provide 382 full parking spaces; at a later date approximately 138,000 SF would be occupied with 397 full size parking spaces and 46 compact spaces. Phase Three would occupy approximately 148,000 SF with parking for 366 full size and 85 compact spaces for a total of 451 parking spaces. He noted that at the ultimate development stage there would be approximately 50 parking spaces less than is currently required by the zoning ordinance, depending upon the commercial area on the first floor. The present ordinance does not specifically provide for compact car space in a building of this type. Questions had been raised regarding what other cities were doing in this regard and Mr. Davis' staff had compiled the following information: the City of San Francisco Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 25, 1977 allows one compact space in the first 20 and one in each five thereafter; San Mateo County does not consider compact cars; in Millbrae compact parking is permitted by discretionary action; Oakland permits one compact space for each five parking spaces; and Berkeley has no provision for compacts. The final EIR will summarize and review this information as well as discuss an alternative access point as suggested by the City Engineer. Mr. Davis concluded his presentation, and Chm.. Taylor requested Commission questions. C. Jacobs was told by Mr. Davis that the final EIR would clarify parking requirements with regard to retail and/or bank use of the first floor. Chm. Taylor commented on the difficulty of evaluating an EIR without specific facts of the project. Del Davis explained EIR procedures, stating that an EIR is prepared with the greatest specificity possible with the information available; then mitigation measures are set forth using available information; in most instances, after certification of the EIR, specific project approval is taken up and at that time the'EIR is modified. He stated the courts have ruled that in approving a project the findings of the EIR must be taken into consideration and reasonable efforts made to mitigate the adverse impacts set forth in the EIR. C. Mink referred to an assumption that BCDC would not allow the development of the parking lot. He suggested mitigating circumstances in this eventuality be included in the EIR, e.i., (1) reduce the size of the proposed building; (2) propose a parking structure; (3) ask for a variance from parking regulations. C. Jacobs agreed with this suggestion as she wished to know what the developer would do if BCDC did not approve. C. Mink was concerned about the basement, what it would be used for and parking in relation to that use; he asked for further explanation of this in the EIR. Referring to page 40, the top line, C. Jacobs noted the statement that there is an approximate leaseable floor area of 130,000 SF. She questioned the difference between this figure and the figure of 148,000 SF elsewhere in the EIR. It was explained that the leaseable floor area excludes the stairs, elevator, lobby;, etc. Mr. Davis told C. Jacobs the EIR was suggesting planting of trees as a visual mitigation; the City should require additional landscaping. C. Kindig requested inclusion of a statement that the landscaping be maintained by the developer; Chm. Taylor felt this could be a qualification for approval of the special permit. C. Mink noted there was no reference to execution of an easement or document which would guarantee access to the bayfront; this, too, the Chm, thought could be stipulated when the special permit was approved. C. P. Swan advised the staff reports had been distributed to Charles King and Steve Wintner, architect for the project, with the suggestions of the new intersection and change in the parking layout; he asked for their comments so 'that matters of policy could be addressed by Commission prior to submittal of special permit and parking variance applications. Steve L. Wintner of Gensler & Associates, San Francisco told Commission the comments by the City would be responded to in writing. They wished to be allowed to file the special permit and variance application for compact parking in conjunction with the final review of the draft EIR as amended by Del Davis Associates. He added that the comments this evening were helpful to them and they were prepared to submit the applications in time for the May 9 study session. Chm. Taylor believed Del Davis Associates should have the actual proposal before the amended EIR was completed. Mr. Wintner advised they would coordinate with Del Davis in order to have continuity. C. A. Coleman advised that if Commission adopted the draft EIR on May 9 it would be recommended to Council by resolution at the May 23 meeting. Discussion continued regarding scheduling of these matters; Commission had reluctance to hold a study session and hearing on the special permit and variance at the same time. C. P. Swan remarked that the special permit and variance applications could not be approved until Council certified the EIR; if there is a street change, Council would be involved. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 25, 1977 Mr. Wintner told Commission there were no specific plans with regard to the basement at the present time; projections or viable uses which would not be in conflict with daytime use or parking requirements included a computer facility, a restaurant open for dinner only or a small theater. He commented on the need for additional tenant storage space as storage on the floors was not large. Landscape architects have not been retained as yet. Steve Wintner indicated that Charles King was prepared to provide an access easement to the City for access to the Bay; it was planned to meet with the City Engineer within the next two days regarding the intersection. C. Sine asked that the parking be resolved and suggested doubledecking in the rear if necessary. He felt that many Commission concerns could be eliminated if enough parking were provided. C. Mink discussed the "Conclusions" beginning on page 20. He noted the term"general conformity" and requested representation of the areas of conformity or nonconformity be included in the EIR. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments. Frank Pagliaro, Drake Avenue, Burlingame spoke of visual pollution, particularly a nine story building entirely of glass. He suggested consideration be given to using a different type of material. He was also concerned about traffic congestion, and noted there is already empty office space in Burlingame; these topics might be included in the EIR. He suggested a mitigation measure might be dedication of a linear park. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor continued this item to the meeting of May 9, 1977. 2. APPEAL OF BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATIONS UNDER SEC. 18.08.050 FOR PARK WOODS CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 33 PARK ROAD BY M. SINGER C. P. Swan commented this item was an appeal of a decision by the Chief Building Inspector and the Planning Dept. was not involved. Chief Building Inspector Calwell addressed Commission, stating that in his opinion this was a request to reduce the safety standards of the City and also of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the State of California. This request was to allow a fire escape as a second means of egress in lieu of a required exit. The U.B.C. requires that floors above the first story having an occupant load of 10 or more shall have not less than two exits. When the occupant load does not exceed 10, or the occupant does not have the privilege to go either right or left to reach an exit, a fire ladder may be used up to a height of 22 feet as the second egress. Mr. Calwell said there is nothing in the Building Code that specifically allows fire escapes in lieu of exits. Under "fire escapes" the Code references stairways. It was the C.B.I.'s interpretation of this section that any stairway shall conform to the width, size of the room, railings, handrails, etc. that make up a set of stairs. The Building Dept. did not believe that a drop ladder was stable enough to allow minors or elderly persons to exit safely to a public way. He added that the State Housing Act has required retroactive fire protection on all existing buildings which do not provide a second means of egress. Replying to Chm. Taylor, Mr. Calwell said he had refused to issue a building permit; based on the proposed exit plans from the applicant he would deny a building permit. C. A. Coleman told Commission the Chief Building Inspector had stated to the applicant in writing that he would not approve a permit; it had been the C.A.'s suggestion that the appeal be made now since this matter was basic to the whole architectural plan. Fire Chief Fricke stated that he supported the action of the Building Dept. He did not believe a fire escape would apply in this situation nor that safety regulations could be violated. The Fire Dept. had concern over allowing a drop ladder as proposed by the developers. Chief Fricke commented on the dilemma presented with no townhouse ordinance to provide guidance. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1977 Morrie Singer, the applicant, related discussions with the Fire and Building Departments concerning this project. In the absence of present Burlingame regulations to deal with this type of project, the Fire and Building Dept.s had considered such a project as an "H" occupancy. It had always been the plan of the developers to have a second means of egress for safety reasons. An exhibit showing existing townhouses with various means of fire escapes was circulated to Commissioners. Mr. Singer stated the maximum drop at any point in their project would be only nine feet; from his experience in selling this type of property, he did not believe older people would buy anything over two stories. He expected the units they were developing would be bought by younger people who could handle a fire ladder. It was Mr. Singer's feeling the problem concerned interpretation of the code, not the safety factor. Discussing the subject of occupant load of 10 or more, Mr. Singer commented that the planned units have individual entrances so .that it would not be possible to have congestion such as might occur in an apartment building. Technically there are that many people but each unit is a single family residence with its own exit. The applicant told Chm. Taylor that the egress distance does not exceed 22 feet, the roof line does. C. Francard remarked that older people might: move in with relatives in these three story townhouses. C. A. Coleman told C. Jacobs the code referred to was a national building code; it talks .of two exits but the definition of exit is not clear in the code. He stated the definition of exit as "a continuous and unobstructed means of egress to a public way." In further discussion C. P. Swan reminded Commission that the, project involved was a horizontal apartment building, or five townhouses in a row. Chief Fricke commented the Fire Dept. has allowed fire escapes on two story buildings but that this project is a three story building; he added that the code does not address the subject of stairs. C. Mink confirmed his understanding of Chief B.I. Calwell's letter of April 19: that floors above the second story shall have not less than two exits and that a fire ladder may be used to a height of 22 feet as an egress. The Commissioner requested testimony to support the theory that a fire escape is not a second exit. Inspector Calwell answered that in the index of the code "fire escapes" refers one to "stairways." C. A. Coleman reiterated the definition of exit:: "a continuous and unobstructed means of egress to a public way." He added that: Commission must decide if the fire escape is a suitable exit in a general way and in conjunction with this project. Mr. Singer remarked that the means of egress they were proposing would be more costly than a balcony across the five townhouse units with a stairway at the end; it was the feeling of the developers this balcony approach would notbe attractive and would violate the privacy concept of condominiums. They were concerned with the safety factor of two means of egress; C. Jacobs was told there was not enough room in the project to take a stairway down from each unit, and to be financially, feasible the project needs the number of units planned. Chm. Taylor wished the applicant had an attorney to present his case; it was his feeling this matter was a legal argument. Ted Farley, one of the devel6pers, reviewed past discussions stating they had agreed to the classification of an "H" occupancy; at that time they had also agreed with the Fire Dept. that fire ladders would be used and had discussed the various types with former Chief Fire Inspector Pearson. He added they had then drawn their plans according to the suggestions received, with the acceptance of the "H" occupancy classification. C. Kindig determined that the proposed plan includes each building (or unit) having a stairway from the second to the third floor and a fire escape from the second story to the ground. C. Mink determined the gates between the backyards would not be locked, the backyards being common area. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 25, 1977 C. Mink stated findings that suitable fire escapes to the back property would constitute an exit and allow people to get from the third story to a public way; the Commissioner then moved that the appeal be sustained. At the request of the C.A., C. Mink added findings that a stairway from the third story to the second story and a fire ladder from the second story to the ground does constitute an exit. C. A. Coleman assured C. Kindig that Commission's decision would only apply to this particular project. C. Kindig seconded the motion. C. Sine expressed his feeling that a "collapsible ladder" would be discriminatory to people who might not be able to climb a ladder. He stated his intention to vote against the motion unless it were changed to "collapsible stairway." The motion was defeated on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR FRANCARD, JACOBS, SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. CISTULLI Mr. Singer commented upon C. Sine's suggestion, stating he was not asking for a specific type of fire escape, merely to be able to use a fire escape as an egress. The C.A. suggested a counterbalanced, or stairway type, of fire escape. C. Jacobs moved approval of a counterbalanced fire stairway; second C. Kindig and the motion was unanimously approved on roll call vote of members present. 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS C. Jacobs nominated Chm. Taylor to hold office for another year, congratulating him on his able leadership. C. Francard moved the present slate of officers be retained for another year. Second C. Kindig. Chm. Thomas C. Taylor, 'Dice -Chairman Ruth E. Jacobs and Secretary Thomas W. Sine were unanimously reelected for another year. C. Sine complimented Chm. Taylor for his leadership during the past year and for his aplomb and finesse in handling some difficult meetings A recess was declared at 9:25 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 9:35 P.M. Chm. Taylor recognized in the audience Frank Seebode, president of the Burlingame Elementary School Board. He announced that the Broadway overpass item was not on the agenda this evening; C. E. Kirkup advised he hoped to have the complete report for the meeting of May 23, and notices would be published. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING BEHIND 1510 CYPRESS AVENUE AS SLEEPING QUARTERS FOR TWO SONS (APN 028-294-070), ZONED R-1, BY NAOMI P. AllARIA In view of the large number of residents in attendance Chm. Taylor, with no objection from Commission, announced consideration of this item next. Mrs. Azzaria was present. C. P. Swan reminded Commission of two regulations. (1) In the R-1 District there are conditional uses requiring a special permit, one being "rumpus rooms or hobby rooms in garages or accessory buildings provided that such rooms shall not contain a kitchen as part of a separate rental unit, nor shall such rooms become separate rental units, and provided that such rooms shall not be constructed above or as a second story to such garage or accessory building." (2) It is possible in R-1 to have as a permitted use "letting of rooms, with or without meals, to not more than three persons." In 1971 the State of California passed and made a part of the Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5115 and 5116 which provide, in essence, that a home serving six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons and/or children shall be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of zoning. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 25, 1977 This is a State statute and Mrs. Azzaria has a licensed residential care facility. The application for a special permit is to use the detached cottage in the rear for sleeping quarters only for her two sons. Mr. Swan noted Commission had received a letter of explanation from the applicant and a diagram indicating where 1510 Cypress is located. The rumpus room is in a building addition to an existing two car garage at the end of a long driveway. Mrs. Azzaria addressed Commission, telling them she cares for six elderly ladies. She has two sons, one 18 and one 14, and it was felt a separate sleeping place for the boys would be much better for them and the elderly ladies. Chm. Taylor asked for Commission questions. At C. Kindig's suggestion Secy.Sine read the letter dated March 25, 1977 signed by Naomi P. Azzaria and her mother, Helen Magee. This letter stated the house had been purchased two years ago with the idea of using the detached cottage in the rear for sleeping quarters since the previous owner's son had already been doing so. The license for the care of the elderly was transferred from 915 E1 Camino Real to 1510 Cypress. It did not seem feasible for the boys to sleep in the house because of the possibility of the ladies and the boys disturbing each other. The letter went on to state that if the special permit is not granted it would place the applicant in an untenable position and she would have no alternative but to sell the property. Thousands of dollars had been spent in renovating the house in order to become licensed by the City and the State. Commission cooperation was requested after the applicant's 27 years of service to the community and the high standards she has set in care of the elderly. The Secy. then read a letter from Mrs. Robert Gotelli, 1500 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame which objected to approval of the permit because of the number of cars parked on the street which often causes a hazardous condition for people using her driveway. Mrs. Gotelli added that she would withdraw her objection if definite assurance could be given that the cars would be parked on Mrs. Azzaria's property and not on the street. Chm. Taylor requested Commission questions. The applicant told C. Kindig the rumpus room is adjacent to the garage and the garage is not used for parking cars. The applicant added that she has two cars and a van; her son's van is parked in the driveway. There were no audience comments in favor of this application. Chm. Taylor then requested audience comments in opposition. The following people spoke in opposition: Robert Clark, 1528 Cypress; Richard E. Picton, 1576 Cypress; Analisa Bailey, 1524 Cypress; Evelyn Condon, 1501 Cypress; Dennis Ashby, 116 Central Avenue; Gregory J. Long, 1520 Cypress; Carol Clark, 1528 Cypress; Raul Valadao, 1516 Cypress; Sophia van Egmont, 105 E1 Camino Real; Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston; Roberta Craig, 157 Occidental Avenue; Adolfo Lopez,,1525 Cypress. Concerns and complaints included: Mrs. Azzaria's sons have been living in the rumpus room for two years; inappropriate use of the house trailer in the backyard; health hazards (alleged mosquitos, rats and unsanitary conditions); the problem of a possible mother- in-law apartment in the future; parking on the street; noise and other disturbances; there did not appear to be a filter for the pool; the possibility of fire hazard and the safety factor of the garage. Mrs. Condon spoke again later to clarify a point; she stated the son of the previous owner had only slept in the accessory building for a two month period when they were preparing the property -for sale. Former Burlingame Councilman Dorothy Cusick commented she did not think the problem was with the residential care home but the lack of concern for the rest of the neighborhood. Secy. Sine read additional correspondence in opposition which had been received this evening from the following: Mrs. Glenn Neish, 1536 Cypress; Michael Mustachia, 1529 Newlands; Irene E. Palamountain, 112 Central Avenue; Elizabeth L. Coxon, 1529 Cypress; Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1977 and John and Doris Bauer, 120 Central Avenue. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of Commission. C. Jacobs suggested Mrs. Azzaria might consider adding a room for her boys onto one area remote from the rest of the house. The applicant told her that after spending $20,000 renovating the house it would be financially impossible to afford any more additions. She explained that the trailer was for storage and has been there for approximately eight months. It will be removed to Redding in two weeks. C. Kindig remarked it was not his impression the neighbors were objecting to the home for the elderly, but to the trailer parked in back, noise and the swimming pool. C. Sine related some research he had done. The initial building permit was issued in 1929 and it included a double garage. Later the rumpus room was built with no record of a building permit. Mrs. Azzaria made substantial renovations to comply with State requirements when she moved in. The Commissioner said he had been at the site on Saturday or Sunday and could not see inside the rumpus room. He had concern with the possibility of adapting it to a mother-in-law apartment. At the time of his inspection the mobile home was not connected to electricity or water. He spoke from personal experience in saying that Mrs. Azzaria has done an excellent job taking care of the elderly. The problem appears to be with the boys and/or their friends creating unnecessary disturbances. It was his contention the problem of cars parking on the street could be handled quite simply by calling the police. C. P. Swan explained that lacking an opportunity to make inspections, staff had followed up on a telephone complaint. No written complaints had been received. The C. P. had contacted Mrs. Azzaria by letter on March 3, 1977 requesting an application be submitted for the continued use of the accessory building. C. Kindig was told that the swimming pool is not being used, but it is filled. The Commissioner had some concern about the reported mosquitos. C. Mink remarked on his opposition to accessory buildings for many years. He then moved denial of this special permit. Second C. Jacobs and this application was denied on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, MINK, SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG, TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI Chm. Taylor told the applicant she had the right of appeal to City Council. 4. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 33, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 (APN 026-185-080) AT 1915 CARMELITA AVENUE AND 1030 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY GLEN D. HAGEY FOR TED FARLEY C. E. Kirkup reminded that the tentative parcel map had been approved by Commission and then by the City Council with instructions that the final parcel map not be filed until public improvements were completed. He advised that the applicant had accomplished these improvements, the final parcel map is technically correct and he recommended approval. C. Sine moved approval of the final parcel map. Second C. Jacobs and all aye voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 25, 1977 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING.A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS 1 AND 2, LOT 2, EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL PARK (APN 026-102-080/090) AT 50 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED M-1, BY WM. A. BARTLETT FOR ROBERT F. ED14ARDS (OWNER) WITH NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC. (BUYER, AMENDED PARCEL 2) C. P. Swan reviewed this item, stating.that 10 feet of property would be added to the developed property at 50 Edwards Court. Presently there is a 10 foot wide sideyard next to the office/warehouse building. With this parcel map the sideyard would become 20 feet wide. Replying to C. Jacobs, Mr. Swan told her additional parking could then be obtained in the sideyard in future. Bill Smidt, City Manager, National Car Rental System, Inc. as well as Robert F. Edwards, Jr. were present. C. E. Kirkup commented on his March 24, 1977 memo. Engineering would require an access easement from Edwards Court to the dike along the Easton Creek channel for maintenance of the channel. In further discussion with the applicants the previously requested construction on the dike would not be required at this time. C. Jacobs moved approval of this tentative parcel map with the condition that the map show an access easement from Edwards Court to the dike along Easton Creek channel. Second C. Kindig; all aye voice vote. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO STORE RENTAL CARS; PROPERTY AT 75 EDWARDS COURT (PORTION OF APN 026-102-080/090), ZONED M-1, BY NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH ROBERT F. EDWARDS (OWNER); AND TO SELL USED CARS AT RETAIL AT 40 EDWARDS COURT, LOT 1,EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL PARK (APN 026-102-070) OWNED BY NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC. (ND -106P -R1 REVISED AND POSTED 4/15/77) C. P. Swan requested comments from John Benzian, Attorney, Properties Department and Bill Smidt, City Manager, both of National Car Rental System, Inc.,with regard to car rental information and the purpose of their application to upgrade the present facilities and add on the storage lot. John Benzian stated that in 1972 they had established their Bay Area headquarters operations at 40 Edwards Court, developing approximately 3.5 acres. It has been outgrown in terms of parking for their cars. He explained they were also appearing before Commission to gain approval for the resale of vehicles in the M-1 District. C. A. Coleman requested comments from the applicants as to the dollar volume. Mr. Benzian said National does the majority of its business at the airport. From a sales tax standpoint, on a quarterly basis, the state tax should result in taxes to Burlingame of somewhere between $15-•30,000 per quarter for rental cars. In turnover of resale vehicles there might be additional sales tax credited to Burlingame. Bill Smidt discussed the subject of taxes. In view of the way National's cars are licensed, a portion of the rental tax is credited back to 40 Edwards Court, Burlingame and then back to the City. Regarding collection of the tax on the resale of individual car sales, he said that recently the state passed a law making retail agencies and leasing agencies responsible for collecting the sales tax on the sale of vehicles to an individual. A portion of that tax will come to the City which Mr. Smidt believed was 1%. At the present selling rate of about 25 cars per month in Burlingame at retail, assuming an average cost of $4,000, the rate to Burlingame would be about $40.00 a car. The expected increase in the fleet would, of course, increase the sales tax. Mr. Smidt told C. Jacobs National does sell the cars at 40 Edwards Court:, which is why they are before Commission requesting to sell cars at retail in the M-1. zone. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1977 C. Mink was concerned about motor vehicle trip ends into the area by potential customers. Mr. Smidt told him 50 to 100 trips a day could be expected. C. Jacobs determined that employees park at 40.Edwards Court. C. Kindig was told the new fence would be redwood slatted.where there is street exposure; with a cyclone fence for off- street exposure. The applicants told C. Mink they had read the negative declaration posted by C. P. Swan. The Commissioner noted this document stated the applicants would provide off-street parking for potential customers and presumably off-street parking for employees; that loading and unloading from transport trucks would take place on-site. The applicants assured him they would be willing to have the special permit include these conditions. Bill Smidt advised letters had been sent out to all their common carriers advising them "to load or unload on our property only." Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor or opposed. Andrew Morrow of Andrew Morrow Enterprises, 25 Edwards Court stated he was the owner of property next door to the proposed used car lot. He did not believe the location of a used car lot at the end of a cul-de-sac street already overcrowded should be allowed. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Replying to C. Mink, the applicant said their fleet last year peaked out at 1672 units. They anticipated it could increase to 2500. It was expected they would retail about 1/4 of the units and wholesale about 3/4. C. Mink moved approval of this special permit to store rental cars at 75 Edwards Court and to sell used cars at retail at 40 Edwards Court, with the following conditions: that on-site parking be provided for all employees and for all retail customers; and that all loading and unloading of vehicles be done on-site. Second C. Jacobs and approved unanimously on roll call vote of members present. 7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.42.070 WHICH REQUIRES THAT 10% OF THE AREA OF A PROPERTY BE LANDSCAPED: PROPERTY AT 75 EDWARDS COURT (PORTION OF APN 026-102-080/090), ZONED M-1, BY NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH ROBERT F. EDWARDS (OWNER) C. P. Swan deferred to the applicants for review of this item. Brian Anthony, architect for National Car Rental, Inc., addressed Commission. He stated it was their feeling that Commission had requested screening of their cars as much as possible. The site is presently densely landscaped and screened along the Bayshore Freeway property line to the east; to the west, the property fronts garages and warehousing space of a rather high warehouse office building which provides more than adequate screening; to the south is Easton Creek and adjacent to the creek is another rather high warehouse office building which screens the area; to the north and adjacent to Edwards Court cul-de-sac, which is the only means of ingress and egress to and from the site and is its major public exposure, it is proposed to install redwood screening slats in the chain link security fence along the entire north property line and also provide a 10' x 125' landscaped area immediately in front of this northern fence line. In conclusion Mr. Anthony stated their plans would not meet the 10% landscaping require- ments of the Burlingame Code. Bill Smidt advised Commission that slatting in a gate has been found to be a safety problem; they had removed it from the existing gate and would hope to eliminate it from the new gate. C. Francard was concerned about the uniformity of the car tops and suggested a few trees be planted in the parking area itself. C. Kindig commented on Mr. Morrow's property and suggested planting some trees along the fence for the benefit of the buildings across the street. C. A. Coleman remarked there might be limitations because of existing power lines. The applicant told C. Jacobs transports are normally parked around the corner facing the Freeway and obscured from the courtyard. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1977 C. E. Kirkup reminded Commission of the current water shortage and requested that landscaping not be installed until after the emergency. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor. Robert F. Edwards, Jr., 1739 Forest View Avenue, Hillsborough addressed Commission, stating his family has had several buildings in the area for quite some time and has been concerned with Edwards Park development. He noted that aesthetically this is a strange site and a difficult one on which to provide 10% landscaping. He believed the variance should be granted and commented that from Rollins Road the property was not visible. It was his belief that if the front were landscaped as planned it would be as attractive as could be expected with the configuration of the lot. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in opposition. Andrew Morrow spoke again, commenting he would prefer a bit more landscaping than is being proposed. With his two stories of office space across the street, he would prefer something to break the monotony of the cars. There were no further audience comments and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs suggested the possibility of a very high hedge. C. Kindig voiced his concern over "a sea of cars" and supported C. Francard's suggestion regarding planting trees in the parking area. Architect Anthony told Commission National Car Rental would be more than happy to plant trees in the auto lot; they would build tree wells and leave them open for later filling after the water shortage. Chm. Taylor found that due to the configuration of this property there are exceptional circumstances and denial of the variance would result in undue property loss to the applicant; that a lesser percentage of landscaping than is required by code is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the applicant, and would not be injurious to nearby property owners; and that: the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Burlingame. C. Mink added the finding that the requirement for access easement to Easton Creek mitigates against peripheral landscaping; therefore, some reasonable number of trees planted under the direction of the Park Director would be satisfactory. C. Mink moved adoption of the findings of fact as discussed by Chm. Taylor and himself, and moved approval of the variance with the stipulation, upon the request of the City of Burlingame, that under the direction of the Park Director no less than six trees be planted in the interior of the lot outside the area of the PG&E lines, in addition to landscaping proposed along the northwest property line. Motion seconded and approved on unanimous roll call vote of members present. C. Kindig requested the Planning Dept. maintain a file for follow-up on landscaping requirements of Commission during the present water shortage so that installation of landscaping may be enforced after the emergency. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE AIKIDO SCHOOL TO HOLD SELF DEFENSE CLASSES IN THE R-3 DISTRICT AT 1045 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-164-040); EDWARD AND ELIZABETH NAUGHTON (APPLICANTS) WITH FRANCES A. MILLIKEN (PROPERTY OWNER) LND-112P POSTED 4/15/77) In response to the presence in the audience of many students and supporters of the Aikido School, Chm. Taylor announced this item for consideration at this time. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the application, noting that Commissioners: had received copies of a staff report on the background to the application. Details of earlier applications - social dancing, karate school and the Peninsula Art Association classes - help establish why the Naughtons.signed a lease for this property. The presE!nt application is to operate the Aikido School which teaches classes in self defense. This school has been in the apartment house at 1045 El Camino Real for approximately one year. There are 29 students enrolled: 10 aged 8-10, 9 aged 14-20 and 10 adults; and there are four regular instructors. Classes consist of one or two instructors and six to 10 Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1977 students held Monday and Wednesday evenings from 7:30 to 9:00 P.M., Saturday morning from 10:00 to 11:30 A.M. and Sunday morning from 9:30 to 11:00 A.M. There is no on-site parking; parking being prohibited on El Camino, any Tong term parking must be either on Carmelita, Balboa or Sanchez. Mr. Yost said the principal staff objection was the condition of the property and referenced memos received from the Fire and Building Departments listing items that should be attended to. The nonprofit status of the school would need to be established; this could be obtained subsequent to this evening's hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Naughton were present and stated they had nothing further to add to Mr. Yost's remarks. C. Kindig determined the Millikens had not yet made commitments regarding the requirements of the Building and Fire Dept.s. Mr. Milliken addressed Commission with regard to Chief Building Inspector Calwell's April 20, 1977 memo. He stated that items 1 and 2, that is, remove doors and building material from in front of second exit and make door openable and usable, and remove all extension cords in main karate room, had been complied with. Concerning item 3, install a fire extinguisher, Mr. Milliken said if he could not locate a fire extinguisher he would see that one was installed; he added there were extinguishers in each apartment upstairs. He also advised Commission he would attend to items 4, 5 and 6, i.e., protect the bottom or underside of the rear stairs; remove trash from under rear stairs; finish plaster coat on rear wall and patch all holes in wall. Secy. Sine read a letter dated April 21, 1977 signed by Anthony Grasso and Adriana Grasso, 297 Alturas Way, Soquel, California who were unable to attend the hearing. This letter stated they were property owners in the area and did not consider the school a suitable use at this location. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application. A father of one of the students stated the school had offered his son a good program of body and mind building, and requested Commission grant the special permit. A Foster City father told of watching his children grow emotionally and physically in the art of self defense and mind building. He urged support for continuation of the school. L. Walter, 1421 Oak Grove Avenue who is a student at the school advised Commission he has never had a parking problem. Two other students stated that the classes were quiet and stressed the self control and mental discipline they had been taught. An instructor in San Mateo commented he had seen what Aikido classes have done for the young, self defense being a small part of the training. He felt this training is a benefit to the community. There were no further comments and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink moved approval of the special permit for the Aikido School with the following conditions: that the classes be limited to two instructors and 12 students at any one time; that classes be held on Monday and Wednesday evenings only from 7:30 to 9:00 P.M. and on Saturday and Sunday mornings from 9:30 to 11:30 A.M.; that the nonprofit status of the organization be legally established to the satisfaction of the City Attorney; and that the requirements of the Building and Fire Departments be satisfied within 30 days or the special permit be terminated. Second C. Jacobs and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI The Chairman declared a recess at 11:30 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 11:37 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 25, 1977 8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR OAK GROVE MANOR, A 7 -UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE (APN 029-131-100), ZONED R-3, BY MR. AND MRS. J. G. LOMBARDI Chm. Taylor announced this item, asking Mr. Lombardi for remarks. The applicant commented he had submitted plans at the study session and would be happy to answer Commission questions this evening. C. P. Swan told Commission the application for a condominium permit is complete: the project plan and landscaping plan have been received by Commissioners; technically this is one apartment building, Group "H" occupancy, with clustered townhouses constructed over an underground garage; no public improvements are required; the application includes proof of ownership; a negative declaration has been posted; draft CC&Rs have been submitted. There were no audience comments and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Secy. Sine read a memo from Fire Chief Fricke dated April 20, 1977 with the following recommendations: with present zoning regulations, the Fire Dept. must consider this project as one building, specifically an apartment house; if considered as such, each unit would be requiredto have a second means of egress from the second floor. Since this is a two story building, the second means of egress could be a fire escape. The building must be one hour fire resistive construction throughout with a three hour occupancy separation between the garage and the units. Also, portable fire extinguishers would be required in appropriate locations. The Secy. then read a memo from Chief Bldg. Inspector Calwell dated April 22, 1977 which stated the Building Dept. would classify the complex as an "H" occupancy which would require a second means of egress from above the first floor. Mr. Lombardi advised he would put a fire escape in each unit and comply with the other requirements of the Fire and Building Departments. C. Jacobs inquired where the fire escapes would be and was told the exits would go out a window and down. There were no comments from the City Engineer. C. Mink moved approval of the condominium permit with the condition that all requirements of the Fire Department be met. Second C. Sine and approved unanimously on roll call vote.of members present. C. Sine suggested another door be provided at the base of the stairs. 9. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SEVEN CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE UNITS ON A COMMON FOUNDATION AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE BY J. G. LOMBARDI (ND -110P POSTED 4/15/77 C. E. Kirkup recommended approval of the tentative subdivision map to create seven condominium units on a common foundation. All requirements of Engineering have been met. C. Sine moved approval of this tentative subdivision map. Second C. Jacobs and all aye voice vote. 10. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR FENCES TO EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY. LINES OF OAK GROVE MANOR, A 7 -UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE BY J. G. LOMBARDI Mr. Lombardi told Commission he was requesting approval of fences which would be eight feet above ground level of the adjacent property, these fences to extend 130 feet on both sides of 1225 Oak Grove. This request was made in order to screen the project and give added privacy to the individual patios. He told Commission he had talked to one of the neighbors who had no objections. It was his assumption the other neighbors had received notices of the hearing. Further discussion brought out that the lot at 1225 Oak Grove slopes downward to the street; a level garage roof would be about 18 inches above grade near the front setback line. In back the fence would be Page 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1977 at normal height. Mr. Lombardi said the trees were being saved and he planned to add more trees. The eight foot fences are being requested only for the section where front doors of adjacent buildings are opposite the planned units. Chm. Taylor closed the lublic.hearintt . C. Jacobs moved approval of this fence exception; second C.Mink and all ye. 11WA I W PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME GROVE (APN 026-086-270/280) AT 1352-1356 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ALBERT AND JUDITH MUROLO C. E. Kirkup advised this tentative parcel map proposed to combine two parcels into one. Engineering recommended dedication of a five foot easement along the rear property line. Additionally, the current zoning ordinance requires there be only one building on a lot; one or both of the present buildings would have to be removed prior to approval of the final parcel map. Neil Vannucci, Designer of the project, appeared for the applicants. He stated there was no objection to the requirements of the C.E. C. Sine moved approval of the tentative parcel map with the conditions that one or both of the dwellings be removed, and a five foot PUE easement be established along the rear property line. Second C. Mink and all aye on voice vote. It was pointed out for the record that the correct address of this project is 1352-1356 E1 Camino Real. 12. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030, TO COVER 74% OF THE TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR AN 18 -UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1352-1356 E1 Camino Real (APN 026- 086-270/280), ZONED R-3, BY MR. AND MRS. ALBERT A.MUROLO (ND -111P POSTED 4/15/77) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this.application. Burlingame Code specifies that 80% of all off-street parking required on an R-3 lot must be covered. The present application is for a proposed 18 -unit apartment building at the corner of E1 Camino and Grove; by code 27 parking spaces are required and 22 must be covered. If this variance is approved only 20 will be covered. Background information is contained in a letter dated April 6, 1977 from the applicants in which Mr. Murolo noted that on March 22 he had been advised by his surveyor, Mr. Hickey, that a sewer line ran underground at the rear of the property; and in order to gain approval of the parcel map Engineering would require dedication of a five foot PUE easement across the rear of the property. The applicants were then advised by their Designer, Neil Vannucci & Associates, that part of this easement would be covered by a parking garage and revising the plans at this late date would be extremely difficult, necessitating re- design of virtually the entire project. It was then decided to request a variance. Mr. Yost remarked that a complete set of plans had been distributed to Commission; a negative declaration had been posted with the conclusion the proposed apartment would not have a significant effect on the environment. Neil Vannucci of Neil Vannucci & Associates, Designer of the project appeared for the applicants. C. Sine asked him if he planned to use the existing grades; Mr. Vannucci replied the parking would be subterranean and no major alterations in existing grades was planned. He added that the main building would be below grade, but only slightly. The basement level is at E1. 25.25 with the first living floor 9 feet 9 inches above that at E1. 34.08. Mr. Vannucci noted this is typical for underground parking for such structures. C. Sine commented that it appeared to be a 4 -story building in reality. Mr. Vannucci remarked that. four stories would require an additional foot on either side. He told Commission it would be a definite hardship on him if this variance were not granted. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor. Bill Kline addressed Commission as a representative of Mrs. Roberta Barsotti who lives at 1411 Grove Avenue directly behind the parcel under discussion. He said Mrs. Barsotti was not opposed to the structure but was concerned with the easement; would it be five feet all the way along her property line? He was told the tree in the backyard would remain and that the Page 14 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1977 building would not obstruct the.sun from the building in back.. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs found this is an exceptional. property; the request is for a minor variance a.nd it is obvious two uncovered parking spaces are needed to develop the property; it does not appear to be injurious to the neighborhood; and does not conflict with the General Plan. C. Jacobs moved approval of the findings of fact and the variance from parking regulations. Second C. Kindig and unanimously approved on roll call vote of members present. 15. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.28.050(2) WHICH PROHIBITS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE IN FRONT OF A HOUSE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY. AT 700 NEWHALL ROAD (APN 028-142-230), BY ROBERT ONORATO FOR WALTER E. BODINGHOUSE Robert Onorato represented Mr. Bodinghouse. He said the variance was being requested for a garage in the front area of this particular property because of the lack of an improved street. The proposed new house would be L shaped and would be located at the rear of the lot. The applicant hoped to preserve an existing putting green and two major trees in the front yard; he was proposing access to this new house via an easement over the existing driveway to the house immediately northwest. Noting there was no one in the audience at this late hour to speak for or against the application, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink found there is a particular hardship in this property due to the lack of proper street frontage; the design as submitted meets the General Plan of the city and will improve the property aesthetically; and it will not cause a hardship on any of the neighbors. The Commissioner then moved approval of this variance. Second C. Sine and unanimously approved by roll call vote of members present. 16. APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF AN ALLEY BETWEEN 1444 AND 1446 BALBOA AVENUE C. A. Coleman told Commission this involves an abandonment of an alley between two homes; it would allow the property owners to put in a fence. The C.E. recommends abandonment provided the city retains rights to public utility easements within the alley. The C.A. asked that Commission approve the abandonment as being in conformity with the General Plan. C. Mink moved approval of this vacation of alley between 1444 and 1446 Balboa Avenue with the finding that the abandonment would be in conformity with the General Plan. Second C. Jacobs; all aye voice vote. CITY PLANNER REPORT C. P. Swan reported a conflict with Youth in Government Day for use of the Council Chambers on the evening of May 23. As an imposing agenda is expected, there was Commission consensus to reschedule that meeting to Wednesday, May 25, 1977. Mr. Swan advised the special permit by Ronald Rosberg for retail uses at 1669 Bayshore Highway could be scheduled for hearing May 9. Commission so directed. He reported the Housing Committee would not receive a draft Housing Element for review May 3. Their next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 24. He also reported that an administrative permit had been approved by BCDC for the pedestrian/bicycle bridge between Benihana of Tokyo and Charley Brown's. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 April 25, 1977 Recent City Council actions included the following. A hearing will be held May 2 on the appeal by Dr. Shapiro of -Commission approval of a variance for a house at 1835 Loyola Drive. The day care center at 1400 Paloma Avenue was approved by Council. City Council rescinded Ordinance No. 1100; however, they requested a code amendment be brought back to prohibit residential uses in C-3. C. P. Swan distributed copies of the draft budget letter to the Commission officers and requested feedback. Other members of the Commission received a general program description and the program budget for Planning Dept. fiscal year 77-78. He advised that nine months of record since July 1, 1976 had been extrapolated for the present year. Then the actual percent of total staff time was used to prepare the program budget for next year. Mr. Swan explained the budget is designed to maintain the existing level of service plus the added new functions. He emphasized that any change in the program budget would be a policy decision. A change would affect the distribution of money for employee services. This information was presented to Commission for information and future support of the Planning Dept. budget request. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary