Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.03.28COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT None City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman Asst. City Engineer Rebarchik A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chairman Taylor. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES C. Francard referred to page 9, Item 13B, noting the matter of right-of-way for City access to clean out the drainage ditch had not been included in the remarks. Chm. Taylor commented this could be restated at the public hearing in order to get it into the record. There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor declared the minutes of March 14, 1977 approved as mailed. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION The Chm., with no objection from Commission, requested consideration of Item #3 at this time. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME GROVE (APN 026-086-270/280) AT 1352-1360 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ALBERT AND JUDITH MUROLO Asst. C. E. Rebarchik stated this tentative map proposed to combine two separate R-3 lots into one parcel. At present there is a single home on each lot. Approval is recommended with two conditions: (1) removal of at least one of the houses before the final map can be approved since code limits R-3 property to one building on each lot; and (2) dedication to the City of a 5' public utility easement along the rear (opposite El Camino Real). Chm. Taylor announced that a letter had been received from the applicant at 4:55 P.M. this afternoon, March 28. Secy. Sine read this letter signed by Mrs. Judith Murolo requesting postponement of the agenda item. Hearing no objections, Chm. Taylor continued this matter to the April 25 meeting. Commission then returned to Item #1 of the agenda. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1977 1. CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT: SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA AND FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN C. A. Coleman addressed Commission. He projected on the screen a transparency prepared by the City Planner showing the redevelopment area with proposed land uses, and noted a detailed plan being considered for the entire project. He commented that the plan is still in a preliminary stage. He enumerated the various areas of general use including the existing Sheraton Hotel, the Convention Center with meeting and bedroom facilities, the driving range and golf course, the baseball.diamonds and soccer field, and the relocation of Anza Parking. The sewage treatment plant has been eliminated but the lagoon is included. The C.A. reviewed his March 24 memo to Commission, stressing that they would be acting under Redevelopment Law using Government Code definitions of blight rather than dictionary definitions. He discussed three code sections under Redevelopment Law which can determine blight. (1) Faulty planning - It was suggested that the location of the dump, as a matter of hindsight, does fall within that definition. (2) The need to preserve open space - The condition of the dump could be considered a circumstance of inadequate open space as it is unsightly and blocks the view of the Bay. It would also seem a reasonable finding that the conditions of the dump area cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. (3) The protection of marshland - The area of existing marshland will be preserved, with improvement of the area surrounding it by the probable addition of a golf course. The C. A. concluded his remarks with the request that Commission adopt the two resolutions at this meeting; he then asked for any Commission questions. C. Francard suggested an off -ramp be developed to go across the southwest corner of the ballfields into the parking lot. It was Mr. Coleman's thought this would involve a time element which might be substantial since it would require processing through the State. He told C. Jacobs Commission would be adopting the two resolutions and the report entitled "Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for the Bayside Redevelopment Project." C. Jacobs questioned the following paragraph on page 6 of the report. "The redevelopment plan set forth herein would convert the present unsightly area manifesting elements of blight set forth in the above referred to section into an economically productive and environmentally sound and acceptable portion of the City of Burlingame." The Commissioner and Chm. Taylor agreed this conclusion would be difficult before presenta- tion and consideration of the environmental impact report. C. Mink suggested the following change in the wording of this paragraph to state: "It is the objective of the redevelopment plan set forth herein to convert ." It was noted a very substantial portion of the project area is City owned property. Mr. Coleman told C. Sine it had been decided to include the baseball diamonds and soccer field as part of the project area. He added it was the feeling of all those working on the project that this was the best alternative. Chm. Taylor suggested a change on page 2 of the report, 4th paragraph, so that it would read: "It is obvious that the area is not being put to the highest economic use." C. Jacobs questioned parking requirements. Mr. Coleman replied that the Economic Feasibility study would consider the types of vehicular traffic to be expected for such a convention center; the parking requirement could be less than City of Burlingame standards. Chm. Taylor thought the report might be suggesting there could be a variable in parking requirements as the project develops so that a definite parking requirement could not be included at this time. Referring to the second line on page 3, C. Mink suggested that the Bay be named "San Francisco Bay." Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1977 Chm. Taylor remarked that development of a convention center and golf course is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Burlingame adopted eight years ago. He then asked the pleasure of the Commission. C. Jacobs moved adoption of Resolution No. 2-77 A Resolution Selecting a Project Area - Bayside .Redevelopment Project; second C. Cistulli and unanimously adopted on roll call vote. C. Mink moved adoption of Resolution No. 3-77 A Resolution Formulating a Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment of the Bayside Redevelopment Project Area and Directing Submission Thereof to Said Redevelopment Agency - Bayside Redevelopment Project; second C. Cistulli and unanimously adopted on roll call vote. C. A. Coleman confirmed to C. Jacobs these resolutions would be transmitted to the Redevelopment Agency with the suggested changes in the report. 2. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1100: REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR REPORT C. A. Coleman explained that this ordinance imposes a 120 day moratorium on the construction of new apartment houses on property in the C-3 zoning district. One area is currently affected and two others may be affected at some future date. City Council adopted this urgency interim ordinance and referred the matter to the Planning Commission with a request that report back be made within 60 days. The C. P. made no comment. Chm. Taylor asked Secy. Sine to read correspondence which had been received. Letters of objection to the construction of an apartment building at 1860 Ogden Drive were read into the record. These had been received from the following: E. and L. Podesta, 217 Bancroft Road, Burlingame (owners of 1814 Ogden Drive); Keith F. Roberts, Administrative Manager, International Paper Company, 1777 Murchison Drive, Burlingame; Hugh Page, Treasurer, California Teachers Association Credit Union, 1825 Magnolia Avenue, Burlingame; William R. Conwell, Owner, Little Churches Investment Co., 1801 Murchison Drive, Burlingame. Objections raised included: the project would create a basic change in the corporate office character of the block; it would be out of character with the commercial development already there; increased traffic, noise and pollution; adverse effect on future rentals of the commercial property. C. A. Coleman explained that prior to the emergency ordinance apartment house uses were permitted in C-3 zones. Alternative recommendations to Council are (1) keep the present permitted uses unchanged; (2) omit residential uses from this code section and define them as conditional uses requiring a special permit; (3) prohibit residential uses in the C-3 district. Commission attention was drawn to the Draft Findings contained in Planning Dept. staff report. Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing and requested audience comments in connection with P.C. study of Ordinance No. 1100. Terence O'Neill, 1586 - 15th Avenue, San Francisco addressed Commission, characterizing his present status in this matter as the "victim." He reported the series of events concerning his purchase of 1860 Ogden Drive, from deposit on the property in November, 1976 through arrangements with engineers, architects and others with plans for the project. He said he had abided by all City codes, cooperated with the Planning Dept. and that the neighbors must have known for two or three months of his plans since there was a sign on the site. He told Commission he had relied on the assurances of the City and as a result was now heavily committed financially; it would be a great hardship on him if he was not able to complete the apartment house project. He added that his decision to build an apartment house had been reached after consultation with several real estate firms who advised there was already too much unused office space in Burlingame. City Council had adopted Ordinance No. 1100 at their meeting the evening of March 7; Mr. O'Neill closed escrow on his property Tuesday morning, March 8, thus having no time to withdraw from his contract. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1977 The Chm. inquired if there was anyone else in the audience who would care to speak. Barbara Rice (correct address unknown),who owns two pieces of property in Burlingame, said she was speaking as a citizen interested in the best use of the land. She believed there was a very dire need for small close -in apartment units in Burlingame, especially for the young and older people. With so little land left available in the City she felt the present code should remain unchanged. Alex Nepote of 410 Taylor Boulevard, Millbrae (owner of property across the street from 1860 Ogden) stated he recognized Mr. O'Neill's predicament but felt the City should seriously consider keeping this block commercial. Dave Walker of 572 Channing, Palo Alto, one of the contractors hired by Mr. O'Neill, stressed the undue hardship on Mr. O'Neill and others to have the project ttopped after completing all the planning and design work. Jean Hanson, 1128 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame stated her belief that Burlingame needs more housing, not more commercial office buildings. Fillmore Marks of Banker & Marks, San Francisco said his attention had been brought to the proposed apartment house only two weeks before the P.C. meeting when a special permit had been applied for and later withdrawn with redesign of the project. He noted his views had been expressed at that P.C. meeting and the next evening at the Ad Hoc Housing Committee meeting, after which he took the matter to a Councilman. He restated his feeling that _the block in question was excellent for office use and that there is a need for office buildings in that area. Chm. Taylor reminded the audience the matter under consideration was not that particular lot on Ogden Drive but the matter of a change in the zoning code. At the Chm.'s request Secy.Sine read a letter dated March 10, 1977 from Michael 0. Ward, Comptroller, Western Conference of Teamsters, 1870 Ogden Drive, Burlingame which stated the Teamsters sold the lot to Mr. O'Neill with the knowledge of his intent to build residential units. The Teamsters had seen the plans and were of the opinion this project was desirable and suitable for that location. Another resident spoke in favor, with the thought that theproposed building is totally secure, with no thoroughfare through it and might possibly eliminate some traffic. Frank Donahue, 1669 Westmoor Road, Burlingame believed the highest and best use for this lot would be an apartment building since the housing need in Burlingame is so great. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Commission discussion followed. Replying to C. Cistulli, C. P. Swan told him these lots were C-3 at the time the General Plan was adopted. It was the Commissioner's belief the commercial buildings in that area were there by virtue of special permit or variance, and he requested this be researched. C. P. Swan advised Commission that the General Plan adopted 1 n 1969 indicated office uses for this area. The C. P. believed a strong case could be made that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent in this area. C. Mink referred to Exhibits Two and Three of the staff report and determined from staff that there are only three vacant C-3 zoned areas in the City at the present time. It was C. Jacobs' feeling that streets are often the best zoning boundaries. Chm. Taylor commented that the C-3 zone was adopted by City Council in 1954; it has been reviewed several times and no changes have ever been made in it. Not until March 7, 1977 was a change made and then without public hearing or notice to property owners. C. Kindig sympathized with Mr. O'Neill and his contractors. He noted that when this limited C-3 District was first adopted there was uncertainty as to what would go in. There was a desire to provide for some medical buildings and offices. In the meantime three lots have been developed with office buildings and it was the Commissioner's opinion it would be a shame to permit apartments to go in with these fine office buildings. C. Sine remembered that six or seven years ago the Teamsters had come to the P.C. with a request to add to their existing office building using the lot in question; this had been approved but the Teamsters never did go ahead with the plans. He, too, stated his sympathy with Mr. O'Neill. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 28, 1977 Chm. Taylor reviewed the three alternatives open to Commission; with the material submitted by staff and this evening's comments by the audience, he believed Commission could now make its recommendation to Council. C. Jacobs restated her feeling that a street is by far the best boundary for zoning districts. C. A. Coleman told C. Kindig he would prepare a resolution if Commission acted this evening and incorporate Draft Findings by staff. C. Mink reviewed findings of fact based on the Draft Findings dated 3/25/77 prepared by Planning Dept. staff. The nine items presented to Commission he found to be accurate findings with the pivotal one being: "New residential buildings in the C-3 zone, if permitted to any significant degree, will be inconsistent with the intent of the adopted General Plan. Chm. Taylor found it difficult to believe that one apartment house would make an area inconsistent with the General Plan. The Chm. added he could not support a finding which would result in denial of due process to Mr. O'Neill in the use of his property. C. Mink said he was of the same mind as the Chm. regarding due process, or fair play, and that his intent with regard to the above finding (Finding #9 of Resolution No. 4-77) was it should be adopted in its entirety. He suggested Commission consider making apartment house uses a conditional use requiring a special permitinthe C-3 zone; this would give the purchaser a fair chance. C. Jacobs questioned the criteria for considering a conditional use permit. It.was pointed out by the Chm. that Commission consideration would have to be on a case by case basis using the judgment and background of each Commissioner. C. Kindig preferred to prohibit the use in C-3, especially since there are only three parcels in question. C. Jacobs was in favor of leaving the code as is or prohibiting the use entirely. Chm. Taylor then asked the pleasure of Commission. C. Jacobs moved that the proposed Draft Findings be adopted and that P.C. recommend to Council that residential use be a prohibited use in the C-3 District. Second C. Kindig; motion defeated on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR C. Mink then moved that the Commission adopt the Draft Findings of Fact and direct the City Attorney to draft an amendment to Municipal Code Sec. 25.40 which would make residential uses in a C-3 zone a conditional use requiring a special permit. Second C. Cistulli; and motion defeated on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, MINK, SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, TAYLOR The C. A. told Commission they could adopt the Findings without a recommendation to Council if that was their desire. C. Mink moved that Commission adopt the Draft Findings of Fact, which Commission finds to be the true facts of the case, and communicate to City Council it has studied Ordinance No. 1100 and is unable to reach a majority decision for recommendation to Council. Second C. Cistulli; and approved on unanimous roll call vote. A recess was called at 9:05 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 28, 1977 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION INTO THREE PARCELS ALL OF LOTS 9 THROUGH 19, BLOCK 6,-ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO..6 AND A PORTION OF ADJACENT ` LANDS OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APN 026-361-010 THROUGH 110 AND 026-361-140), ZONED C-4, BY HOWARD HICKEY FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST Asst. C. E. Rebarchik told Commission this map had been submitted as a tentative and final map. It resubdivides eleven existing lots and an adjoining property into three parcels. No improvements or conditions of approval are needed; Engineering recommends it for approval. C. Sine moved approval of this Tentative and Final Parcel Map in accordance with the map submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Second C. Mink and unanimously approved on roll call vote. 5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A.RESUBDIVISION OF A 0.876 ACRE PORTION OF THE EASTON INDUSTRIAL TRACT (APN 026-122-030/040/050) AT 1351 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY BRIAN-KANGAS-FOULK & ASSOCIATES. FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT The Asst. C. E. advised the tentative and final map had been submitted concurrently. It is recommended for approval with no conditions or requirements. He told C. Jacobs there are no creeks existing on the property and it does not adjoin the creek. The Mosquito Abatement District has owned the property for several years and most probably will tear down the majority of improvements and put up new buildings. C. Sine moved approval of the Tentative and Final Parcel Map; second C. Kindig and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 1 6. 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. EDWARDS (OWNER) WITH NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC. (BUYER, AMENDED PARCEL 2) 7. 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 POSTED 3/18/77) 8. 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 (OWNERI Before addressing these items, C. P. Swan told Commissioners in review of the previous meeting's tape it was found much of the discussion was not picked up. It would be appreciated if Commissioners would turn on their microphones in order to aid staff in preparing minutes. Mr. Swan noted the series of applications, #6, #7 and #8 by National Car Rental System, Inc. He reported a revised tentative parcel map had been received Thursday afternoon, March 24 at 4:30 P.M. The change, in effect, makes the negative declaration for the special permit, posted March 18, 1977, inaccurate because the lot areas have been changed. The C. P. said the revised property line of the Edwards property would be closer to the building and make the entrance to 75 Edwards Court much narrower. This would reduce the capability for off-street parking, change landscaping, and could affect use of the property by auto truck transports for unloading. It was his belief these were impacts which should be considered. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1977 Receiving confirmation that staff had not had sufficient time to review the change and that the negative declaration and special permit should be revised, C. Mink moved that Items 6, 7 and 8 be continued until staff had adequate information to present to Commission. Second C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. C. Mink noted it would be the function of staff to advise Commission when they were prepared to make a report incorporating this change. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 6,300 SF OF NEW FLOOR .AREA TO A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE, WILL HAVE MORE THAN 15,000 SF GROSS FLOOR AREA, AND WHICH EXCEEDS 35' IN HEIGHT: PROPERTY AT 200/216 PARK ROAD (APN 029-204-220/.260), ZONED C-1; ROBERT THOMPSON OF CARR, MC CLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN FOR 200 PARK ROAD COMPANY (ND -105P POSTED 3/18/77) C. P. Swan reviewed this application with the use of transparencies to help clarify the project: land area, area covered by buildings and floor area. The C. A. told Chm. Taylor there would be no conflict in his participating in discussion of this matter, the Chm. being an employee of the State of California with offices located in the building. Mr. Swan continued, reading from the City Planner Evaluation on the Environmental Assessment form. This evaluation noted the increased need for employee parking and the suggestion it could be mitigated by a contribution to provide off-street parking in accordance with the formula previously adopted by City Council. He advised of a memo received from Fire Chief Fricke with its conclusion this is one building. Mr. Swan discussed the history of this building and noted the conditional use permit is required because it exceeds 35 feet in height, covers more than 75% of the lot area and will have a gross floor area of more than 15,000 SF. Parking tends to control the magnitude of an office building; however, that is not the case in this instance since the site is in the Burlingame Avenue Area Off -Street Parking District. He summarized Negative Declaration ND -105P which found the 6,300 SF of office floor area would increase the net parking deficiency by not less than 21 parking spaces. Dimensioned plans had been received Friday afternoon, March 25 and had been sent to Commissioners. Mr. Swan commented it would make an attractive building; and would create a "U" shaped building out of what is now "L" shaped. It was the C.P.'s belief that the proposed 6,300 SF addition was an increment that should be considered on its own merits. The Summary and Conclusion of ND -105P recommended that the applicant be requested to contribute a dollar amount to the City of Burlingame Parking Authority in order to provide off-street parking spaces, the amount to be determined in accordance with policy adopted by Council. The C. P. told C. Sine it was his determination the applicant should pay for 21 parking spaces. He told Commission the formula had been based upon the current cost per parking space and this current price would continue to go up. The cost to the present applicant would be determined as of April, 1977. C. Jacobs reminded that at the study meeting Chief Fricke had mentioned the building must be sprinklered. Secy. Sine read Chief Fricke's memorandum dated March 28, 1977 which stated that after reviewing this application it was found a supervised automatic sprinkler system would have to be installed throughout the existing building as well as the new construction. C. A. Coleman did not think this was the proper place for the matter of sprinkling; it would be a condition when the building permit was applied for. C. P. Swan stressed that the supportive point in the Fire Chief's memo was the determination that it was one building; one building located across what had been two properties but which are now one lot. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1977 David C. Carr of the law firm of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn addressed Commission. He said, in essence., the only reason they were before Commission was because they were two feet above the height limit. The second reason was because of parking. The applicants' position would be that the matter of determining the amount to be given to the City in compensation for the parking is a matter to be negotiated with the City, if Commission's approval were conditioned with this require- ment. He pointed out this is the first building to come before the City under the new guideline, and noted there has not been any off-street public parking constructed in some years. It was his suggestion that perhaps the City would prefer the equivalent dollars rather than a contribution to imaginary parking spaces. Mr. Carr asked that Commission approve the application merely with the recommendation, if they feel it is required, that there be consideration given before the project goes forward to working out some arrangement with the City for compensation because of lack of parking facilities within the building. C. Mink received confirmation from the applicant that the proposed building exceeds 35 feet in height, that the existing building with the proposed addition will exceed 75% lot coverage and that the gross floor area of the total building is more than 15,000 SF. He added, if this is considered as one building and one project in its entirety, Mr. Swan's figures undoubtedly are correct. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Sine discussed with the C. P. the various stages of development on this property and the matter of parking. The Commissioner questioned if they had not increased the initial 10,000 SF size of the property, would they have to pay for any added parking or would any added parking be required? Mr. Swan replied, probably not, but the fact is they did increase the property and add to it. C. Mink moved approval of the special permit, with the condition that a payment be made to the Parking District as specified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-76 adopted September 13, 1976 and as modified and approved by the City Council on November 1, 1976. Second C. Jacobs; and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL IMPORTED WINE AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1312 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-133-080), BY KLAUS BLUMENKAMP OF WINES INTERNATIONAL, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH HERMAN JUNGE (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -107P POSTED 3/18/77) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application. Wines International is a specialized company, selling quality wines imported from Germany and merchandising them in an unusual fashion. The company has been described by Klaus Blumenkamp, the California manager in his letter dated February 21, 1977. It is a subsidiary of the largest quality wine company in Germany and promotes its product by extensive direct mailings to individuals which are sent from the Marketing Dept. in Chicago. Response cards go back to the Chicago office, which informs the California office so that a salesman can contact the customer by telephone and make arrangements for an appointment in the customer's home or office. Wines International delivers the wines ordered one to two weeks later. There is no newspaper, television or radio advertising; the wines are also promoted by tasting parties in homes. The State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control requires that this company hold a retail (rather than wholesale) license; a special permit is requested as a retail business is a conditional use requiring a special permit in the M-1 District. The proposed leasehold location is 1,200 SF of ground floor storage area and 1,200 SF of second floor office area, which is a portion of an existing office/warehouse. Included in the lease is the "exclusive use of 4 off-street parking spaces between the building and the sidewalk." The remainder of the building is leased by the Perry Davis Bookbinding Company with eight employees at present and only two on-site parking spaces. Negative Declaration ND -107P posted 3/18/77 states in its evaluation that the office/warehouse at 1312 Rollins Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 March 28, 1977 Road will introduce a modest amount.of traffic and will have very little impact on the surrounding property and land use. Mr. Blumenkamp was present to answer questions.of Commission: He told C. Jacobs the wine would be delivered to the warehouse in trucks; this would take place every six to eight weeks with an unloading time of two hours maximum. C. Francard was assured unloading would be in front of the building on the property itself. Replying to C. Cistulli, Mr. Blumenkamp stated the company imports only its own wines and would not have house to house solicitation. Wines International has free delivery service and customers would never come to the warehouse to pick up an order. It was planned to sell in case lots and only the company's own brand. The applicant assured C. Kindig that wine tasting parties are never held at the company's place of business. Secy. Sine read a letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated March 18, 1977. This letter was signed by John Bobick (no address.) and protested the granting of the special permit because of added on -street parking on this heavily congested street. In view of this letter, C. Kindig wished to know how the notice to adjacent property owners read. Mr. Yost quoted from it: ". . . application by Klaus Blumenkamp of Wines International, Inc. with Herman Junge to sell imported wine at retail in the M-1 District at 1312 Rollins Road." It was noted that Mr. Bobick obviously did not know the plans for this operation; it would not be a retail business, but a wholesale operation. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in favor. Herman Junge, the property owner, spoke in favor of the application; William McCann of 2601 Frontera Way, Burlingame also spoke in favor. There were no audience comments in opposition and the Chm. declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink determined the applicant had no objection to approval being bound by his own description of the operation in his February 21 letter; C. Kindig asked that the permit be granted to Wines International only. C. Mink moved approval of the special permit, to.be given to Wines International, Inc. subject to the conditions of operation in Mr. Blumenkamp's letter of February 21, 1977; the permit to be nontransferable. Second C. Cistulli and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A PARAMEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE AT PENINSULA HOSPITAL, 1783 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 025-123-090) (BEING UNCLASSIFIED LAND AND ANY NEW USE REQUIRING A PERMIT PER CODE SEC. 25.12.040), BY ROBERT MOORE OF MEDEVAC, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH PENINSULA HOSPITAL (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -108P POSTED 3/18/77) Asst. C. P. Yost told Commission Medevac, Inc. is a company which operates ambulances and paramedic crews in San Mateo County. In the Emergency Services Plan for the County, Peninsula Hospital is located within the northern service area, and is the preferred choice for the two man crew and ambulance. He noted the March 7, 1977 letter to the City from Robert Moore, General Manager of Medevac. In support of the Peninsula Hospital location, this letter noted it would provide the optimum response to medical emergencies and would provide the paramedic crew with an advantage in maintaining their professional skills at peak level due to the opportunity to work with Emergency Room staff. The application is supported by Peninsula Hospital; a letter of March 14, 1977 from James Pappas, Assistant Administrator of Peninsula Hospital and Medical Center stated the belief that the proposed service meets a serious community demand and should be supported. Peninsula Hospital is on unclassified property and the Code states that a new use on unclassified property requires a special permit. Negative Declaration ND -108P was posted March 18, 1977; there were no staff concerns with the application. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1977 John Scott of Medevac, Inc. told Commission he had nothing to add to the Asst. C.P.'s remarks. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs stated a finding that this application conforms to hospital zoning. She then moved approval of this special permit to Robert Moore of Medevac, Inc. Second C. Kindig and all aye on voice vote. 12. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE PARK WOODS, A 16 -UNIT TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM AT 33 PARK ROAD (APN 029-223-010/020/100/.110/120), ZONED R-3, BY MR. AND MRS. T. FARLEY AND MR. AND MRS. M. SINGER (PROPERTY'OWNERS) (ND7109P POSTED MARCH 18, 1977) C. P. Swan reviewed this application.with the use of a transparency. The proposed development would be a 16 -unit condominium, the first townhouse type of project in Burlingame. It would consist of three apartment buildings or clusters of townhouses, one on each of three lots. The first stage of construction would be Building No. 2 (as shown on the transparency), a five unit building. The building on each lot is defined as an H (apartment house) occupancy by the Fire Dept. (Ref. 2/24/77 memo from Fire Chief Fricke). The Fire Dept. would require two legal exists from each unit in accordance with fire regulations and the Building Code. A fire alarm system must be provided and wet standpipes will be required. The side yard of this first phase five unit building will provide access via a series of gates. Mr. Swan referred to Negative Declaration ND -109P which provides detailed information. All townhouses will be approximately 33 feet in height, with two living levels over a two -car garage. There will be one 3 -bedroom 2-1/2 bath unit (designated Building Type A); all other units will have 2 bedrooms 2-1/2 baths (Building Type B). The project meets parking regulations for three apartment buildings and/or 16 townhouse condominium units. With the additional off-street parking area, there would be eight parking spaces more than required. The C. P. pointed out there would be much less traffic than for the 23 unit condominium which had been approved previously for this site. He noted that Commission reviewed EIR-27P some time ago; it was certified by Council in April, 1974 and is incorporated in this negative declaration by reference. The General Plan indicates a medium high density residential use.for this area which is 21-50 dwelling units per net acre. This project would have 24.5 dwelling units per net acre. The total area covered by the townhouse units aggregates 37% of the lot, landscaping including pool area would be 30%, and private drives, paved area and off- street parking would be one-third of the total lot area. The C. P. then discussed the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, Reservations, Servitudes, Easements and Liens as well as the Bylaws. The owner is defined as the record owner of the fee simple title to any lot which is a part of the properties, including contract sellers. Under the Bylaws two types of owners are described. Type A has one vote per lot; Type B, the declarant (or developer) receives three votes per lot. Class B membership shall cease when the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership equal the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership; or by April 1, 1981. It was pointed out by the C. P. this arrangement could keep the developer in control up until sale of the thirteenth unit, after which the Association would gain control. He noted the possibility of a complex stage of parcel maps in this phased development. Mr. Swan was concerned about certain other sections of the Covenants and Restrictions. Exhibit A, a description of the first units being developed, and Exhibit B, a description of the entire area being developed, were both blank pages. He directed attention to the stipulations for annual assessments, special assessments for capital improvements and architectural control. It appeared the developer could put in improvements and the unit owners pay for them while the corporation still had the majority votes. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 March 28, 1977 The C. P. felt there should be a requirement that theAssociation be a viable body for communication with the City.and have responsibility to communicate with the individual owners. He also believed there should be a requirement that any changes which the architectural control committee approved must meet all Burlingame code requirements. Mr. Swan suggested when a townhouse ordinance is drafted Commission could consider allowing small rear yards behind a townhouse unit, e.g., a yard that is less than 15 feet in least dimension and located in a position that does not have access to a street. Other concerns of the C. P. were that the parking area next to El Camino Real appeared to be a very long paved area. He suggested reducing the length of that parking area, adequate landscaping for screening and a low level lighting plan for the interior drives. Considerable discussion by Commissioners, staff and the applicants ensued. Questions were raised regarding phased development and annexation of the subsequent phases to the initial 5 -unit development. The applicants said they were asking for approval of the entire 16 units based on the tentative subdivision map. It was their understanding, in view of no Planned Unit Development ordinance in Burlingame, this was the necessary procedure in order to meet Burlingame codes. Annexation was only a legal technicality. They planned to develop the structural base for the whole 16 units but only build five initially. The intricacies of financing this type of development were also discussed. Mr. Farley told Commission they hoped that the total project would be completed within the first year. Neil Vannucci, architect for the project, remarked on the number of developments of this type which had been constructed in many cities in various states; it was his belief PUD was considered good planning from a planning standpoint. C. Mink found problems with the concept of 16 substandard lots facing onto a private driveway; C. Francard had the same problem. C. A. Coleman questioned: "Doesn't good planning require the violation of old concepts?" C. Mink requested that the CC&Rs be reviewed to make sure the maintenance of the exterior of the building was under the control of the corporation, including landscaping, fences, paint, roofing, etc. C. A. Coleman told Commission he thought it was an excellent set of CC&Rs and believed the Commissioner's request was covered. It was pointed out by the applicants that the proposed manner of handling this development is within code and it does give private ownership (fee ownership) with individual ownership of the land under each unit. C. Jacobs was concerned that there be a maximum amount of landscaping, and asked if the swimming pool would be common area to all 16 units. The applicants said the common area of the swimming pool was included in the CC&Rs, and Mr. Vannucci told Commission that screening along the parking lot is planned, with perhaps low screening beyond on City property. Mr. Singer explained to C. Kindig the matter of voting; technically the developers would have to stay with the project for at least one or two years because after the first five units are built the developer must have control over the next three. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor or opposed. There were none and he declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink moved approval of the condominium permit with the stipulation that the condominium be developed in accordance with the plans, specifications and other documents submitted, and that there be no variation from these plans without the prior approval of the Planning Commission. Second C. Sine, and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 March 28, 1977 C. Mink recommended that Commission follow this development very carefully, working with the developers and staff in order to develop controls and conditions for a small Planned Unit Development of this nature. 13. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 WHICH REQUIRES TWO PARKING SPACES BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK; PROPERTY AT 1507 LA MESA DRIVE (APN 027-021-130), ZONED R-1, BY DON A.MARQUIS It was determined that the applicant was present; and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item. 1507 La Mesa is a 2 -bedroom house on a 7,680 SF lot; the house is set back 34 feet from the front property line and, with about 1,600 SF of floor area, only covers 21% of the lot. This application is to add a third bedroom with a second bath, and to enlarge a small, existing family room. A variance is required because the zoning ordinance specifies a third bedroom cannot be added unless there are two garage or carport spaces on the property, or unless there is a driveway of sufficient length to park a second car behind the front setback. The applicant has only a one car garage and no room to park a second car in the driveway behind the front setback. Mr. Marquis' letter dated February 24, 1977 stated: . . most properties in the area around La Mesa Drive have double car garages - but mine does not, and the house was built in such a way as to make the addition of a second covered parking space both impractical and unfeasible." Commission attention was drawn to the applicant's Affidavit which addresses the technical requirements for approval of a variance. During Commission discussion it was noted there is room to park a second car behind the sidewalk but not behind the front setback. The applicant advised the proposed addition would be a back bedroom, not upstairs, and it would not obstruct any views. Secy. Sine read a note dated 3/22/77 from Dom and Eva Coppolillo, 1503 La Mesa Drive stating they had no objections to the proposed construction. The applicant remarked these were his next door neighbors on the side the addition is planned. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed, and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. During further discussion, C. Mink and Chm. Taylor indicated their belief that an alternative design could provide covered parking. C. Mink said he was speaking in opposition to the granting of the variance. C.ers Francard and Jacobs noted the number of homes with unused two car garages and many cars parked on the street. C. Jacobs found that the conditions for granting of a variance had been met by the applicant; that there are exceptional circumstances, that the variance is necesssary for the enjoyment of the property and would not materially damage other property owners, and that it would not affect the General Plan of the city. She moved approval of the findings and the variance; second C. Francard and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK, TAYLOR 14. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.28.070(2) WHICH LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF A HOUSE ON A HILLSIDE LOT TO 30' ABOVE THE FRONT SETBACK LINE; PROPERTY AT 1835 LOYOLA DRIVE (APN 025-052-240), ZONED R-1, BY GUSTAVO KUBICHEK AND JACOBO MERLIN Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item which is an application to construct a new house on a vacant lot at 1835 Loyola Drive. It is a large lot; 10,885 SF with 65' frontage. Two unusual characteristics are: (1) the lot slopes upward over its entire length and (2) there is a 19' wide driveway easement across the first 60' of the lot, which makes the front one-third of the lot unbuildable. Any new home must be constructed Page 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1977 at about the midpoint of this 160' deep lot. The Zoning Code specifies that "on lots that slope upward toward the rear from the street, the maximum height of the building shall be 2-1/2 stories or 30' above the mean grade along the 15' setback line." With the use of a transparency Mr. Yost referred to Profile a -a of the proposed plans on which he had drawn the mean curb grade and the mean grade along the 15' front setback. Above this he had added the 30' height limit specified by code, noting that the proposed building is about 11'5" above this limit. This may appear to be excessive but several additional facts should be taken into account. (1) The proposed new house will be limited to only 30' above the level of the existing driveway. (2) The 30' height above the drive is necessary to allow the sliding doors of the family room to open at grade into the backyard. (3) This house will be positioned at about the same level, or perhaps slightly under, the existing house to the east. The Asst. C. P. reviewed the legal.requirements for approval of a variance and noted that the applicants were present in the audience. There were no audience comments in favor of this application. Chm. Taylor next requested audience comments in opposition. William McCann of 2601 Frontera Way, Burlingame appealed to the Chm. and Commission for a continuation of this item, stating he had been away for eight days at the time the notice was received and had not had time to discuss this matter with the surrounding property owners. His request was denied by Chm. Taylor, with consent of Commission, as being inadequate grounds for granting a continuance. Mr. McCann stated that he had requested a copy of the 1967 minutes of the P.C. meeting at which the resubdivision of this area had been reviewed; he asked if these minutes were available this evening. Mr. Yost replied that this request had been made at 5:10 P.M. this afternoon and that the City Clerk's office had been closed, and there hadn't been time to bring them to the meeting. Mr. McCann referred to the transparency prepared by the Asst. C. P., stating he felt it was a very short profile, and wished to have it show where the street is and where the top of the lot is. He commented on the applicant's reasons for hardship, stating that when the lot was purchased the easement was in existence and known by the buyer. The Chm. reminded him that what the buyer knew was not relevant to his comments. Mr. McCann objected as he felt the proposed house was totally uncharacteristic of the neighborhood and commented on the problem of slippage in the area. He felt a variance for 130% of the allowable height was excessive and unrealistic. Dr. Marvin Shapiro, 1816 Montecito Way, Burlingame spoke in opposition, addressing himself to the four conditions for granting a variance. His points included: the driveway could be altered; the ordinance change in 1974 was for the purpose of maintaining a low level of house in the neighborhood; it might be true that undue property loss to the owner may result, however, he felt the applicant put himself into this situation. Dr. Shapiro believed the findings by the P.C. in 1974 with regard to houses appearing to be 3 -story structures when built on some slopes clearly spoke against granting of this variance. It was his feeling the proposed house would add another monstrous building in the area, and he did not believe it should be allowed to interfere with the general building plan of Burlingame. Jim McIntyre of 1830 Loyola Drive, Burlingame spoke in opposition for aesthetic reasons, stating he did not feel the proposed building was in character with the neighborhood as it is at present. Tom Muirhead of 1808 Montecito Way, Burlingame said that he lived above the site. He objected to the applicant building beyond 30 feet as it would obstruct his view and that of other homes on Montecito Way. Floyd Wilson of 1812 Montecito Way, Burlingame asked Asst. C. P. Yost to confirm that the proposed house would not be higher than the house next door; Mr. Yost confirmed that it would not. Mr. Wilson also questioned drainage and was told the existing upper drain would not be touched and that it was located back beyond the proposed house. He was also told the patio area would be excavated and a retaining wall put in of about 7 to 8 feet high. Mr. Wilson also objected to a flat roofed house. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 March 28, 1977 Mr. McCann commented on the matter of drainage, stating the drainage above the house next door had been torn out and -never replaced. Chm. Taylor pointed out there was an existing drainage line and one along the gutter. Asst. C. P. Yost confirmed that the gutter was there above this building site. It was pointed out by Chm. Taylor that when the building permit was applied for the site would be inspected and would have to be approved before the applicant could go forward with his plans. Dr. Shapiro asked if any assurance could be given with regard to the danger of slippage and was told the usual laws of liability would apply. C. A. Coleman commented that the building codes are a lot more rigid now than when the Mills Estates were first built. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs remarked that she had felt the home would be an improvement, being low on the lot, and that it would meet drainage requirements. With so much objection, she found it difficult to make a decision. The applicant told C. Kindig the existing driveway would be used to enter his proposed garage. Mr. Kubichek told Commission the foundation would be designed by a licensed contractor who would be liable for anything designed by him. It was C. Sine's thought the applicant might redesign; with a proper layout and a little more cut, he could lower the height. _He believed the proposed house would extend up in the air quite a bit, and did not wish to approve or disapprove this evening. The Commissioner suggested the -applicant go back to the drawing board. Mr. Kubichek said.the main reason for the present design was to take advantage of the view from each room of the house. He did not believe he was interfering with views of any of the neighbors. C. Mink stated he appreciated some portions of the proposed design, particularly as a hill dweller who looks out over a flat roof. He reminded Commission that its policy has been not to maintain architectural control and stated it seemed an appropriate building. C. Mink stated findings as follows: that there are exceptional circumstances, primarily because of the excessive slope of the lot and the easement driveway; that for the preservation and enjoyment of his property this variance is necessary; believing that City staff would make certain the house is properly constructed and all applicable building codes will be enforced, the public safety and welfare would be maintained, and the proposal would not be injurious to neighboring property owners; that the proposal does not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City. C. Mink moved approval of these findings and approval of the variance. Second C. Jacobs and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, KINDIG, SINE 15. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 WHICH PROHIBITS AN ADDITION TO A HOUSE WITH NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD; PROPERTY AT 1408 VANCOUVER AVENUE (APN 026-054-120), ZONED R-1, BY LOUIS SILBERMAN Asst. C. P. Yost told Commission this application proposes to add two bedrooms within the existing attic; except for two new dormer windows the present roof line will be unchanged. The variance is required because a clothes closet in the present master bedroom projects out to within one foot of the side property line. Since the property is nonconforming, additions are prohibited unless it is first brought into conformance with current sideyard requirements. The applicants would prefer not to remove this closet. Mr. Yost noted three points which Commission should review. (1) The projecting bedroom closet was not a part of the original house when it was constructed in January, 1925, but was added without a building permit in the mid -1930s. Since this addition predated the 1941 Zoning Ordinance, Commission could consider the 12" sideyard next Page 15 Burlingame Planning Commission_Minutes March 28, 1977 to the closet as 'nonconforming.' (2) The proposed 2 -bedroom addition will be well away from the area of the house.which is nonconforming. (3) The site slopes downhill from the street so that the ground floor of the house has a full basement under it at the back; the closet has been cantilevered off the side wall of the house, and it is possible to walk down the 3' wide sideyard and pass underneath the clothes closet which is approximately 7'6" above grade at that point. Photographs of the closet were shown to the Commission. The Fire Dept. reported, after inspection, that there appears to be adequate access to the side and rear yards. It was noted the applicant's Affidavit addresses the four technical requirements for a variance. The applicant told Chm. Taylor he had no additional comments to make. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed, and the Chm. declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs found.there are exceptional circumstances which would cause Hardship to the property owner; the proposal would not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood; and it is consistent with the General Plan. She moved approval of these findings and the variance. Second C. Kindig and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 16. VARIANCE AMENDMENT FOR REVISED REMODELING PLANS BY GEORGE S. KUJIRAOKA (PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS FEBRUARY 28, 1977, EFFECTIVE MARCH 8, 1977 FOR PROPERTY AT 330 BEACH ROAD) C. P. Swan distributed copies of the previously approved plans and the revised drawings submitted March 23, 1977. The applicant's letter of this date had advised the recently approved plans were not economically feasible. These revised plans would not add to the net office floor area approved by Commission; the variance approved February 28, 1977 allowed 1,650 SF of additional office floor area and the amended variance request would add only 1,554 SF. Staff recommended approval of the amendment. C. Kindig determined there would be no change in the parking requirements. C. Mink moved approval of this variance amendment for revised remodeling plans. Second C. Cistulli and all aye voice vote. CITY PLANNER REPORT was brief - "good morning!" ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:37 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary