Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.03.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Planner Swan Francard Asst. City Planner Yost Jacobs City Attorney Coleman Kindig City Engineer Kirkup Mink Fire Chief Fricke Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Taylor. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES There was Commission discussion regarding motion to approve under Item #7, page 7, of the February 28, 1977 minutes. This concerned whether the front yard only or front, side and rear yards should be specified. Hearing no suggestion for a specific change, Chm. Taylor declared the minutes of February 28, 1977 approved as mailed. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B AND 3D, BLOCK 3, TOWN OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-223-010/020/100/110/120) AT 33 PARK ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY WM. A. BARTLETT FOR TED FARLEY (CONTINUED FROM 2-28-77) Chm. Taylor announced this item and requested comments from C. E. Kirkup. Mr. Kirkup noted the item had been continued from the February 28 meeting so that access easements for Parcel 3 could be shown on the tentative map. He stated the map now outlines access easements for each of the three parcels; it is complete and could be approved subject to the condition that access be prohibited to E1 Camino Real. C. Kindig moved approval of the tentative parcel map with the condition that there be no access to E1 Camino Real. Second C. Sine and approved unanimously on roll call vote. 2. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 4 (APN 026-342-250/260) AT 828 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND 850 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, BY HOWARD HICKEY FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST C. E. Kirkup told Commission the conditions of tentative map approval had been met; this final map shows easements for both access and drainage, and approval is recommended. C. Mink moved approval of the final parcel map; second C. Cistulli and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1977 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR ONE 18' HIGH ILLUMINATED POLE SIGN WITH 72 SF PER FACE BY OTSEN SIGNS FOR A&D TIRE CLINIC, 777 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 C. P. Swan exhibited an elevation of the proposed pole sign with colored copy. He noted this is the first application for a Sign Exception using the new Sign Code; signed approval of the property owner has been received as required by code. The sign would have 72 SF of face area on each side for a total sign area of 144 SF. Maximum signage allowed for a primary frontage of 105' would be 105 SF; this pole sign would be located in the parking lot. Mr. Swan read from Sec. 22.04.460 the definition of a sign painted on wall: "Any sign, motif, symbol, figure, word, words, or object painted directly on the surface of the exterior wall of any building or structure." Additionally, under Chap 22.56 WALL SIGNS, Sec. 22.56.050 SIGN PAINTED ON WALL, he quoted: "Wall signs exclusively of paint are exempt from the requirements of this chapter, but are subject to limitations and general requirements of size, maintenance and related concerns specified elsewhere in this Title." He noted that on the front and side wall of the subject building a very prominent symbol is painted and suggested Commission should define whether or not this is a sign. The sign exception under consideration is required irrespective of what the walls of the building look like; Commission has the discretion to approve the pole sign. (George Pope of Otsen Signs was present at this time; however, Harris Floyd of A&D Tire Clinic had not yet arrived. With no objection from Commission or Mr. Pope, Chm. Taylor delayed this item until later in the meeting. After Mr. Floyd's arrival the hearing was resumed.) George Pope informed Commission the sign they were requesting was vacuum formed, made in Tennessee for the national account in two sizes - 4' x 18' and 3' x 12'. The Michelin people felt that a 4' x 18' sign would do a better job. During Commission discussion C. Sine was told by Mr. Floyd he would plan to illuminate the sign until 2:00 A.M. When asked why, the applicant indicated the reason for this was protection if there were cars in the parking lot. C. Cistulli determined the colors would be yellow and blue, and Mr. Floyd told him they were requesting the 4' x 18' size because it was available. In addition he felt it would be better identification. C. Jacobs was of the opinion the building itself might be enough identification. Replying to C. Mink, George Pope said the pole sign would be located in the parking lot approxi- mately on the property line; this would be about 37/38 feet from the applicant's building and the same.distance from his neighbor's building. C. P. Swan told C. Kindig this pole sign would be 39 SF larger than permitted by code on 105 feet of frontage. The C.P. added this would be exclusive of any other signs, if the building were considered to be a sign, it would add to the total amount of signage area. Other than the identification provided by the painted building there were no other signs on the portion of the property leased by A&D Tire Clinic. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed to this application, and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Replying to C. Jacobs regarding whether the painted building could be considered a sign, C. A. Coleman read the definition of a "Sign" from the new Sign Code: "The word 'sign' shall be broadly construed to include any advertisement, name, figure, character, delineation, announcement, advertising structure, device, symbol or any other thing of a similar nature designed to identify any person, business, commodity or service or to otherwise attract attention and shall include all parts, portions, units or materials composing the same, together with its frame or border and background." It was Chm. Taylor's belief that Commissioners could draw their own conclusions with this definition before them. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1977 C. Kindig wished to overlook the way the building was painted in considering the present sign exception; however, he felt the 3' x 12' sign should be sufficient in size for identification purposes at that location. C. Cistulli stated this was his feeling also. C. Mink believed the 4' x 18' sign would be too large and that a 3' x 12' sign would be a more legible identification for potential customers driving along California Drive. C. Sine did not like the painted building and hoped Mr. Floyd would be of a mind to paint it out; however, he noted the only item before Commission this evening was the pole sign. C. Mink moved denial of this Sign Exception; second C. Jacobs. C. Sine had a question on the motion, pointing out the applicant had not been given an opportunity to advise if he would consider a smaller sign. Chm. Taylor noted if the applicant would accede to this suggestion he would not have to come before the Commission as a smaller sign would be permitted by code. The Sign Exception was denied on unanimous roll call vote; and the applicant was advised he had the right of appeal to City Council. 4. SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR TWO ILLUMINATED WALL SIGNS OF APPROXIMATELY 11 SF EACH, AND ONE 7-1/2 SF DIRECTORY SIGN, BY BURLINGAME CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AT 2828 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application, a proposal by the Burlingame Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to place three signs on their property at 2828 Trousdale Drive. Watercolor drawings were submitted for Signs A and B, each to be a wall sign facing Trousdale Drive. Sign A would be about 11' wide by 15" high, consisting of two lines of 6" high metal letters, colored brown to contrast against the light beige building wall. Sign B would be about 5'9" wide by 2'3" high, consisting of three lines of 6" high aluminum letters to contrast against a brown tile background. Sign C is a 2'6" by 3' directory sign to be placed next to the upper entrance walk on the front property line. All three signs would be illuminated; the wall signs having ground lighting to be lit from sundown to 11:00 P.M. daily. The directory sign would be lit with a fluorescent bulb. Mr. Yost stated three code exceptions are covered by this -application: (1) Sec. 22.10.030 which specifies there shall be not more than one sign per frontage in the R-1 District; (2) Sec. 22.10.020 which specifies the total signage on a property in the R-1 District should not exceed 15 SF (the applicant proposes 31.7 SF of signage); (3) Sec. 22.10.050 which limits any -sign in an R-1 area to a maximum height of not more than 12 feet above grade (Sign B is approximately 14 feet above grade at the base of the sign). To grant an exception two circumstances must apply: that it shall not constitute a grant of special privilege and, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zone classification.. Grant Ellis, 1469 Bellevue Avenue, Presiding Elder of the Congregation told Commission they were mainly interested in having the building identified and the proposed signs are basically those which were there previously. He noted the directory sign would be moved somewhat because it was on one of the two lots that were recently sold. It was planned to illuminate Signs A and B from the ground. Mr. Ellis told Chm. Taylor the cross had been removed and replaced with brushed aluminum letters with the name 'Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.' The signs would be in the same place with the same method of attachment, and the previous lighting fixtures were still in place. Initial Commission discussion indicated some concern regarding lighting of the signs in a residential neighborhood, and determined that two evening meetings per week were anticipated to last no later than 10:30 P.M. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application; there were none. He then requested comments in opposition. Rose Marie Nola of 2853 Trousdale Drive Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1977 spoke in opposition, noting that several other concerned neighbors were present. Drawings of the proposed signs were shown to Mrs. Nola and others. She and the neighbors were objecting to the number of signs and bright lighting in a. -residential area. Another resident living on Trousdale Drive did not think signs should be a part of a residential area. The designer of the signs,.a member. of the Congregation, commented that the purpose of requesting the signs was merely to help people find the church by putting a name on the building. Harold Einhorn of 1801 Sebastian Drive said he was aware of the difficulty in being able to see a sign while traveling up or down Trousdale; however, he did not think it any better rationale for the church than it was for the A&D Tire Clinic application which was just denied by Commission. There being no further audience comments, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs had concern for floodlighting to the east and west since the whole area was residential and believed that 9:00 P.M. was a more appropriate time limit for lighting the signs. C. Kindig agreed and thought that after 9:00 P.M. the directory sign would be enough light. C. Cistulli thought three signs were too many and suggested the applicant make a decision as to which should be eliminated. C. Mink stated his conclusion that the informational, or directory, sign would give the necessary specific information and that another sign with the name of the church was proper identification. He agreed with C. Cistulli that the applicant should choose between Sign A and Sign B, and added it seemed appropriate that the lights be left on later than 9:00 P.M. on meeting nights. C. Sine commented on the churches presently in Burlingame, most are older structures located in R-1 Districts; it would be next to impossible to build a church in R-1 today because of parking requirements. Most of the present churches have lighted signs. The Commissioner felt the applicant was asking for minimum signage, merely to replace existing signage which had been approved some time ago. He added that he did not have strong feelings one way or the other regarding this request. Chm. Taylor said he shared C. Sine's views. Mr. Ellis told C. Kindig they were not interested in illuminating the building, only the signs; he was agreeable to the 9:00 P.M. limit on lighting. It was C. Jacobs's suggestion that the applicant revise his request, limiting it to a directory sign and one sign on the front of the building for identification. Rather than continue this matter, it was felt more expeditious for the Commission to make a decision at this meeting, and Grant Ellis indicated he was agreeable to limiting signage to the directory sign and Sign A on the front of the building. C. Mink moved approval of two sign exceptions for Burlingame Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically Sign A, the wall sign on the front of the building, and Sign C, a directory sign; these signs to be illuminated until 9:00 P.M. and no later than 10:30 P.M. when there are evening meetings. Second C. Sine and approved on unanimous roll call vote. 5. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 6' HIGH FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK AT 1472 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM DOONAN It was determined that Mr. and Mrs. Doonan were present, and reference was made to a March 8, 1977 letter from the applicant which had been circulated to Commissioners. This letter requested approval of a 6' fence to be erected jointly in front of the Doonan's at 1472 Highway Road and along the sideyard of the residence at 1412 Mills Avenue. It was hoped a fence of this height would give both homes privacy and alleviate littering problems. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application, noting that a fence in a front setback is limited by code to 5 feet. Findings on the following points should be considered: (1) that there are exceptional circumstances; (2) that there is no public hazard; (3) that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; and (4) that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Mr. Yost distributed a location plan to Commission, explaining this is one of the few Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1977 properties in Burlingame which faces two streets on one frontage: Highway Road which is 45 feet wide and beyond that E1 Camino Real which is 68 feet wide. It is R-1 zoned property which faces El Camino and also faces R-3 property immediately opposite; the house has many large windows facing this busy public right-of-way. The adjacent property at 1412 Mills Avenue is allowed under present code to have a 6' high fence along 90 feet of their Highway Road frontage since this would be in their side setback area. This application proposes to extend this soon -to -be -constructed 6 foot fence along the front of 1472 Highway Road. Mrs. Doonan addressed Commission, stating they were requesting the 6 foot fence for reasons of continuity and aesthetics. She noted the problems they have had as far as privacy is concerned with the main living area which has large windows facing on El Camino Real. There has also been littering on their front lawn. The applicant told C. Kindig a gate is planned for entry to the garage. Secy. Sine read into the record a letter from Ms. Maria Gallego, 1476 Highway Road, received by the Planning Dept. 3/11/77. This letter stated she had no objection to the construction of the proposed 6 foot fence and would soon be constructing one herself. Chm. Taylor requested further Commission questions. C. Sine reported he had inspected the surrounding area and stated he did not think a difference of one foot would alleviate the problem. He confirmed from :the applicants that the littering problem had not been reported to the Police Dept. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments. There were none and the public hearing was declared closed. C. Jacobs remarked upon this group of fine homes with no possibility of utilizing the front without erecting 6 foot fences; she wondered why this had not been done before. C. Mink stated findings in the form of a motion: that Commission found the circumstances were exceptional because of the street and parkway intervening; that the proposal would not present a hazard to the neighborhood or materially damage the use of the neighbor- hood by adjacent residents; that it would work a hardship on the applicant as borne out by the materials submitted with the application; and it would not be inconsistent with the terms of the General Plan. Motion of findings was approved by voice vote, C. Sine abstaining. Chm. Taylor.commented, as a neighbor, that he would find the appearance of a continuous 6 foot fence more attractive. C. Jacobs moved approval of the fence exception, according to the drawing submitted; second C. Kindig and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SINE C. Kindig told the applicant she might remind her neighbor at 1476 Highway Road it would be necessary for her to come to Commission if she does construct a 6 foot fence. 6. MEMO FROM FIRE CHIEF REQUESTING CODE AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE PARKING OF VEHICLES IN SIDEYARDS Chm. Taylor asked Fire Chief Fricke for remarks. The Chief told Commission this matter had surfaced for the first time on a new development being proposed on E1 Camino Real. He referred to Sec. 25.70.030(b)(3) of the Zoning Code which states: ". . . Parking spaces shall not be situated in the front or side setback areas." He stated it had always been the understanding of the Fire and Building Departments that no parking was allowed in the side yard area in this particular case four cars parked in the side yard area would restrict Fire Dept. access. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 14, 1977 The Chief was suggesting a code change be considered so that this problem would not occur in future, and unobstructed access to the side of any building would be assured the Fire Dept. He told Commission, in his opinion, it appeared to be a question of semantics. The matter had been discussed w1th.the C.A. and Planning Dept. staff; their interpretation had been that the side setback area does not refer to the side yard. Chief Fricke recommended a code change to Sec. 25.70.030(b)(3) as follows: "Parking spaces shall not be situated in the front or side setback or side yard areas." The Chief explained the property in question was dual property using a common driveway centered along the common property line with aisles and parking spaces on each side for the two buildings. He felt the Fire Dept., in this case, would be denied access to the side yard completely. He said they were concerned with apartment zoned districts only. Replying to Chm. Taylor, C. P. Swan said the interpretation of the Planning Dept. was that the setback line is a line that is within a lot and parallel to a street and no building can be constructed nearer the street than the setback line. Setback Lines are covered by Chapter 25.62; Lot Coverage and Yards by Chapter 25.66. There was considerable discussion, and a consensus of Commission that the matter should be studied by staff in order.to find a reasonable solution to preserve access for the Fire Dept. and not restrict property owners. 'As this project had not come before the P.C., several Commissioners wished to view the building in question. Examples and the extent of the problem were requested together with the rationale for a code amendment. Chm. Taylor scheduled staff report for the study meeting of May 9, 1977. A recess was called at 9:15 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. 7. CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT: PROGRESS REPORT C. A. Coleman addressed Commission, noting his memorandum which had been sent to Commissioners. This had included a copy of Health and Safety Code sections which outlined the action Commission is being asked to take. These sections also contained several definitions which might clarify some matters. A rough draft of a preliminary redevelopment plan prepared by Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch had also been sent to Commission. The C.A. said his primary concern was to outline the role of the Planning Commission. The particular function of Commission under redevelopment law is to select the project area and describe the preliminary plan. Mr. Coleman exhibited and discussed maps of Alternates A and B. During discussion Commissioners had difficulty with the legal interpretation of 'blight' under redevelopment law, and asked if their's was a perfunctory or secondary role to the Redevelopment Agency. They were told by the C.A. the tidelands and/or bayshore area had not been included in the plans in order to avoid as many public agencies as possible. Concerns were expressed about the golf course and driving range, the need for more complete information before Commission could approve a plan, possible circulation problems and the feeling by Commission that findings of fact should be made when deciding on land use. The C.A. explained Commission is in a secondary role since this is a project of City Council; however, its function is necessary. Mr. Coleman introduced Barry Silverton, an entrepreneur associated with the Sheraton Hotel, who brought the original proposal to the Council. Mr. Silverton gave background information to Commission informing them of the various steps that had been taken with the City up to this point. Preliminary economic feasibility and environmental assessment reports had been prepared, and the Council decided to go ahead. It was hoped final reports would be completed by mid-April. He told Commission they were adequately protected and had no need to be concerned legally; he saw their position as one of advising and consenting, not changing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 14, 1977 The difficulty for Commission to make a conclusion without a finding of fact was again brought out. They were assured by the C.A. their decision could be based on some knowledge so that they would not feel they were merely rubber-stamping the plan. Mr. Silverton assured Commission he was available for consultation regarding any matters they might wish to pursue. He added that he felt he could prove to Commission's satisfaction that the project would upgrade the area from whatever else might be put in, with less traffic, less expense and less city services. It was C. A. Coleman's suggestion that the P.C. would have an opportunity to voice their concerns when the hearing on the Environmental Impact Report was held. At least one Commissioner stated he would reserve his unanswered questions for that hearing. Chm. Taylor concluded this discussion with thanks to the C.A. and Barry Silverton for their attendance this evening. 8. AD HOC COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND A HOUSING ELEMENT: PROGRESS REPORT With the consent of Commission and in the interests of time this evening, Chm. Taylor announced this progress report would be omitted. C. Kindig announced the meeting scheduled for Tuesday,:March 15, 1977. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 1100: URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON APARTMENT HOUSE USE IN C-3 ZONES C. P. Swan told Commission that Council had directed P.C. study such uses and report back to them within sixty days. He discussed Ordinance No. 1100 which took effect immediately upon adoption March 7, 1977, explaining it would cease to have force and effect when any one of the following situations occurs: (1) if City Council enacted new zoning regulations; (2) if. Council considered new zoning regulations and rejected them; (3) after the expiration of four months from the date of adoption of this ordinance; or (4) if Council rescinded Ordinance No. 1100. He then noted Commission options after study: (1) prohibit apartment use in C-3 zones; (2) permit with a conditional use permit; (3) recommend no change in regulations; or (4) do nothing and return the jurisdiction to Council. Mr. Swan told Commission there are only three vacant C-3 lots in the city. In view of this he did not feel there was need for an extensive study and suggested a code amendment to add as a conditional use requiring a special permit in C-3: "All uses permitted in R districts and subject to the same regulations and restrictions applying to those uses in their respective districts." It was the advice of C.A. Coleman that the P.C. take no action at this meeting. In view of obvious Council concern, it was felt that Commission should act with as much dispatch as possible. Chm. Taylor requested the matter be brought up at the next meeting. At this point in the meeting C. Mink was excused. CITY PLANNER REPORT C. P. Swan distributed Statement of Economic Interests Form 716 to be completed by Commissioners and mailed to the County Clerk during April, 1977. He reported that two special permits granted by Commission had been called up by Council and were scheduled for hearing Monday, March 21, 1977; these were the 3 -story office building at 405 Primrose Road and the Day Care Center at Coolidge School. Correspondence between the City Planner and Cyrus J. McMillan, Esq. representing Ronald A. Rosberg, doing business at 1669 Bayshore Highway, was reported. Mr. Rosberg has expanded the area of retail sales and type of merchandise sold. A written commitment has been made that an application for an amended special permit will be submitted. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 14, 1977 Mr. Swan told Commission that C.A. Coleman had received a letter dated February 14, 1977 from John Beatty of the Bank of America concerning on-going project for the improvement of the Dore Tract. The bank was to receive bids March 24 for the work and proceed to construct the improvements. The C.P. also told Commission about a letter received from Leslie Mayne concerning the proposed project at 405 Primrose Road; Mr. Mayne had said he did receive a telephone call from Mr. Horn and generalized about the existing trees, but had not been hired by Mr. Horn. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INSTALL AUTOMOBILE MOULDINGS AND SUNROOFS IN THE M-1 DISTRICT: PROPERTY AT 1337 MARSTEN ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-133-010), BY DAVE BLOMGREN OF QUALITY AUTO PRODUCTS (APPLICANT) WITH OSCAR PERSON (PROPERTY OWNER) C. P. Swan reported that Item #15 had been reviewed and staff found that Quality Auto Products derived only 2-5% of gross sales from retail. It is mainly a processing business and he recommended that the item be dropped from the agenda because the applicant doesn't need a special permit. Chm. Taylor dropped this item from the agenda. 10. TENTATIVE AND FINAL 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 The tentative map combines two parcels at the corner of Grove and E1 Camino. C.E.Kirkup reported there is an existing sanitary sewer near the back of the property and he recommended a public utility easement across the back of the lot. One of two residential buildings will have to be removed or bond provided to do so. Existing water and sanitary sewer services are adequate. Commission set the tentative parcel map for hearing March 28, 1977. 11. 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 There were no comments and the item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. 12. TENTATIVE 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 tentative and final parcel map were set for hearing March 28, 1977. This map combines property owned by the Mosquito Abatement District. Commission was advised that some buildingswill be removed and other .improvements added. 13A. 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) Property at 50 Edwards Court would be widened to provide off-street parking along the east side of the building and reduced in length to provide a 75 foot wide frontage for the vacant parcel. This item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 March 14, 1977 13B. SPECIAL PERMIT TO STORE RENTAL CARS AND SELL USED CARS AT RETAIL: 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 referred to the site plan showing new vehicle storage area. He read from the letter submitted in June, 1972 by National Car Rental System in support of their initial special permit: "This office will also serve as a maintenance facility for our entire operation. Most of the cars removed from our fleet will be sold in wholesale numbers to fleet buyers but we also plan to sell cars to retail buyers from this location." National Car Rental plans to expand their existing building, improve the site and add a driveway around the rear of the Edwards building for off-street travel to the new storage lot. Loading and unloading of auto transports is to be done off the public street. Bryan Anthony and Bill Smidt were present to represent the applicant. When asked about selling cars, they responded that 500-600 cars would be sold per year. Under a new state license requirement they will collect sales tax. Mr. Smidt said they presently sell 15-20 cars per month. Commissioners asked about.landscaping for 40 Edwards Court and for 75 Edwards Court. Commissioner Francard asked about landscaping on the PG&E easement. The item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. 13C. 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 indicated that the regulation requiring 10% of the site be landscaped would create a hardship; no proposals were submitted to show landscaping. Staff recommended landscaping close to Edwards Court. Commissioner Kindig expressed concern for landscaping around the storage lot. Chm. Taylor felt the variance applied to both lots fronting on Edwards Court. (It does, the applicant is expanding an existing nonconforming use approved by previous special permit at 40 Edwards Court.) Mr. Smidt said they would put wood slats in the chain link fence. This item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. 14. 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 C. P. Swan referred to the Draft Negative Declaration, ND -105P. This document refers to floor areas reported in EIR-7P which was certified 1/15/73. The existing building existed at the time the present Council policy was adopted. Current regulations require a special permit for certain projects within the Burlingame Avenue Area Off - Street Parking District. C.P. reported the parking deficiency would be related to the amount of floor area added and recommended the negative declaration rather than an environmental impact report. He reported that the Fire Dept. will require that the building be sprinklered because it is one building and it already has more than 20,000 square feet of floor area. Staff will recommend that the Planning Commission review the application and approve the special permit with the condition that there be a contribution to the Off -Street Parking District in accordance with the adopted formula. The calculations should be made with the indices as of April 8, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 March 14, 1977 Mr. Robert Thompson addressed the Commission with a statement, I need a forum in which to debate the subject of the off-street parking requirement. He claimed they had done their share and that the formula was vague, ambiguous and nebulous. He admitted they were two spaces short because two parking spaces would be eliminated. Mr. Carr also disagreed with the number 21 parking spaces deficient. He explained, the building is built in an L shape around an existing one-story building. They plan to build a two-story addition over the driveway and expand the L into a U. He claimed they were not covering any more of the lot because they were building on stilts over the driveway. Questions were raised about their previous contributions and how the money had been used. C. Kindig said if there was a parking deficiency before and it was taken care of, then any addition would be completely deficient. Mr. .Thompson questioned other interpretations. Had they made an overpayment or an underpayment? Would there be a credit at this time? Are we building a two-story or a three-story building? Chm. Taylor expressed the opinion that a negative declaration was adequate and that a public hearing would be a more appropriate forum. C. Kindig felt more information and staff explanation would aid in their interpretations. C. P. Swan said this Addition exceeds all three parameters and would not be exempt from parking regulations. The easy way to explain the project is that the existing situation is grandfathered in and whatever past contribution was made is simply part of the record. It was explained that the issue only concerned the increment of office floor area to be added. He asked if the Draft Negative Declaration was adequate and if it should be revised. There were no objections. Chm. Taylor confirmed that parking is the only problem and a sprinkling system is a separate issue. The application was set for hearing March 28,1977. 16. 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) Asst. C.P. Yost explained that the applicant did not have an exclusive lease to all the property. A second tenant occupies the building and more information is needed about his type of business and the number of employees. Two-thirds of the available parking will be assigned to Wines International. This item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. 17. 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) We have an application for a special permit because this is unclassified land owned by Peninsula Hospital. A 2 -man paramedic team would be based at the hospital. They have submitted a letter of authorization. Operational details should be presented at the time of the hearing. This item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. 18. 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) C. P. Swan stated the application appeared complete and could be set for hearing. There was no lighting plan. The C.A. has received a copy of the CC&R. Mr. Swan recommended the P.C. review the project with respect to condominium guidelines. Chm. Taylor requested that a copy of the guidelines be attached to the staff report. C. Francard asked if the buildings met Fire Code. The item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 March 14, 1977 19. 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 Asst. C. P. Yost reported the application technically complete. The owner proposes to add third bedroom. There is only one covered parking space and no space to add another. The item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. 20. 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 This variance is for a new house on a vacant lot. The topography and a prior recorded easement across the front portion caused the house to be set back about 40 feet from the street. The new house will be built behind the driveway that provides access to the neighbor's garage. The house will exceed the height limit by about 11-1/2 feet. C. Jacobs inquired about relative height and learned that the house will be somewhat lower than the existing house next door. This item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. 21. 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)1 ZONED R-1, BY MR. LOUIS SILBERMAN Asst. C. P. Yost explained that the applicant planned to add a second floor to an existing nonconforming house. There is a projecting closet which extends to within a foot of the property line. People can walk under it but a variance is required because the building is nonconforming. The projecting closet was added by a previous owner some 40 years ago. The item was set for hearing March 28, 1977. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary