Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.01.14THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION January 14, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Jacobs None City Planner Swan Kindig City Attorney Karmel Mink City Engineer Davidson Norberg Bldg. Inspector Calwell Sine Fire Chief Moorby Taylor Preceding the adjourned meeting, Frank Cistulli, who resigned from the Planning Commission as of December 31, 1973, was present for a short time. He received many expressions of gratitude and praise from his fellow Commissioners for his long and devoted service to the Planning Commission and to the City of Burlingame. Mr. Cistulli then left the meeting. CALL TO ORDER At 8:05 P.M. an adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from the regular meeting of December 26, 1973, was called to order by Chairman Kindig. ROLL CAT.T. The above named members were present. Chairman Kindig announced that this was an adjourned meeting to consider two items having to do with code amendments. 1. CODE AMENDMENT - SECTION 25.28.070 - HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN R-1 DISTRICT. At the request of the Chairman, City Planner Swan discussed this code amendment, illustrating with a sketch on the bulletin board. He indicated the present code is 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet in height. He explained that the amendment concerns residential buildings in R-1 Districts, limiting such buildings to 2-1/2 stories or 30 feet in height, whichever is greater. Further, on lots that slope downward or upward from the street, more stringent requirements were requested by Council. On lots that slope downward more than 25% toward the rear, the new height limitation is 20 feet above curb level. On lots that slope upward toward the rear, the maximum height is 2-1/2 stories or 30 feet above mean grade along the 15 foot setback line. There was considerable discussion among the Commissioners, City Engineer and Building Inspector regarding what measure constitutes one story and City Engineer Davidson asked if it would be possible to further define a story or 1/2 story. City Planner Swan commented that one story for a residence is seldom more than 10 feet, usually 8-1/2 feet. Commissioner Sine wondered why cut back to 30 feet. -2 - Building Inspector Calwell-was asked for his comments and inquired what the Commission was going to consider as a half story. He considered parking under a building as a story. He believed by setting height limitation measured from curb of street they would come up with the whole solution. Commissioner Sine was concerned with the downhill slope, having some usable space of the ground floor and usable first floor. Chairman Kindig inquired as to what would happen if the Commission just held height limit at 20 feet and ignored stories. Building Inspector Calwell and City Engineer Davidson mentioned the street elevation at Mills Canyon Court which has 14 feet above curb of street. In further discussion regarding vacant potential home sites in the City, City Engineer Davidson estimated a couple of dozen and Building Inspector Calwell said there were 42 lots left in Burlingame. Commissioner Sine felt it should then be a general revision of the code. Commissioner Mink agreed unless there is annexation and stated that there are potential annexation areas with a downward slope such as Canyon Road, Summit Drive, et cetera. It was Building Inspector Calwell's suggestion to drop to 30 feet and clarify one or two measures you are building from, and this would clarify the whole situation. He again stated he thought the 2-1/2 stories should be deleted and a figure in footage inserted. Commissioner Sine suggested it could be changed another way and limit it to two stories only. He also questioned the feasibility of 30 feet, speaking of flat land only, although there would not be that many to be built on flat land. The motion was made by Commissioner Taylor that we instruct staff to prepare an EIR, a finding bf facts and appropriate resolution to carry out the proposed Code Amendment - Section 25.28.070 - Height Limitations in R-1 District. This was seconded by Commissioner Mink and approved unanimously on roll call vote. At this time Chairman Kindig read the proposed amendment for the benefit of the audience. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Norberg, Sine, Taylor NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 2. CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD CHAPTER 25.72 - DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. Chairman Kindig asked that City Planner Swan outline this item. Mr. Swan advised that the City Council had directed an ordinance be drafted and recommended to apply in the Downtown Parking District. At present an emergency ordinance requires a special permit from Council if the building is more than 35 feet in height or has more than 15,000 SF of gross floor area. City Planner Swan commented on the required special permit and these new regulations; at present there is a problem of processing applications -3 - which are discretionary without having them first come to the City Planning Commission. So, we assumed that the zoning code could be amended by adding an overlay zone that would be coterminous with the parking district boundary. The Downtown Parking District includes more than one zoning district and each has its own set of regulations. Regulations of the C-1, C-2 and R-3 Districts would still apply. This additional overlay district would establish permanent regulations that would apply within the parking district for building height, bulk and coverage. In addition, more off-street parking might be achieved and some reduction in permitted building bulk. Present regulations allow a floor area ratio of 3.6. With a 10,000 SF lot, 36,000 SF gross floor area can be built on that lot no matter what the configu- ration. It could be 4 stories of 9,000 SF per floor or 9 stories with 4,000 SF per floor. For the overlay district it is recommended that a special permit be required if the floor area ratio is over 2.0 and less than 3.0. The City Planner then listed the permitted uses as follows: (1) Uses permitted with a permit from the City Council in R Districts; (2) Conditional uses requiring a special permit in the underlying C-1 and C-2 Districts; (3) Buildings and structures that exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height; (4) Structures that cover more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the total lot area; (5) Buildings that have a gross floor area of more than 15,000 square feet; (6) Buildings that have a floor area ratio of more than two square feet of building to one square foot of land (FAR more than 2.0). He then advised that the following uses are prohibited: (1) Any use prohibited in the underlying C-1 or C-2 Districts; (2) Any use which may be determined by the City Council, after due notice and hearing by the commission, to be obnoxious or offensive because of emission or presence of odor, dust, smoke, gas, bright lights, vibration, or noise, or have an adverse impact or detrimental effect on permissible adjacent uses. City Planner Swan said the same ambiguity of use clause that appears in other code sections is included. Height and bulk of buildings would be regulated as follows: (1) Buildings with frontage on Burlingame Avenue shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet in height; (2) Every building hereafter constructed or reconstructed within the Burlingame Avenue Area Off -Street Parking District shall not exceed a building bulk determined by a floor area ratio of more than three square feet of building to one square foot of land (maximum FAR = 3.0); (3) No residential building, apartment hotel, or hotel, shall be constructed which exceeds six stories or seventy-five feet in height. The City Planner stated in C-1 you can build structures subject to the same regulations and restrictions applicable in R Districts. The draft amendment precludes residential buildings that normally would be permitted in the underlying commercial districts. -4 - He advised two additional sections have been added, that of Special Sign Regulations which are similar to the C-4 District, and a new concept for required parking. Council did not give specific directions on off-street parking requirements for new floor area but they did ask the Planning Commission to recommend criteria. The concept proposed would establish a 35 foot ceiling for the Burlingame Avenue Area Parking District. In one sense it would be a vertical zoning boundary. Property within the parking district would still be exempt from parking regulations per Section 25.70.040 but only for the floor area located less than 35 feet above grade. Floor area located more than 35 feet above grade would no longer be exempt but would be subject to parking requirements. Further discussion by various of the Commissioners questioned whether the parking district regulations would have to be revised to cover the last paragraph of the proposed amendment, that the Commission is merely defining a vertical zone, and City Attorney Karmel stated that exemptions have not been taken away. In reply to a query from Commissioner Sine, City Planner Swan gave the boundaries of the parking district for the benefit of the audience as follows: generally speaking, both sides of Chapin Avenue, Donnelly Avenue to the railroad, frontage along the southeasterly side of Howard Avenue, except on Park it extends to Bayswater and then back to El Camino. It is just on the east side of EI Camino and is most of Fire Zone 1. Commissioner Jacobs inquired about the Crocker Bank Building and City Planner Swan advised the approximate floor area ratio there is 3.25. At this point in the discussion Chairman Kindig declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Mink agreed with the last sentence of the paragraph regarding signs, "A sign permit shall be obtained from the Commission for any sign that exceeds fifty square feet in area on a single face." He said he was tired of recurring considerations of 32 SF signs. Commissioner Sine commented that he felt 45 feet height on Burlingame Avenue would make it all the same, and it would be too dull. The City Planner advised that 45 feet was the consensus of Council and residents at a special study meeting on parking. Commissioner Mink moved that we instruct staff to prepare a finding of facts, an EIR and appropriate resolution to recommend to City Council Chapter 25.72 Downtown Parking District Regulations. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Commissioner Sine added that this is an entirely new section and after trial and error could be subject to amendment. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Jacobs, Kindig, Mink, Norberg, Sine, Taylor NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -5- 3. PETITION FOR AN 8 FOOT HIGH FENCE AT 1110 BURLINGAME AVENUE PER SECTION 25.78.050. Chairman Kindig asked for discussion regarding this item. Commissioners Taylor and Mink inquired, as a point of order, why this was on the agenda of the adjourned meeting. City Planner Swan responded that our zoning code instructs applicant to make a petition, and that fences of higher than 6 feet may be approved by the Planning Commission upon petition of applicant. The City Planner indicated that under Section 25.78.050 there are four things the petitioner must show: (1) That there are exceptional circumstances; (2) That there is no public hazard; (3) That neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; (4) That the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. He advised further that there is no procedure spelled out in our ordinance for this. Commissioner Taylor questioned whether there can be a new item of business on an adjourned agenda and City Planner Swan said it was his thought that a business item could be handled at an adjourned meeting. Building Inspector Calwell explained to the Commission that the plan shows a 6 foot fence and that the excavation makes a 16-17 foot drop from the top of the fence. He felt children would be going over the fence in the middle of the night, et cetera, and it was his suggestion to go to the Planning Commission and get up to an 8 foot fence. Since neither Mr. Horowitz nor his representative were present at this meeting, it was agreed among the Commissioners after further discussion that they would like to know more about the petition, including receiving plans and sketches so that they could study the application in detail. This item, therefore, was continued to the study meeting of February after which it could be set for public hearing. The adjourned meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M., and the regular study meeting was called to order at 8:55 P.M. after a short recess. All members as above were present. STUDY MEETING 4. C-4 WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS. ADD SECTION 25.41.025 CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT. ADD SECTION 25.41.090 HEIGHT AND BULK OF BUILDINGS. Chairman Kindig announced the next item on the agenda for study by the Commission. City Planner Swan advised that the only item changed was paragraph 3 on the second page under Section 25.41.090. He then read this item, commenting it is a recommendation of staff which he feels the Commission needs to study. It was initiated in December and the Planning Commission indicated they would like to study it further. This is an update on the controversial section. Using 14 feet per floor requires consideration of added bulk, and the City Planner recommended the Commission consider this approach. He commented :M. that floor area ratio regulation would not limit development in that area. For a floor area ratio greater than 1.0, e.g., a floor area ratio between 1.0 and 2.0, this set of regulations would require review by special permit procedures. A floor area ratio more than 2.0 would not be permitted except by variance. Commissioner Taylor noted that 90% of the land is in Anza Pacific areas and wondered about the impact of the proposal on Anza Pacific. David Keyston, Executive Vice President, Anza Pacific was present at the meeting and commented that he had sent a letter to the City giving his comments.and suggestions which had been written three or four days after the last meeting on this subject. He felt Anza Pacific is being penalized for putting its parking underground and that counting the floor area ratio of parking structures will be a negative incentive to developers. Several of the Commissioners requested copies of Mr. Keyston's letter, saying they would want to weigh, the proposal from all aspects before making a decision on the matter. Further discussion among the Commissioners indicated that Commissioner Taylor felt they were not really examining the proposed regulations with regard to open space. Commissioner Mink commented that he was appalled we actually require more space for parking and driveways than we do for our buildings but, speaking positively, he was pleased to see 14 feet per story proposed to measure uninhabited building bulk. He liked the concept of slicing enclosed space and calling it a story whether there's floor area there or not. a Commissioner Mink suggested some instrument with City Council be worked out, get it settled, and any amendments to that instrument would be an agreement between the developer and the Council. Chairman Kindig asked if there were any problems in areas outside of Anza Pacific lands. City Planner Swan cited the telephone building as a good case in point, also bank buildings - the Bank of America building is 26-1/2 feet in total height and that bulk is definitely more than a one-story building; its bulk is similar to the bulk of a two-story building. The regulation of building bulk is difficult to write into a code, he stated. Building bulk is a guideline that may be measured by floor area ratio or by height times diagonal. This guideline could be suggested to Council for consideration and advice whether it should be written into the code or not. There was agreement by the Commissioners to continue this item to February for further study so that all possibilities or alternatives may be considered. 5. ADD REGULATION THAT SPECIAL PERMITS FOR GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS SHALL LAPSE AFTER CONSECUTIVE NON-USE FOR ONE YEAR. City Planner Swan spoke with regard to this item, saying another idea of how the service station permit could be codified would be to add a new regulation saying that type of special permit would lapse if not used for one year. This could be similar to the text of Section 25.54.030 Lapse of variance for non-use, merely substituting the term special permit for variance. Discussion followed covering the suggested time period of one year and the matter of underground tanks and requirements in this regard. -7- 6. DISCUSS MEANING OF TRUCKING, TRUCK STORAGE AND MOTOR FREIGHT TERMINALS AND WHICH BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICANTS REQUIRE SPECIAL PERMIT IN M-1 DISTRICT. City Planner Swan advised the Commission that this has caused an undue amount of concern for air freight services using only vans. The terms trucking, truck storage and motor freight need to be defined. Establishments with a few vans need not require special permits. 7. PROGRESS REPORT ON RESTAURANT PARKING SURVEY. The City Planner advised that a survey form was mailed to 20 specialty restaurants, but only three have been returned. He suggested that the Commission consider specific regulations such as one parking space for each three seats or 20% of the occupant load. 8. PROGRESS REPORT ON STUDY FOR RECLASSIFICATION FROM M-1 TO C-2. Mr. Swan reported excellent response from property owners on this reclassification study. One or two property owners north of Broadway were not interested. Nearly all of those south of Broadway were in favor. He will prepare a report for the Commission on this matter. 9. ITEMS ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR HEARING JANUARY 28. City Planner Swan reminded the Commission of three items. The first item was DFK Investments, car rental agency at 1555 Bayshore Highway, which had been continued to the January 28 hearing at the request of the applicant. He then mentioned Sign Permit for Beardsley's and Sign Variance for the Penguin Lounge each of which were granted for a six month's period and are now up for review by the Planning Commission. There was some discussion regarding these signs and the method of notification. City Planner Swan confirmed that the applicants will be notified. He also advised the Commission that all persons who had written letters to the Commission or the City Planner regarding these signs had received replies and were told when they would again come up for review. Minutes of a special meeting July 13, 1973 regarding Beardsley's and minutes of the meeting of July 23, 1973 regarding the Penguin Lounge indicate that the intent of both motions was subsequent review by the Commission. 10. TENTATIVE.PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF BARNETT PROPERTY. Robert Showen, attorney for Miss Barnett, appeared for the applicant. He explained a proposal is to create three parcels - Parcel A fronting on Ralston Road, Parcel C fronting on Occidental and Parcel B which is an interior lot with no frontage on either street. The plans indicate a 20 ft. wide easement along the east side of Parcel A to include a driveway for access to Parcel B. ".m There was discussion regarding requirements for the easement and City Attorney Karmel advised the provision for this kind of an easement does exist in Burlingame's code, part of the subdivision chapter, and it is permissible on the City's part. He also advised the easement may be in such form as the Commission approves it, but then must go to City Council as Council has to accept an easement. Mr. Showen remarked this would be an easement for driveway purposes only. After some discussion regarding square footage, the applicant stated if square footage becomes an important matter, they could go to their previous plans which conformed completely, as an alternate proposal. He asked for an interpretation as to whether they were to subtract the driveway easement in determining the lot size and City Attorney Karmel advised that square footage is measured from the perimeter of the lot. Chairman Kindig then set this application for hearing on January 28. 11. VARIANCE FOR 8 -UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING IN R-1 DISTRICT AT HUMBOLDT AND ROLLINS ROAD BY ANTHONY AKELIS. City Planner Swan advised that Mr. Akelis had been requested to return with floor plans. These were then distributed to the Commission for study. It was determined that frontage of this building would be on Humboldt. Commissioner Sine pointed out to the applicant that this location would have a water problem and the applicant said he had not been aware of this. There was some discussion regarding the water problem in the event of heavy runoff from the hills and backup from the Bay. Building Inspector Calwell noted that a soils report covering everything including drainage would be needed before a building permit could be issued, but this report would not be necessary until the applicant seeks a building permit. This application was set for hearing on January 28. 12. SIGN PERMIT FOR BANK OF AMERICA TO ERECT 65 SF POLE SIGN AT 400 EL CAMINO REAL FOR CONTINENTAL SERVICE CO. BY FEDERAL SIGN CORP. 13. SIGN PERMIT FOR BANK OF AMERICA TO INSTALL 42 SF WALL SIGN AT 400 EL CAMINO REAL FOR CONTINENTAL SERVICE CO. BY FEDERAL SIGN CORP. City Planner Swan reminded the Commission that when this came before them at the December study meeting a complete sign system for the project was requested. Walter Perazzo of Federal Sign Corp. had complied with that request. He then showed drawings of the proposed signs. The pole sign is 65 SF, 20 feet high, 26 feet from the El Camino property line and 9 feet back from the property line on Chapin. Mr. Saran questioned whether the pole sign is needed. He advised the only other sign that exceeds 32 SF in size is comprised of letters on the front wall facing El Camino Real. There are a number of directional signs and a logo BA on the building. Building Inspector Calwell felt the sign ordinance allowing up to 32 SF should be ample and that the building itself is adequate advertising. ME Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing on January 28. Commissioner Mink expressed the desire that the Commission establish a policy of dealing with all signs on a property at one time. 14. FOUR SIGN PERMITS FOR SAFEWAY STORES AT 1450 HOWARD AVENUE. These signs include the following: Canopy sign A, 3' x 36' = 108 SF; West wall sign B, 3' x 52' = 156 SF; Logo C, 9' x 9' = 81 SF; Existing east wall sign D, 2'6" x 44' = 110 SF (to remain). Wade McClure of Ad -Art, Inc. appeared representing the applicant. He explained the signs described above. The canopy and wall signs will have individual large red letters; the canopy is located over the front door. The large tower sign will be removed and they propose taking down one pole sign and replacing the pole sign near the corner of Howard and E1 Camino with a 20 ft. high pole sign that contains about 65 SF. Commissioner Taylor requested that a representative of Safeway be present at the public hearing as they would like to talk about landscap- ing. The plot plan shows all new landscaping. City Planner Swan asked that the applicant prepare a drawing of the pole sign at a scale of 1/2" = 1 foot. Chairman Kindig directed that Mr. McClure have a representative of. Safeway with him on January 28 and set this application for hearing on that date. 15. VARIANCE TO USE EXISTING BUILDING AT 119 PRIMROSE ROAD IN R-3 DISTRICT FOR LAW OFFICES BY HAROLD W. MARTIN. City Planner Swan stated that he wished he had known the history of the building use before accepting the application for other than residential use. Others have since advised that recent occupants did not have required permits. It has been a problem structure, in R-3 zoning district. That block is divided by parking district and zoning district. It is in Fire Zone 1, and a wooden type 5 building is not permitted in Fire Zone 1. If it were changed from R-3 to C-1, then it would be in Fire Zone 1 and still be unsatisfactory from the standpoint of fire regulations. The City is faced with the problem of helping the applicant decide how he could use this particular property. Mr. Neal Strain, realtor in San Mateo, appeared on behalf of Harold Martin. He said when they entered into the transaction they did not talk to Chief Moorby, that his attitude is probably quite valid. They only knew that it had been used as an office for about 11 years. He advised the applicant will invest $15,000 to make a first class law office, supply parking, improve property, et cetera, and it would seem the structure could be used as it has been used in the past since it has the makings of a good office in a good location. _10 - Chairman Kindig asked Chief Moorby for his comments. The Fire Department must oversee the use of old homes located in Fire Zone 1. Nonresidential uses in older houses downgrades the City's fire zone rating and prolongs the time of redevelopment to meet fire zone regulations. He mentioned a test case on Chapin during which they talked to City Council, and they wanted the construction to follow through. City Council backed them up and since that time they have been unwilling to accept a building of lower rating and let it go to higher fire classification. As you go higher you get into more restrictive uses and better construction. The Fire Department has no objection to a zoning reclassification but they want the Fire Zone to go with it. There was considerable discussion between the Building Inspector, Commissioner Sine and Chief Moorby regarding building code requirements. Both Building Inspector Calwell and Commissioner Mink were disturbed about the two residences in the rear. Commissioner Mink commented that essentially the use goes right through the lot, there's no way to control it unless they subdivide the lot, and if the applicant is willing to tear down the other two residences, he would be willing to talk. City Planner Swan suggested the application not be set for hearing, at least not this month, and returned for February study. He pointed out a variance requires a finding of hardship. Chairman Kindig continued this application to the February study meeting and advised the applicant to try to work out some other proposal by that time. A short recess was declared at 10:40 P.M. after which the meeting resumed at 10:45 P.M. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A ROLLER SKATING RINK IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1250 ROLLINS ROAD BY LAWRENCE L. LOCKWOOD Lawrence Lockwood explained the type of roller rink he is planning. This is the Blue Chip Stamp building, and they anticipate roughly 45 parking spaces. The rink will be for six to sixteen year old people and they feel it would be an instantaneous success as the rinks in San Mateo are inadequate. Common areas will have a red, white and blue theme; there will be a snack bar; attractive lighting throughout; no smoking or alcohol. Decor would include graphics on the inside of the building, they would like to paint the building white and the only sign anticipated would be a lower case "Yankee Doodle." The applicant further stated that the building is on leased ground administered by the Bank of America and owned by Mrs. Dore. There is a 20 ft. easement for ingress and egress. This type of business has a great deal of drop-off traffic, the side easement would allow cars to stack, creating a minimum amount of confusion in the area. The Bank of America had advised him that easements have been signed, title searches made and engineering drawings completed to submit a Final Parcel Map showing an easement out the back to Marsten Road. In response to a question the applicant advised that Bank of America has agreed to pave this easement. -11 - Chairman Kindig announced -this application set for hearing in two weeks on January 28. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AIR FREIGHT TRUCKING AND DELIVERY ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1332 MARSTEN ROAD BY AIR CARTAGE ASSOCIATES, INC. Jerry Cummings appeared before the Commission. He explained his company is an air freight carrier. They lease space in a 32,000 SF building and have access to 22 parking spaces. Air Cartage Associates' leasehold includes 2,000 SF of office space upstairs. 98.9% of their business is air freight to and from the airport, the bulk between the airport and San Jose or Palo Alto. The trucks leave early in the morning, are dispatched elsewhere later in the day and trucks return at night, sometimes as late as 12:00 midnight or 1:00 A.M. Ideally, they try to have each truck run a certain route for just one airline and it may is propane; in propane have 15 or 20 drops for each truck. One of the trucks they would like to convert all of them to propane and put tanks. Commissioner Mink pointed out that this goes back to Item #6 on the agenda. City Planner Swan agreed and felt this should be discussed, defining what can be approved as a business license and what constitutes a major trucking operation. It would depend on what type of trucks are operated, parked at the site, how many there are and how frequently they come in and leave. He thought a business license for an establish- ment with less than six vans and/or 1-1/2 ton trucks appropriate, without coming before the Planning Commission for a special permit. There is a relatively small amount of movement and the freight involved is insignificant compared with large trucking operations. Mr. Swan felt the Commission should consider these variables and set a policy for the future. The special permit procedure was recommended for Air Cartage Associates. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing January 28. 18. VARIANCE TO BUILD TWO MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS IN R-2 DISTRICT AT 1025 CAPUCHINO BY TRANSWESTERN BUILDERS, INC. City Planner Swan announced that the applicant requested this item be dropped from the agenda permanently. 19. SIGN PERMIT FOR 108 SF PAINTED WALL SIGN AT 1247 BROADWAY FOR PRO SKI AND SPORTS The applicant, Steve Beatie, appeared before the Commission. He advised he has a new ski shop in Burlingame, had ordered a 24 SF sign but ended up with 108 SF. It is recessed in a building on Broadway, is not lighted and is relatively unobtrusive. Chairman Kindig said the Commission would look at it and let him know what they thought in two weeks, and set the application for hearing on January 28. Building Inspector Calwell advised that this matter had come up when he was called by Beardsley's for allowing this sign. -12- 20. SIGN VARIANCE FOR THREE POLE SIGNS AT 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND 21 CALIFORNIA DRIVE FOR DICK BULLIS CHEVROLET BY CUMMINGS & CO. Chairman Kindig read Richard S. Bullis' letter of January 11 which had advised the Commission that his Administrative Assistant, Jeanne F. Lee, would attend this study meeting as his representative. Jeanne F. Lee was not present nor a representative from the sign company, Cummings & Co. Chairman Kindig continued this item to the February study meeting, advising the City Planner to so inform the applicant. At this point in the meeting City Planner Swan reminded that on August 23, 1971 the Planning Commission had approved a tentative parcel map for the Dore property. A Final Parcel Map has just been received. It is related to the skating rink application and pending business license applications. Previously, traffic to the Blue Chip store had to circulate clockwise, through a congested side easement, back to Rollins Road. If the rear easement is improved, it would provide a good route out to Marsten Road. It was decided that the map showing four parcels should also be included on the January 28 agenda. Covey Trucking at 1246 Rollins Road is parking construction vehicles on the Dore property without a valid special permit. On April 23, 1973 the Commission granted Covey Trucking Company a special permit until November of 1973. Commissioner Sine noted that Covey is now on a month to month basis. It was the consensus of the Commission after some discussion that this matter should be taken up at a public hearing. The Commission did not feel that notifying Covey Trucking that this special permit was revoked was the proper procedure in this matter, and Chairman Kindig announced this item scheduled for consideration on January 28. Regarding parking on private property, City Attorney Karmel advised that the City has an ordinance with respect to not parking on private property. Notice of that ordinance is posted. There are two alternatives: (1) the police can have the vehicle towed away, or (2) the citizen can go to a towing outfit and have it towed away with whoever transgressed on the private parking space having to pay the fee. City Planner Swan then advised the Commission that David Keyston had brought in an application at 12:10 P.M. the day of the meeting, Monday, January 14. Mr. Keyston told the Commission that he had submitted an application which he thinks is necessary for construction of a private gasoline station on Anza Pacific Blvd. and Airport Blvd., which is to be a public station later. They have already ordered gasoline tanks and think they comply with the necessary requirements of the ordinance: on a main thoroughfare and arterial, 450 feet from any other station, and they will comply with landscaping requirements. He advised they -13 - have stated in their application that any public station at a future time will be submitted to the Planning Commission for a special permit. They have submitted plans. There was some discussion as to the depth of the tank, how it was anchored at the bottom and if Anza Pacific had considered using parking area for these tanks. Mr. Keyston indicated the diameter of the tanks as 8 ft. x 27 ft. with 3 ft. separation of tanks, that they were made of fiberglass and would be the same as all other gasoline tanks. He said they would be hitting water at about minus 10, and in response to a question from Commissioner Sine he advised there is no limitation to the life of a fiberglass tank. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing on January 28, and Mr. Keyston reiterated that Anza Pacific would entertain the position that it be made a public facility if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Mink commented that they have tried very hard to get industrial uses out of C-4, and this looks like an M-1 operation. 21. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan announced several dinners, meetings and courses in the planning field. Reservation requests were taken for members to attend the January 24 Regional Planning Committee dinner meeting. Mr. Swan advised that he had talked with a consultant about preparing the Safety Element of the Burlingame General Plan. This consultant will soon submit a proposal outlining the scope of work and his fee to prepare the Safety Element. He reported it is anticipated that the Seismic Safety and Scenic Highway Elements will be prepared by the County as the lead agency, then the individual cities can adopt relevant portions to their local and particular needs. He expressed the belief that Burlingame would be well advised to participate in such a planning program with outside professionals doing the work. He felt the Noise Element might be deferred for later consideration. These four general plan elements are to be completed by September 20, 1974. The City Planner announced that inquiries regarding BART on the Peninsula are being referred to Mr. William Lathrop of Parsons Brinckerhoff- Tudor-Bechtel in San Francisco as they are the firm doing the study. Commissioner Sine inquired how the Commission ,felt about a 7:30 P.M. starting time for Planning Commission meetings due to the extreme length of many of the agendas. Commissioner Mink and Chairman Kindig both felt the idea had merit but that opinions should be obtained as City policy is usually 8:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine, Secretary AGENDA CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING JANUARY 14, 1974 8:00 P.M. — CONFERENCE ROOM I CALL TO ORDER II ROLL CALL III ADJOURNED MEETING 1. Code Amendment - Section 25.28.070 - Height Limitations in R-1 District. 2. Code Amendment to add Chapter 25.72 - Downtown Parking District Regulations. IV OTHER BUSINESS 3. Petition for an 8 foot high fence at 1110 Burlingame Avenue per Section 25.78.050. V ADJOURNMENT OF ADJOURNED MEETING STUDY MEETING VI OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS FOR STUDY 4. C-4, Waterfront Commercial District Regulations. Add Section 25.41.025 Conditional uses requiring a special permit. Add Section 25.41.090 Height and bulk of buildings 5. Add regulation that special permits for gasoline service stations shall lapse after consecutive non-use for one year. 6. Discuss meaning of trucking, truck storage and motor freight terminals and which business license app scants require special -permit in M-1 District. 7. Progress report on Restaurant Parking Survey. 8. Progress report on study for Reclassification from M-1 to C-2. VII APPLICATIONS CONTINUED FOR STUDY OF NEW INFORMATION 9. Items already scheduled for hearing January 28. DFk_Investments; car rental agency at 1555 Bayshore Highway. Beardsley's; to extend painted wall sign permit. Penguin. -.Lounge; to add to and extend painted wall sign permit. 10. Tentative Parcel Map for resubdivision of Barnett property. 11. Variance for 8 -unit apartment building in R-1 District at Humboldt and Rollins Road by Anthony Skelis. Planning. Commission Agenda January 14, 1974 Page 2 12. Sign Permit for Bank of America to erect 65 SF pole sign at 400 E1 Camino Real for Continental Service Co. by Federal Sign Corp. 13. Sign Permit -for Bank of America to install 42 SF wall sign at 400 E1 Camino Real for Continental Service Co. by Federal Sign Corp. VIII NEW APPLICATIONS 14. Four Sign Permits for Safeway Stores at 1450 Howard Avenue. 42 SF Canopy Sign A 51 SF Wall Sign B 81 SF Wall Sign C Logo 52 SF Wall Sign D 15. Variance to use existing building at 119 Primrose Road in R-3 District for law offices by Harold W. Martin. 16. Special Permit to allow a roller skating rink in M-1 District at 1250 Rollins Road by Lawrence L. Lockwood. 17. Special Permit'to allow air freight trucking and delivery establishment in M-1 District at 1332 Marsten Road by Air Cartage Associates, Inc. 18. Variance to build two multifamily.buildings in R-2 District at 1025 Capuchino by Transwestern Builders, Inc. 19. Sign Permit for 108 SF painted wall sign at 1247 Broadway . for Pro Ski and Sports. 20. Sign Variance for three pole signs at 100 California Drive and 21 California Drive for Dick Bullis Chevrolet by Cummings & Co. 137 SF 30' in height at 100 California Drive 92 SF 22' in height at 21 California Drive (Trucks) 92 SF 22' in height at 21 California Drive (Used Cars) 21. CITY PLANNER REPORT