HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.12.11THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
December 11, 1972
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSE14T OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
City Planner Swan
City Engineer Mar_r
City Attorney Karmel
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order on the above date at 8:05 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of November 27, 1972 were approved
and adopted after these corrections: Page 5, paragraph 2, line 9 -
it
. . it was not a Planning Commission intention ," Page 5,
paragraph 5, line 7 - " . ,which show in the General Plan as medium
density." Page 6, first paragraph, "Mr. Nolan" instead of "Mr.
Moran."
HEARINGS
1. VARIANCE FOR 10' 4 " x 52' 0 " GTE SYLVANIA ROOF SIGN AT 1811 ADRIAN
ROAD (APN 025-169-050) ZONED M-1; BY AD -ART INC. AND SYLVANIA
ELECTRIC PRODUCTS INC. (,CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 27, 1972.)
Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary
Jacobs read letter from GTE Sylvania dated October 26, 1972 advising
that they are the owners of this property and that Ad -Art, -Inc. is
acting as an agent for Corte Industries, who have been commissioned
for a new roof sign.
Mr. Les Kynett, regional manager of Ad -Art in San Jose addressed the
Commission. He said that the Colite Industries had contracted with
the Sylvania Company in all its branches to change its image with
up -dated signs. They have decided on a standard type which employs
plastic faced letters, giving a different effect than the conventional
exposed neon letters. The size of the sign is for the purpose of
maintaining the same well-balanced relationship to the building as
the present sign. He added he had brought a rendering of the sign
to scale of the building, and that Mr, F. E. Brown, representative
of Sylvania, was also present for information.
The Commission examined the rendering. Commissioner Kindig asked
for a comparison in area and height between the proposed and the
- 2 -
present sign suggesting area change from about 390 to about 530
square feet. Mr. Kynett-replied he was not certain since all drawings
of the present sign were in the East; however, he believed the present
sign is 3' in height, proposed sign 101. Current sign is 918" above
the roof; proposed is 21' above the roof. Commissioner Sine commented
he had specifically requested a representative of Sylvania to be
present. He stated that Sylvania was entitled to an identity sign
but could not reconcile the idea of a sign that was so much larger.
Mr. Kynett replied that a sign designed with the same size of letters
as at present would be over 60' long. A sign modified to the existing
size would have letters only 30" tall. Chairman Cistulli asked if
this would be the prevailing size throughout the United States, and
was informed this was correct.
There was no audience comment either for or against and the public
hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Norberg had no comment. Commissioner Sine stated that
despite the fact that this was a nation-wide sign, it still must
conform to local requirements, and he would prefer it be modified to
existing square footage. Commissioner Taylor spoke of the visual
impact of such a large sign, and stated he thought it atrocious.
Commissioner Mink questioned whether the sign were basically
advertising or identification; and if identification, why it must be
so large. He read the code section pertaining to advertising displays
adjacent to freeways. Mr. Brown reported that this sign was for the
dual purpose of identity and advertising. It would be changed at
considerable expense to the new type established by Sylvania two years
ago. Commissioner Jacobs did not think it a hardship for them to
make it conform, thus eliminating the need for a variance. Commissioner
Kindig questioned the sign lighting and was informed it would be
internally lighted only, and there would be no flashing lights.
Chairman Cistulli thought the best solution would be to adjust the
size of tl;e sign.
Commissioner Taylor moved this application for sign variance by GTE
Sylvania be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded. Chairman Cistulli
cautioned the applicant that a variance, if denied, could be
appealed, but if then denied, application could not be made for
another year. He added that hearing could be continued for modification,
if desired, with the same square foo-age as at present and a variance
for the height only. Mr. Brown agreed to a continuance for redesign.
Commissioners Taylor and Jacobs withdrew their motion and second.
Commissioner Kindig moved continuance of this application to the
regular meeting in January. Commissioner Sine seconded. Motion
carried unanimously by voice vote. Commissioner Sine requested
Sylvania representative be present at this meeting.
2. VARIANCE FOR NEW 6-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDIYG WITH 6 PARKING SPACES
AT 612 PENINSULA AVENUE, BEING LOT 22, BLOCK 30, LYON AND HOAG
SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, ZONED R-3; BY HAROLD C. BARBER,
OWNER WILLIAM BAIER.
Chairman Cistulli announced the hearing for this application, and the
- 3 -
City Planner distributed plans to the Commission. Mr. Barber told the
Commission plans were to construct a building similar to the neighboring
614 Peninsula. Natural materials would be used. He stated that during
the planning stages they had encountered the emergency parking
ordinance, which would qualify this lot for only a 4-unit apartment,
and this would be uneconomical to construct.
City Planner Swan directed the Commission's attention to two points:
the location of the site on Peninsula Avenue, and the timing of the
application. He stated the plans were first submitted on November 1,
1972. At that time no building permits were being approved and the
requirement was only one parking space per unit. Subsequently, the
EIR procedure was established and the emergency parking ordinance was
passed. He felt the time was adverse to the applicant, and noted that
the building is similar to two other buildings on Peninsula, which is
the City limit. There is multi -family and commercial land use on
the San Mateo side.
Mr, Chuck Nolan of 221 Victoria, stated the project was one of the
few in Burlingame he could approve but questioned if landlords could
restrict the number of tenants' automobiles. The City Attorney
indicated this could not be done, and added that the only relationship
now being considered on this property is that between the owner and
the City of Burlingame, not the stipulation of landlord -tenant
relationships. Mr. Nolan asked if it would be possible to restrict
night parking on the street to tenants of this building. The City
Attorney replied in the negative.
Mrs. Claire MacNeil of 1411 Sanchez, stated she saw the logic of the
City Planner's remarks and that it was an unfortunate situation.
However, she was against having any new apartments.
There were no further comments. and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Kindig stated for Mrs. MacNeil's benefit that the site
is already zoned for apartments, being R-3. Commissioner Sine noted
that in spite of the R-3 zone, we still have an ordinance regulating
parking, and asked the City Planner its application in this case.
City Planner Swan replied that this application was received prior
to the ordinance, and if it had not been for the EIR procedure and
the emergency ordinance, this application would have been routinely
approved. Commissioner Sine questioned the City Attorney who stated
that the emergency ordinance became effective immediately on
November 6, 1972, and would apply to all apartment permits not then
granted. He stated this application was in the City Hall some time
before the emergency ordinance and was delayed because of the EIR
requirement. While waiting resolution of this, the emergency ordinance
was passed.
Commissioner Norberg thought the applicant should comply with the code.
Commissioner Mink had no objection to land use, but did object to
parking. Commissioner Taylor stated the applicant had been caught in
an incredible set of circumstances, and in spite of the Commissioner's
feeling about parking and strict code adherence, he believed a sense
of equity and justice should allow this man to have his variance.
Commissioner Kindig did not approve of six units on a 100' x 50'
lot, but this was mitigated somewhat since the apartments were only
studios and one -bedroom units. Commissioner Jacobs felt that because
of the extenuating circumstances he would be inclined to approve of
the variance.
Commissioner Taylor moved that the variance for a new 6-unit apartment
building with E parking spaces at 612 Peninsula Avenue be approved in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted. Commissioner
Jacobs seconded, and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote.
The applicant was informed this would become effective on December 19,
1972 if not appealed.
3. VARIANCE FOR NEW 9-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 11 PARKING SPACES
AT 1000 CHULA VISTA BEING LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 10, EASTON
ADDITION, ZONED R-3; BY HAROLD C. BARBER: OWNER GERTRUDE E.
SMOODY.
Commissioner Cistulli announced this application for hearing.
Secretary Jacobs read correspondence dated December 7, 1972 from the
law firm of Basye, Prior, Kavanaugh and Clark, stating on behalf of
their client, Mrs. Gertrude Smoody, that the escrow agreement had not
been completed by Mr. Barber before the closing date of November 25,
1972. The letter further stated that notice had been given to Mr.
Barber terminating this escrow agreement and all his rights in the
property.
Mr. Barber stated the purchase was contingent upon being able to
develop the building and that preliminary drawings had been made.
However, the parking ordinance had delayed them. He stated he had
received this above letter from the law firm, but stated he felt the
situation could be resolved.
There was Commission discussion. The City Attorney stated that if
the applicant requested a continuance, this would be within the
jurisdiction of the Commission. Obviously, there could be no action
on the application where the man had no interest in the real property.
Where the property is in dispute there should be no hearing. Mr.
Barber indicated he wished a continuance.
It was moved by Commissioner Mink, seconded by Commissioner Taylor
that this application be continued to the meeting of January 22.
The motion carried on unanimous voice vote.
Mrs. Gertrude Smoody then addressed the Commission, stating she owned
the property and Mr. Barber should have no further interest in it.
She did not understand why it should be continued. The City Attorney
informed her that the fact that the application was before the
Commission did not affect her ownership of the property. Mr.
Barber indicated he thought there was a6roblem of communication and
still wished continuance. Commissioner Mink declared it was not the
- 5 -
purpose of the Planning Commission to determine ownership of property
and requested the vote for continuance be allowed to stand. This
met with Commission approval.
4. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PENINSULA GENERAL
TIRE, LEASED PORTION AT 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-240-290)
ZONED M-1; OWNER OSCAR F. PERSON.
Chairman Cistulli announced a hearing on this revocation. Secretary
Jacobs read letter dated November 27, 1972 from the Planning Commission
to Person -Western Inc. advising of the hearing for this revocation and
the reasons for it. He also read communication dated December 8,
1972 from Mr. and Mrs. Frank G. Phillips approving of this revocation
because of the site's untidy effect on Carolan Avenue.
Mr. Oscar Person addressed the Commission. He stated it had been
his intention to move his construction equipment to,his.new yard at
1356 Marsten Road when it was completed. - However, there had been a
problem with the installation of gasoline tanks at this new location.
He had contracted with Phillips Petroleum for this in June, the
concrete strike had ensued, during which he went abroad. Tank
installation was effected the latter part of September. There was
then difficulty with paving the yard, the oil treatment on the yard
keeping the paving from hardening properly. However, this had now
been resolved and he could move equipment in another two or three days.
He stated he would take out the concrete block wall immediately, and
have the yard cleaned up.
Commissioner Sine noted that on his recent inspection he found that
surplus materials had been moved. However, he emphasized that a
year had elapsed since the granting of the permit.
Commissioner Norberg saw no reason for .revocation of permit as long
as the owner completed removal of equipment and materials. Commissioner
Mink had no comment. Commissioner Taylor stated he was opposed to
this lot originally. Commissioner. Kindig had no comment. Commissioner
Jacobs wished to be sure there was no problem in removing the material.
Commissioner Sine moved this matter be continued to the reigular
meeting of January 22, 1973, to insure compliance with the terms of
the permit. Seconded by Commissioner Mink and carried unanimously
.y voice vote.
RECONVENE
After a short recess, the meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO CONSTRUCT A
THREE-STORY BUILDING WITH MORE THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
FLOOR AREA IN THE BURLINGAi`AE AVENUE AREA OFF-STREET PARKING
DISTRICT AT 1240-1260 HOWARD AVENUE BEING 50' x 100' PORTION OF
BLOCK 6, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, ZONED C-1 BY 200 PARK ROAD COMPANY
Secretary Jacobs read the application for this Special Permit and
announced receipt of EIR-7p. City Planner Swan gave details of the
- n -
emergency ordinance adopted in the spring of 1970 which makes this
permit necessary. This particular building will be 3 stories. There
will be parking on the ground level and office area on the second and
third floor. He stated this was being brought to the Commission to
take under advisement and possibly the best way to handle it would be
as a recommendation to the City Council. Concurrent with this is the
EIR, which has been prepared by staff, and brought to the Commission
for information. He suggested the Commission treat this as an advisory
matter for transmittal to the City Council.
Commissioner Norberg thought there was not sufficient parking.
Commissioner Mink questioned how a building on a 50' x 100' lot with
two floors could have 15,000 square feet in area. The City Planner
explained there is a portion of the building overhanging the existing
one story building and a portion goes over the rear of an adjacent
lot. He commented that a condition of approval will be the parcel
map to combine the lots.
Commissioner Taylor considered the basic problem to be parking and
suggested that the drive-in window for the bank be eliminated,
thereby giving several more parking spaces.
Mr. Theodore Blumberg, representative for 200 Park Road Company,
addressed the Commission. He stated that the drive-in window takes up
only two parking spaces, and it is a requirement of their lease with
the bank that there be a drive -up window. He explained that the
entrance to this window would be on Park Road and that there would be
room for stacking of cars on the site rather than having an entrance
on Howard with the resultant traffic confusion.
Commissioners Kindig and Jacobs had no comment.
Chairman Cistulli requested audience comment.
Mr. Chuck Nolan of 221 Victoria, objected to another office building
in a district he considered should be maintained as an area of small
shops.
A Mr. Burkett, property owner on Burlingame Avenue, approved the
project, stating the street was "cut out for it."
There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Mr. Blumberg, in reply to comments on'parking, stated that for the
ten years that the Parking District had been in effect their property
at 216 Park Road had maintained 13 parking spaces for its own use and
the use of their clients but did not take any credit on the Parking,
District. They could very easily have taken it; however, they
chose to pay the full amount of the bonds against the property and
thus have the privilege of creating additional building area when the
time came. He repeated that no credit had been taken although
contributions had been made to the overall project. In addition, he
stated, this proposed office building could have been two story, and
there would have been no problem with the ordinance. Instead, they
chose to use the ground floor for parking, thus providing 18 parking
- 7 -
spaces within the District. He felt they were helping a parking
situation rather than hindering it, at considerable additional
cost to them. The attorneys will still have their parking under the
proposed plan, the site will have parking for the bank and some of
the tenants. He commented that the building was considered to be some
1,800 feet over the allowable 15,000 square feet area, but this footage
had been figured from exterior to exterior and made no allowances for
ducts and stairwells, which are not useable space. He stated the
Fire Department space computations showed them to be only 400 square
feet over.
Mr. Blumberg commented that one of the suggestions of the parking
consultants was leasing spaces on new parking lots. He stated his
company would be willing to underwrite the long term leasing of
new parking stalls as their further contribution in the future total
of any load their parking will create. The present building is 100%
leased, with Security Pacific National Bank as tenant on the ground
floor.
Commissioner Sine had no comment. Commissioner Norberg was still
dissatisfied with the parking. Commissioner Mink stated he wished to
make it clear to Mr. Nolan that banks and office buildings are
permitted uses in this C-1 district.
The City Attorney told the Commission that the special permit and the
EIR for this project are tied together, but they have separate
purposes and can be considered separately up to a point. He cuuestioned
how the Commission wished to handle them; stating that within. -the
Burlingame Avenue Off-street Parking District emergency ordinance
No. 959 provides that a special permit can be granted only by the City
Council. He suggested that the action of the Commission be advisory
only.
Commissioner Mink stated he thought the permit should be granted with
the contingency that the Council reconcile itself to parking.
Commissioner Taylor concurred, as did Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner
Kindig had reservations about the long-term problem although he felt
the report was technically correct.
Discussion of EIR7P was initiated. Commissioner Mink stated he
wished to commend the City Planner for his efforts in drafting this
challenging and explicit report. There was Commission discussion of
the EIR. Commissioner Mink thought the Council's attention should
be directed to -the fact that the building will set over the property
line, and Commissioner Taylor noted the necessity for a resubdivision
map.
Commissioner Mink made the recommendation to the City Council that this
application for special permit be approved contingent upon their
ability to reconcile the parking problem. He further recommended
that EIR-7P be the report made by the Planning Commission for and on
behalf of the City of Burlingame.
Commissioner Mink's motion to recommend was seconded by Commissioner
Taylor and carried on unanimous roll call vote.
MERM
6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR 18-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1205
EL CAMINO REAL, BEING RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 10,11, AND A PORTION
OF LOT 12, BLOCK 20, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 ZONED R-3 BY MICHAEL
J. KALEND
Chairman Cistulli introduced this subject for hearing. City Planner
Swan commented on this EIR. He stated that during the week of
December 4, 1972 a survey was made to report turning.movements of
traffic on El Camino between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. at this
intersection. Most left turn movements were the southbound people
turning from El Camino onto Broadway, and those westbound on Broadway
making left turns onto E1 Camino. He recommended that left turn
lanes be provided on E1 Camino at an early date.
He referred to the analysis prepared by Robert N. Miller which gives
economic comparisons of alternative projects, and which shows the
proposed project superior to other alternatives. The City Planner
commented we will see more of this type of housing. This project has
been reviewed with respect to regulations of revised parking code,
landscaping, and underground garage.
The City Planner presented a resolution which the City Attorney had
recommended as suitable for approval of EIR's.
Secretary Jacobs read Resolution No. 13-72 "Making Environmental
Impact Report, EIR-7P." Chairman Cistulli requested audience comment.
M_'. Henry Herren of 1204 Balboa stated he was not in disfavor of the
project, but wanted to know what the EIR reported. After reply was
made that the EIR had been posted at City Hall seven days prior to
the hearing, he said that he was not aware of that and that the notifi-
cation letter had not mentioned public availability of the EIR.
The City Planner commented that a telephone call to City Hall could
have provided this information. EIR's are on file in the Department
of Public Works, the Planning Department and Clerk's Office as well as
being posted.
Commissioner Kindig suggested that a statement be put in all notice
letters stating where EIR's are posted and where they are on file.
There was approval indicated. Chairman Cistulli stated this would be
considered under new business.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Mink requested permission to have the Secretary read
the three paragraphs of conclusions of EIR-7P to familiarize the public
with it. This request was granted.
Mr. Herren voiced dixatisfacti_on with the parking. He was informed
there had been a public hearing on this matter.
For audience benefit, Commissioner Mink reviewed this project. He
stated the Commission had approved the underground garage which had
sufficient spaces to satisfy the emergency ordinance, in addition to
visitor_ parking spaces. The driveway had been moved as far from
El Camino as possible, and a right turn only sign had been specified
INDW
for traffic going out of the site. He spoke of alternatives to this
plan, such as apartments, -which would increase traffic flow considerably
more than this proposal, and noted the comparatively small number of
residents at the project and the fact that public transportation was
readily available.
He stated everything the public was concerned with had been carefully
thought out, and apologized for not having the EIR readily available.
There was some further discussion.
Commissioner Mink moved that Resolution 13-72 "Making Environmental
Impact Report EIR-7P" be approved. Commissioner Sine seconded, and
the motion passed on unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Kalend thanked the Commission and the City Planner.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 10-72 RECOMMENDING A14ENDMENT TO THE OFF-STREET
PARKING REGULATIONS FOR APARTMENTS AND APARTMENT HOTELS.
Secretary Jacobs read this Resolution by title.
Mr. R. Button of 1613 Coronado requested permission to address the
Commission and presented a newspaper clipping giving the requirements
of these regulations which he wished verified. Secretary Jacobs read
this article and also read the findings of the resolution.
Mr. Button reported he is self-employed as a building designer. He
agreed that a 1 to 1 parking ratio is inadequate but he did not
agree with lumping the amount of parking per unit and the visitor
parking together. He remarked that small lots present different
problems than large lots, particularly with regard to the turning radii.
There is not enough room on small lots for guest parking. He felt
that there was discrimination against apartment dwellers in that no
parking requirement for single family houses exceeds two spaces.
He suggested establishment of parking lots in some areas where tenants
could pay for parking. He stated he got the feeling that there was
dislike of people living in apartments, commenting that "They are not
beasts nor do they cause trouble." He commented on the less
restrictive County regulations, which he felt were adequate.
Mr. Chuck Nolan asked if the ordinance could be overset by the courts
on the grounds of discrimination. The City Attorney gave as an
example the fact that family residences such as a four -bedroom house
are likely to have considerable street frontage whereas an apartment
does not. Mr. Nolan went on to protest about apartments on small lots
which start out as single family residences. He stated he could
not support building apartments on 50' lots; that this type of
apartment building is cheaper in rent and that we get a better quality
of people in Burlingame when more rent is charged. In his opinion
the City did not want to cater to a class of people such as are at
Hunters' Point. Therefore he fell-- it would be best if regulations
prevented their being built.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned that if he was against apartments
being built on small lots, would he approve large apartments on
- 10 -
two lots put together. Mr. Nolan indicated he had no objections if
this did not destroy R-1 neighborhoods.
Commissioner Taylor moved the Commission adopt Resolution 10-72
"Recommending Amendment to the Off -Street Parking Regulations for
Apartments and Apartment Hotels." Commissioner Mink seconded.
The motion was carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Commissioner Sine commented that while it may be true that 50% of
the City's population are renters, there are not that many apartments.
Therefore a number of them are renting houses.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 12-72 TO REPUBLISH ZONING MAP
Secretary Jacobs read this resolution.
There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Sine moved that Resolution No. 12-72 "To Republish Zoning
Map" be adopted. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it
carried on unanimous roll call vote.
RECOR TtTENE
After a short recess the meeting reconvened at 11:00 P.M.
9. RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 15 WITH PORTIONS OF LOTS 16 AND 17,
BLOCK 6, TOWN OF BURLINGAME MAP NO. 1 TO COMBINE APN 029-204-140
AND -150; BY 200 PARK ROAD COMPANY.
City Engineer Marr reported to the Commission that this tentative map
was not iaorm to be approved by his office at this meeting; that
ordinarily the procedure is to have a tentative map for a study meeting,
and a final map presented at the regular meeting.
Mr. Blumberg requested that the Commission consider this item as
presented at a study meeting, so review it, and put it on the agenda
for the next meeting January 8.
The City Engineer assumed the Commission could adjourn this meeting
to the meeting of January 8, and take action then.
Commissioner Sine moved that the meeting be adjourned to the study
meeting of January 8 for this particular item. Commissioner Jacobs
seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. A condition was noted
that the applicant suirmit maps to the City Engineer for his study
sufficiently in advance.
10. RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 18-22, BLOCK 7, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, TO
COMBINE APN 029-224-170 THROUGH -220 INCL. INTO ONE PARCEL FOR
PART{ PLAZA TOWERS CONDOMINIUM APARTMCNTS BY PACIFIC WESTERN
C014TRACTORS INC.
Commissioner Sine announced that he was doing work for Pacific Western
and would abstain from voting since he considered it a conflict of
interest.
City Engineer Marr reported that this map had just come to his attention
this evening and he had had no opportunity to review it; therefore
no action could be taken. Commissioner Taylor moved that this item
be placed on the adjourned meeting agenda of January S. Commissioner
Mink seconded and the motion carried by voice vote.
There followed discussion of applications submitted late.
11. PLAN REVIEW OF UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN REQUIRED YARD AND BUILDING
SETBACK AREAS AT 110 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1 FOR PARK PLAZA TOWERS
CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS BY PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS.
The City Planner distributed plans for this underground garage to
Commission members. He stated that the code requires that plans must
be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit, also that the
surface shall be suitably landscaped. He noted there is one drive to
and from the garage and one adjacent. In contrast to the other
condominium project, this project has on -street parking available
on two sides: St. Catherine's School is across the street, and a
City Parking lot on Park Road is immediately adjacent. He noted
there must be one foot of soil on the top for plantings, and he
suggested the landscaping be subject to thfapproval of the Park
Superintendent.
There was some discussion of the proposed palm trees living in
planters on the garage top. This was to be referred to the Park
Superintendent.
The City Planner stated that the main point was that the street trees
should be protected. He noted the parking meets present code
regulations of one and one half parking spaces per living unit.
Mr. Robert Church, representative of Pacific Western Contractors,
addressed the Commission. He stated they have endeavored to preserve
existing trees and have planned to plant additional trees. A proposed
list of plant materials has been provided the City Engineer's Office
for the roof planting. These trees will range in height from 12'
to 15' and will grow to 35-40 feet. He stated that 400.0 of the site
is devoted to physical coverage of the building. They have designed
the garage entrance at the north end of the property and they have
eliminated seven existing driveways.
The City Engineer commented that his department did not handle the
plans for plantings and he would see that they were transmitted to
the Park Department.
Commissioner_ l:orberg stated there were two illegal parking spaces in
the front setback area, and more landscaping was needed there.
Mr. Church stated he would eliminate these spaces and replace with
He commented they were providing more parking than required
by the revised code.
Commissioner Mink brought up the question of how condominium parking
requirements should be regar0ed as opposed to private dwelling
requirements. The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission
- 12 -
would have to develop its own interpretation on this. He thought that
a condominium project should have some flexibility as to where the
guest parking is located, and that the covered parking be considered
a required minimum. It was agreed the Commission should develop
guidelines on this.
Commissioner Kindig noticed that 12" of soil is to be placed on the
concrete top of the garage and questioned if this would raise it to
curb level. Mr. Kuback, designer for the project, told him the
grass would be at the level of the sidewalk.
Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission accept the
plans for the underground garage on the approval and acceptance of
Jules Francard, Park Superintendent, and the elimination of the front
two illegal spaces and their replacement with landscaping. Commissioner
Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, KINDIG, JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SINE
NEW BUSINESS:
12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE ADDITION TO HYATT ACTIVITIES BUILDING
IN M-1 DISTRICT BY CALIFORNIA HYATT CORPORATION
Secretary Jacobs read application letter from Charles C. Andrew of
the Hyatt Corporation which stated they wish to build a small structure
to the existing facilities to be used as an office by the Hertz
Corporation. Hertz presently maintains a rental desk in the lobby
of the Hyatt Hotel, but the fire Department has requested this be
removed since it crowds the area and presents an exit hazard,
The City Planner requested Commission decision on action on this
application which had been received too late for thorough check.
He suggested that it be considered as a study meeting item, but noted
the applicant wished to proceed more rapidly. He added it -needed a
special permit since it is a retail service outlet in a manufacturing
district, it entails a new addition for office use and additional
parking. It is on the same property and is a secondary business on
that property.
Mr. Hugh Connolly, the applicant's representative, protested there
was no need for Planning Commission action on this. The business
was simply being moved from one place on the property to another, and
no change in use was involved.
Chairman Cistulli stated that the fact that the Planning Consultant
felt it was necessary was adequate reason for the Commission. After
some discussion of plans; this application was scheduled for hearing
at the adjou_ned meeting of January S.
- 13 -
RE PORT S
Commissioner Sine reported to the Commission that there is a movement
throughout the U.S. to change existing apartment buildings to
condominiums. He felt that this will soon happen in Burlingame,
and could involve some difficulties with the parking situation.
Commissioner Sine commented on some recent standards for home insulation.
He also :-old the Commission he had noticed night parking of vehicles
outside the D and M Garage near Broadway in violation of the conditions
of their special permit. He also commented on some past items which
he considered to he possibly a matter of abatement. There followed
a discussion of priorities.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Mink moved the meeting be adjourned in the Season's
spirit of peace and goodwill. The meeting adjourned at 12:00
midnight to the meeting of January 8, 1973.
Respectfully submitted,
Malcolm M. Jacobs
Secretary
AGENDA
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURP:ED MEETIA:G - DECEMBER 11, 1972
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. MINUTES Regular Meeting November 27, 1972
Study Meeting November 27, 1972
IV ZIEARINGS
1. Variance for 1014" x 52'0" GTE Sylvania roof sign at
1811 Adrian Road (APN 025-169-050) zoned M-1; by Ad -Art
Inc, and -Sylvania Electric Products Inc. (Continued from
-November 27, 1972.)
2. Variance for new 6-unit apartment building with 6 parking
spaces at 612 Peninsula Avenue, being Lot 22, Block 30,
Lyon and Hoag Sub. Town of Burlingame, zoned R-3; by Harold
C. Barber, owner William Baker.
3. Variance for new 9-unit apartment building with 11 parking
spaces at 1000 Chula Vista being Lots 16 and 17, Block 10,
Easton Addition, zoned R-3; by Harold C. Barber; owner
Gertrude E. Smoody.
4. Revocation or suspension of Special Permit for Peninsula
General Tire, leased portion at 1028 Carolan Avenue,
(APN 026-240-290) zoned M-1; owner Oscar F. Person.
5. Special Permit and Environmental Impact Report to construct
a three-story building with more than 15,000 square feet of
office floor area in the Burlingame Avenue Area Off-street
Parking District at 1240-1260 Howard Avenue being 50' x 100'
Portion of Block 6, Town of Burlingame, zoned C-1; by
200 Park Road Company.
6: Environmental Impact Report for 18-unit condominium at
1205 E1 Camino Real. being Resubdivision of Lots
10,11, and a portion of Lot 12, Block 20, Easton Addition No. 2,
zoned R-3; by Michael J. Kalend.
7. Resolution No. 10-72 Recommending Amendment to the Off-street
Parking Regulations for Apartments and Apartment Hotels.
S. Resolution No. 12-72 to Republish zoning Map
V NEW BUSINESS
9. Resubdivision of Lot 15 with portions of Lots 16 and 17,
Block 6, Town of Burlingame Map No. 1 to combine APN 029-204-140
and -150; by 200 Park Road Company.
- 2 -
10. Resubdivision of Lots 18-22, Block 7, Taan of Burlingame,
to combine APN 029-224-170 through -220 incl. into one
parcel for Park Plaza Towers Condominium Apartments by
Pacific Western Contractors Inc.
11. Plan Review of underground garage in required yard and
building setback areas at 110 Park Road, zoned C-1 for
Park Plaza Towers Condominium Apartments by Pacific
Western Contractors.
12. Other new business
13. City Planner Report
V I . ADJOURNMENT
1-6
o D
of o0
a10MO D 0