Loading...
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