Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.11.27THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 27, 1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER City Planner Swan City Engineer Marr City Attorney Karmel A regular meetinq of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. raiiNii�y The minutes of the regular meeting of October 30, the special study meeting of November 8, the adjourned meeting of November 13 and the study meeting November 13, 1972, submitted to members previously were approved and adopted. HEARINGS 1. VARIANCE FOR 10'4" x 52'0" GTE SYLVANIA ROOF SIGN AT 1811ADRIAN ROAD BY AD ART INC. AND SYLVANIA Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. However, the applicant was not present, and Commissioner Sine moved that this application be carried to the next regular scheduled meeting of December 11. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. 2. FENCE VARIANCE FOR .IMIGHT OF 7' ON EL CAMINO REAL, REAR OF PROPERTY AT 1155 EASTMOOR ROAD BY ALFRED E. GOSSNE R This application was announced for hearing by the Chairman. Secretary Jacobs read the applicant's letter giving reasons for constructing the fence as purposes of privacy. There was no comment from the audience either in favor of or against this application. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioners Sine and Norberg had no comments. Commissioners Mink and Taylor questioned if the fence were to be the same height as the side fences, and Mr. Gossner replied that it was. Commissioner Kindig questioned how the addition of one more foot would add to privacy, and Mr. Gossner stated that school children passing on - 2 - E1 Camino often climbed the fence to get at fruit trees in the yard. If the fence were higher, they could not climb it. Commissioner Kindig did not feel that circumstances were sufficiently extenuating for a 7' fence. Commissioner Jacobs stated if the fence in back was the same height as the side fences, it would be acceptable. Mr. Gossner stated he would use the side fence as a height guideline, and that it was 616" high. Commissioner Mink moved that the fence variance be approved for the fence at the rear of 1155 Eastmoor be approved and that the fence built be similar in height and style to the one presently at the side. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and the motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Jacobs, Mink, Norberg, Sine, Taylor, Cistulli NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kindig ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None NEW BUSINESS• 1. RESOLUTION NO. 10-72 RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS FOR APARTMENTS AND APARTMENT HOTELS Secretary Jacobs read the resolution, for review and scheduling of. hearing. Commissioner Taylor questioned Item 5 of the Findings, which stated that during a spot check 15/ of 92 cars parked onstreet overnight had parking permits. There was discussion of the infrequent enforcement of the City's overnight parking ordinance. Commissioner Sine commented he felt the resolution was long -overdue and would be a deterrent to developers. City Planner Swan .reported that in drafting this resolution it had been considered important to specify covered and guest spaces, which need not be covered. Guest spaces are specified at 0.4 per unit up to a 4-bedroom unit, which needs 2 per unit. He commented that 50% of guest spaces could be small car parking which could represent 1/8 of the total. The effect of the resolution is to increase the parking required for all new apartment buildings. Chairman Cistulli commented he did not like the concept of "small car parking" and questioned how this was arrived at. It was brought out that if an apartment had a total of 32 parking spaces, by using, this percentage only 4 would be small car parking. Commissioner Sine moved that Resolution No. 10-72 be scheduled for hearing, seconded by Commissioner. Jacobs and passed on voice vote. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Chairman Cistulli acknowledged the presence of Councilman Cusick in the audience. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 11-72 ADOPTION OF R-2A DISTRICT REGULATIONS AS POLICY GUIDELINES Chairman Cistulli announced consideration of this resolution. - 3 - Secretary Jacobs read Resolution No. 11-72, which provides for a medium density residential district of not more than 19 living units per acre with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet for 4 dwelling units, height limitation of 351, and 400 square feet of open lot area for each ground floor unit. City Planner Swan stated that this is a policy guideline for the Planning Commission, and it is not being recommended for a code amendment. Chairman Cistulli asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Chuck Nolan of 221 Victoria stated he thought there should be something attached to the resolution stating that this R-2A district would apply to areas currently considered R-2 but definitely would not apply to R-1 areas; and that R-2A would be just a modification of R-2. He considered this district nothing other than a tool to obtain redevelopment, and he didn't want to see townhouses become a compromise for people who want apartments in R-1. Chairman Cistulli commented that most of the lots referred to in R-1 are not 9,000 square feet. Mr. Nolan commented he knew of one R-1 lot that had 10,000 square feet and repeated it would be better to specify going from R-2 to R-2A, but not from R-1 to R-2A. Commissioner Sine stated there had not been a building permit issued for over seven years for a duplex, commenting it was financial suicide. Mrs. Elizabeth Andersen of 113 Crescent questioned if R-2A would apply only to the General Plan where it is already listed as R-2 or if it would be city-wide, and whether or not it would preclude putting together two pieces of property. She was informed it would be city-wide; Chairman Cistulli confirmed that two pieces of property could be put together. He cited the possihility of R-2A being used for residential area protection, giving as an example two lots in the residential area on E1 Camino, where the owner wished to put a gasoline station. R-2A could be used there for residential units. Mrs. John Barton, 734 Winchester Drive, addressed the Commission, stating it was the concern of many citizens that the Planning Commission not change a low density area to a medium density area. Chairman Cistulli replied that the resolution did not change the density; it is a guideline. He added that applicants for a variance must come before the Planning Commission in any event. Mrs. Barton asked that these changes in zoning be discouraged, since every time they occur residents of an affected neighborhood must come before the Planning Commission or Council and object. The Chairman repeated that all variances must come to the Commission for approval, even if the applicant had a 9,000 square foot lot and wished to change from R-1 to R-2A. City Planner Swan emphasized that R-1 is up to 8 living units per acre, R-2 is up to 16 living units per acre. For both categories the same minimum size lot, 5,000 square feet, (Zin be used. The real point of the proposed policy is the need for something that is consistent with the General Plan for medium density. At present there is need for intermediate regulations between R-2 to R-3. An important part of the R-2A policy guidelines is the requirement that at least 400 square feet of usable open space be provided for each unit. This is a -.more stringent requirement than is found in most ordinances. Actually, a density of around 15 units per acre could be expected. It is very unlikely that there will ever be a change affecting a whole block of residential land. A small project on a few lots is likely. Without something like this we will see property remain vacant because it is uneconomical to construct new duplexes. There was a question from the audience as to why people can build duplexes in San Mateo and they can't build them in Burlingame. Chairman Cistulli stated the cost of land in Burlingame is too expensive. Chuck Nolan commented that of course the proposed policy would not make a lot of money for speculation. He claimed that with a variance it would be possible to get an R-4 building in an R-1 zone. Commissioner Mink addressed the speakers from the audience. He stated that the Planning Commission had started consideration of this R-2A zone on December 13, 1971, and this resolution is the result of an inordinate amount of study. He spoke of the restrictions in this proposal, such as the height limit_-, and brought out the fact that when the resolution was read, there was a statement to the effect it would be reconsidered annually. This is a trial proposal to see if we can maintain continuity of life and open space. It is merely a guideline and not an ordinance. Also, we have no zone at present which approximates medium density. The Planning Commission has struggled for a year with this proposal so that they could comply with the General Plan, and the Commission is saying that it is time to try it for a year. It is to be considered for property in areas shown in the General Plan as medium density, and then only upon application for a variance with adequate justification. Mr. Nolan commended the efforts of the Commission, but felt the Commission should set forth it was not their intention to affect any R-1 property. Commissioner Mink responded that under the present variance procedures, any person who owns property, no matter how zoned, can ask for a variance. Mrs. Andersen questioned the setback requirements for R-2A and how they differed from R-2. The City Planner replied that the setbacks and height requirements are the same as for R-1. Sam Marenco of 207 Clarendon stated it seemed then that R-1 did not mean anything. Anyone with a large lot could ask for a variance to build anything in R-1, such as a duplex or triplex. Commissioner Taylor mentioned the setbacks required for R--2A, and Chairman Cistulli added that at the present time anyone can come in and ask to build a duplex next door to a single family house. He stated that R2-A would have the same setbacks and height requirements as a - 5 - single family residence - if there were townhouses they would be the same as a flat, and not more than 35 feet in height. Mr. Marenco said he had recently made a survey of his district, and 95/ of the people therein wanted to live as they are now, even though they have the space for duplexes. They did not want duplexes in their district. He felt the Planning Commission should accede to the wishes of the people. Commissioner Mink commented that the present requirements specify that dwellings can be built on a lot of 5,000 square feet, whereas this resolution requires a lot of not less than 9,000 square feet. Also it definitely requires specific open space around the units. This would create a much more open type of development than R-2 ever_ could. He quoted the first finding in the resolution: "We find that there may be a need for a residential district that is comparable to the medium density category of residential use expressed in the General Plan." He commented that it was not a Planning Commission, and had never been, to expand this into the R-1 district; and stated his own concerns about reduction of R-1 land. He noted he too would resist this as long as possible. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioner Mink. He stated that while it was true that anyone in any zone can come in for a variance application, the Commission had given very few variances for apartments in R-1 districts. As far as he was concerned, there was no intention of applying this policy to anything other than medium density in the General Plan, and no intention to expand into any other area. Commissioner Sine stated that he had been on the Citizens Committee for'the General Plan and it was his understanding that this R-2A is only to implement the General Plan. He thought everyone had overlooked the square footage of an R-2A in relation to the open space required. There would be more open space than in a lot of the R-1 properties, and certainly more than in R-2. He stated this was an excellent concept that we have never had before, and time would, tell what problems there would be. Commissioner Mink added that a careful analysis of the R2-A outlines and the parking recommendations for off-street parking would reveal that this will restrict the multiple family dwellings in the city. He stated this was the Planning Commission's intention in drafting these documents to restrict and control the requests for multiple family dwellings coming up in Burlingame. However, there are some areas zoned R-1 which show in the General Plan as R-2. It is the Commission's feeling that R-2A does maintain the quality of life as specified in the General Plan. Commissioner Kindig stated that this is only a policy declaration. If anyone wanted to build an apartment in an area zoned residential, it still would have to be a variance application. Mr. Nolan stated he was impressed with the work of the Planning Commission in many instances and thought there were at present qualified men on it. However, ne felt that in this instance it should not depend upon the intent of the present Commission since people can justify variances by stating they are close to the requirement: of a specified zone in such respects as parking, height, etc. Rather, the policy should state there will be no R-2A in an R-1 zone. Then applicants for variances would be opposing a policy rather than appealing it, which would place them in a different position. Commissioner Taylor responded that while Mr. Moran proposed the Commission not be in a position to grant a variance in an R-1 zone, the present law specified that the Commission is forced to consider applications for variance. He added that (under the General Plan) supposedly There are some areas which are going to be converted from R-1 to some other density. This proposal makes it possible to consider a lesser density than is possible at present. The Commission wishes to be able to consider a density that is more livable than any we have now. He stated that Mr. Nolan had inferred that variance applicants could "trade" square footage for design, etc., and this proposal would limit the amount of "trading" that could be done. Commissioner Taylor added that he was encouraged by this resolution and the fact that the Planning Commission was able to formulate it. He acknowledged that there are problems to be faced, but thought it a step in the right direction. Commissioner Mink told the audience that they must realize that the Planning Commission considered each case on its own merits, and appreciated their comments and attendance in this type of discussion. Celestino Romoli, 109 Stanley, questioned if the Commission was trying to change R-1 zoning to R-2A and increase the density. The City Planner responded that the Stanley Road area is shown on the General Plan as low density, not medium density, and he would discourage application for a variance for any land use except a single family dwelling. Chairman Cistulli noted the presence at the meeting of Building Inspector John Calwell. Commissioner Taylor commented that those people interested should get a copy of the General Plan and observe what the medium density zones are; then consider this resolution in conjunction with the General Plan and with the parking ordinance. Commissioner Sine stated that'he had said that we are very fortunate that we do not have any slum or ghetto areas. We have some that are on the fringe. Hopefully, this zoning will be the first step to eliminating some that are on the fringe of a ghetto area. The public hearing was declared closed. The Commission members had no further comment. Commissioner Taylor moved that Resolution No. 11-72, Adoption of R-2A District Regulations as Policy Guidelines, be adopted and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Minh seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. - 7 - 3. RESOLUTION NO. 12-72 TO REPUBLISH ZONING MAP Secretary Jacobs read this resolution. There was no Commission comment. Commissioner Kindig moved the resolution be scheduled for public hearing, Commissioner Taylor seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. 4. LETTER TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING CONSIDERATION FOR ADDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE CODE TITLE 22 SIGNS REGARDING PERMIT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SIGNS LARGER THAN FIFTY (50) SNUARE FEET ON A SINGLE FACE. Secretary Jacobs read this letter. Commissioner Sine asked how the footage was derived. The City Planner replied that this seemed reasonable since the maximum real estate sign size is 32' square feet. Also, in the standards of Resolution 86-72 adopted by the Council, an E.I.R. was deemed necessary for signs larger than fifty square feet. There was Commission discussion of sign sizes, with Commissioner Sine declaring he wished maximum size should be 20 square feet and Commissioner Mink stating he did not wish to see a lot of little signs. Chairman Cistulli thought the 20' sign too restrictive. Commissioner Taylor was opposed to roof signs. There was a comment that if applicants did have to come before the Commission for these smaller signs, he would make better preparations, thus resulting in better signs for the city. Building Inspector Calwell stated that he was opposed to limiting signs to 20 square feet since this would create an inordinate work load. After more discussion it was the consensus of opinion that 32 square feet on a single face would be a more acceptable size. Commissioner Sine moved that the letter to Mayor and City Council be sent recommending consideration for adding an amendment to the sign code regarding permit from Planning Commission for signs larger than 32 square feet on a single face. Commissioner Jacobs seconded; the motion carried by voice vote. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Chairman Cistulli announced the presence of Councilman Amstrup in the audience. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting adjourned at 9:55. RECONVENE The study meeting convened at 10:05. 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING OVER PARKING AT 1240-50-60 HOWARD AVENUE BY 200 PARK ROAD COMPANY. 1A. RESUBDIVISION, PORTION OF LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 6. Plans were distributed and City Planner Swan informed the Commission that this application is for remodeling and extension of the existing building. It will involve two floors of office space and 13 parking spaces. He cited the regulation which states that a building more than two stories in height in a Parking District is subject to a special permit as is any building more than 15,000 square feet in floor area. Mr. Ingersoll of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson and Horn, was present as the applicant's representative and discussed various aspects of the building. After some Commission discussion, Chairman Cistulli announced this special permit application would be heard at the meeting of December 11, 1972. 2. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PENINSULA GENERAL TIRE AT 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE, OWNER OSCAR PERSON. City Planner Swan presented a letter to Person -Western Inc. for Commission Secretary's signature, informing them of the Commission's decision to consider revocation of this special permit on December 11, 1972. He stated this letter would be sent registered mail. Louis M. Segal would also be informed, and regular notices would be mailed to residents in the area. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR 18-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1205 EL CAMINO REAL The City Planner announced that this EIR was being prepared, stating that since the Planning Commission had reviewed plans for the under- ground garage it was felt wise that they also should .review the EIR. This will be reviewed at the meeting of December 11, 1972. 4. BUILDING PERMIT FOR TERMITE REPAIRS AT 113-115 DWIGHT ROAD IN AN R-1 DISTRICT FOR LEN R. ANDERSON, OWNER. The City Planner presented this situation for Commission discussion. This property is up for sale, the seller wishes to complete the sale but there is a structure on the rear of the lot in need of termite repair. The structure is 50-60 years old, the second house on an R-1 lot and hence non -conforming. It is located on the property line. Building Inspector Calwell stated he thought it could not be repaired since it would not meet the State Pest Control Act, since the floor is less than 12" above grade. There was discussion of percentage of repairs allowed on a non -conforming building and whether or not this non -conforming building could be demolished. The City Attorney noted that a non -conforming building is not an illegal building and it is a rule of thumb that buildings of this type are non -conforming because we cannot prove to the contrary. There was a suggestion that staff should prepare findings that the building is either illegal or the cost of the repairs would exceed the percentage. The matter was dropped. 5. VARIANCE FOR NEW 6-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 6 PARKING SPACES AT 612 PENINSULA AVENUE BY HAROLD C. BARBER. 6. VARIANCE FOR NEW 9-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 11 PARKING SPACES AT 1000 CHULA VISTA BY HAROLD C. BARBER. Mr. Barber informed the Commission that his architect had worked on these two plans but had found that redesign was impossible. Fie requested that the Commission review these presentations at their next meeting. These variance applications were scheduled for the meeting of December 11, 1972. CITY PLANNER'S REPORT The City Planner reported on City Council Review of four EIR's at its last meeting: Joint Wastewater Disposal System, Sheraton Hotel, Kaiser -Aetna -Woodruff Building, and Anza Pacific office building. He further reported about City Council approval of Resolution 86-72 declaring presumptions and establishing fees for EIR's; introduction and tabling of Resolution 88-72 declaring the zoning code to be consistent with the General Plan; and City Council approval of Emergency Ordinance 975 requiring sprinkler_ systems in certain structures. The City Planner stated it appears that there may be a state moratorium on implementation of EIR requirements. He noted the draft of the DeLeuw Cather report had been received and was being considered by staff. There was a discussion of BART and the consensus was that the yard should be located outside of Burlingame. It was noted that Baywest Associates had made application for a site in Belmont. Deterrents to Burlingame location were the shape of their lot and conditions imposed upon the special permit. The City Planner reported that the Council would consider the EIR for the 50-unit condominium at Bayswater and Park at their meeting of December 18. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary