Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.11.13THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER Norberg (excused) City Planner Swan City Engineer Marr City Attorney Karmel An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from the regular meeting of October 30, 1972, was called to order on the above date at 8:00 P.M., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members of the Commission were present. Commissioner Norberg was excused due to illness. 1. DESIGN REVIEW OF UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN REQUIRED SIDE YARD AT 1205 EL-CAMINO REAL BY NEIL J. VANNUCCI (REF. SECTION 25.62.080) Chairman Cistulli initiated discussion on this review. City Planner Swan explained that this was an adjourned regular meeting for review of underground garage in a required yard and for conformance with the emergency ordinance regarding apartment parking regulations. Mr. Vannucci distributed revised plans which showed the addition of three parking spaces, conforming to the regulation of lh parking spaces per unit. These additional spaces are made possible by the reduction of other apartment areas, such as storage. He stated that these are all legal size spaces. The City Planner commented that the plan appears to be now within regulations. City Engineer Marr interjected criticism of the large hole on the property which had been allowed to remain after razing the -previous structure. It is full of water and is hazardous to neighborhood children. Mr. Michael Kalend, owner of the property, stated that they planned to start construction earlier, and thereby eliminate this problem. There was discussion of the plans, and Mr. Vannucci again explained some of the details of the landscaping. He emphasized that there would be no driveway on E1 Camino. Commissioner Sine expressed concern about the extra parking spaces located in the middle of the garage area because it would hamper car movements. Mr. Vannucci agreed and noted that he had tried alternatives unsuccessfully. He asked for suggestions. It was the opinion of the Commission that one parking space should be located at the rear and be labeled "Guest Parking." Mr. Vannucci agreed to this. - 2 - Commissioner Sine then stated he thought the entrance on Broadway was too close to E1 Camino and would prove hazardous to people at the exit who wish to make a left turn against west -bound traffic on Broadway. He suggested that the traffic ramp be relocated further west. Mr. Vannucci replied that because of the grade problem on the lot, which rises to the west, relocation would make the ramp too steep. He suggested that the ramp have a sign "right turn only." Commissioner Mink was concerned that the plantings at the ramp entrance not hamper traffic visibility. Commissioner Taylor asked if the building department would issue a permit on this plan. City Planner Swan replied that a permit had been issued on a 30-unit apartment plan which had three driveways, one of which was on El Camino. He commented that this plan was a considerable improvement and it is advisable to have no driveways along the El Camino frontage. Commissioner Taylor asked if the,underground garage would extend into the 20' setback'on E1 Camino, and was assured by Mr. Vannucci that it would not. Commissioner Mink moved that the Planning Commission approve the underground parking as required in Section 25.62.08 and approve landscaping and use of open space in accordance with drawings dated November 13, 1972 with the conditions that a "right turn only" sign be placed where it is visible to drivers of cars coming out of the parking area, and that the parking space in the middle of the project garage be changed to the rear. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the regular study meeting at 8:30 P.M. STUDY MEETING 1. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTION 80-72 ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PREPARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS' City Planner Swan addressed the Commission on this subject. He explained that the Planning Commission is obliged to review Environmental Impact Reports or Negative Declarations on any variances which come to their attention. He reviewed the procedures established by Resolution 80-72. All zoning project applications with completed questionnaire shall be reviewed by the City Planner. He will determine whether a Negative Declaration shall be issued or an Environmental Impact Report prepared. After such determination, a copy of the applicable form is publicly posted at City Hall for seven days prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing of the application. The public hearing for the application shall be noticed in the usual manner with the addition of notice of filing of the Negative Declaration or EIR Report. The Planning Commission at its hearing shall approve or disapprove either of these reports. After disapproval of a Negative Declaration, an EIR must be prepared, for further hearing. - 3 - Any final action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Project applications and questionnaires for business licenses and regulations, fire, building construction, and signs shall be reviewed by appropriate city official. EIR's resulting,from this review are heard by the City Council. City Planner Swan commented on three project applications already scheduled to be heard by the City Council. 2. NEW PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENTS City Planner Swan reported that several applicants for this evening's meeting were there for the purpose of obtaining variances from the new interim ordinance No. 971. This ordinance requires at least one and one-half parking spaces for each unit in new apartment construction. He commented that holders of variances where no building permit has yet been issued and no foundation constructed, have several alternatives in conforming to new parking regulations. They may redesign the project to provide one and one-half parking spaces per unit; or wait four months, hoping the ordinance will not be revised; or submit application forparking variance. APPLICATIONS: 1. VARIANCE FOR NEW 9-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 11 PARKING SPACES AT 1000 CHULA VISTA BY HAROLD C. BARBER. City Planner Swan explained that this application for parking variance is for an apartment which had nine two -bedroom one bath units. Planning Commission policy would necessitate 1.6 parking spaces per unit, or a total of 14. The project requires 14 parking spaces to satisfy the new code of 1.5 spaces per unit. The concept is for a three-story building. The City Planner commented that there is R-1 zoning across the street. He distributed plans for this project which were reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Barber addressed the Commission, stating the building had been designed to meet the codes previously in effect. The plans have been reworked in an attempt to meet the emergency parking ordinance. He thought it was economically infeasible to cut down the number of units. There was Commission comment that the plans still did not indicate enough parking to meet the requirement of 14 spaces. It was suggested that Mr. Barber have his architect again redesign the plans to meet the parking requirement, and present them to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Barber agreed to this. 2. VARIANCE FOR NEW 6-UNIT APARTMENT WITH 6 PARKING SPACES AT 612 PENINSULA AVENUE BY HAROLD C. BARBER. The Commission was informed by the City Planner that this apartment building contains four one -bedroom and 2 studio apartments for which the required parking under Planning Commission policy would be 8.4 (8) parking spaces. This building is similar to one erected in the - 4 - same area by Mr. Barber a.year ago. Plans were distributed and considered by the Commission. Mr. Barber explained that at the time the plans were drawn they were up to code. However, construction has not yet started, and he attempted to revise for parking. There was a suggestion that he erect four two-bedroom:units instead, but he stated economics prevented this. The Commission again suggested that his architect rework the plans and present them to the Planning Commission at a later date. Mr. Barber agreed to do this. 3. VARIANCE FOR A NEW 6-UNIT APARTMENT WITH 6 PARKING SPACES AT 1422 FLORIBUNDA BY G.S. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Plans were distributed and reviewed for this apartment. Mr. Don Nahrwold, real estate representative for the firm, explained to the Commission that it is possible to get the extra parking, but the developer is reluctant to change the aesthetic quality of the building. In addition, it will be costly. He noted that it was possible to take the driveway all the way to the back of the lot, providing room for three additional parking spaces. The G & S representative added that they would like to keep this building at the two-story level. Mr. Nahrwold sent on to say that the application was submitted the first part of August, but no building permit had been requested because of involvement with financing. There was Commission comment that while this application could be brought to public hearing, parking arrangements were far from satisfactory to the Commission. The applicant was warned that if denied, he would have to wait another year. Mr. Nahrwold was concerned that he would have to get another variance on the back lot line. Chairman Cistulli commented that if the plans were taken back to the architect and reworked, the Commission could consider at the December 11 study meeting. The developer agreed to have this design reworked by the architect and resubmit to the Planning Commission on December 11. 4. VARIANCE FOR 1014" x 5210" "GTE Sylvania" roof sign at 1811 ADRIAN ROAD BY AD ART INC. The City Planner commented that the applicant was not present because of illness. He showed the Commission a colored rendering of the sign and an elevation of it, noting that this sign because of its size requires review in keeping with EIR requirements. These regulations state that a sign that is larger than 50 square feet in gross area is presumed to have a significant effect on the environment. He stated this sign contains about 530 square feet in area which is more than 35% larger than the present sign of 390 square feet. The entire height of the sign is approximately 20' above the roof and it has two structural supports to be anchored to the roof. He commented that this sign is large but appears to be a straightforward replacement of the existing sign, and there is no guideline to say what is to be done in lieu of asking for a variance application. - 5 - There was Commission discussion. It was agreed that this would be considered at the public hearing of November 27, with the stipulation that the representative of Ad Art and of Sylvania management should be present at the meeting. 5. FENCE VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF 7' ON EL CAMINO, REAR OF PROPERTY AT 1155 EASTMOOR ROAD, ALFRED E. GOSSNER Secretary Jacobs read the letter from the applicant giving his reasons for erecting a fence of this height. He cited the heavy traffic and noise along E1 Camino as principal reasons. Mr. Gossner then addressed the Commission. He told them there is an existing fence which is 6' in height along the back of his lot. For reasons of privacy he wishes to replace this with a 7' fence, made of redwood and complying with local building requirements. City Planner Swan requested clarification of the code on fence applications. He quoted the code which states that fences of a greater height can be approved upon presentation of a "petition," and questioned who would be paying for the mailing of notices since there is no fee. He thought it would be expedient to act on this application at this meeting so that the applicant could get his fence and there would be no mailing of notices. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that this could be treated as a variance in the same manner as use applications. It was agreed that notices would be mailed and this application will be placed on the public hearing agenda for November 27. 6. City Planner's Report Resolution on Consistency between General Plan and Zoning: The City Planner reported that Bill AB 1301 requires that a city's General Plan be consistent with the zoning code, and that consistency is required by January 1, 1973. He stated it may be possible to make the finding that the zoning map and the general plan are consistent. The Planning Department recently made a survey of how much of the total area is consistent. It must be more than 90%, which is exceedingly high. He would like to bring back to the Planning Commission at the public hearing a resolution that there is this consistency. The Commission agreed that this would be advisable. Interim Conservation Element City Planner Swan reported that EIR procedures are simpler for cities which have a Conservation Element. He stated an interim conservation element would be drafted in the near future. This might be a way to alleviate need for the EIR report. Minor Revisions to Zoning Map The City Planner cited instances where zoning is confused such as a particular gasoline station located on two lots, one of which is zoned C-1, the other C-2. He gave other examples and suggested revising the zoning map to correct.:.them. This must be done in order to make the zoning map consistent with the General Plan. He discussed a variable height district which is located between Oak Grove and Peninsula Avenue and E1 Camino and California Drive. For apartment buildings located in this district the 75' height limitation can be waived if the side setback is increased. He commented that a plan was under way for a multi -story building with two levels of under- ground parking. It would meet regulations of this district. The City Planner reported on the Site Planning and Architectural Review committee now functioning in Mountain View. The city retains an architect on.a fee basis. The planner, chief building inspector, and architect are a committee. They meet weekly with the fire marshal and city engineer to review all plans except minor improvements and 1-2 family buildings. The City Planner considered it wise for Burlingame to hold design review in abeyance until the EIR procedures are operating smoothly. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider a motion stating they wish to review every sign of more than 50 square feet, since large signs have a significant impact on the environment. This is a tentative standard for projects that require an EIR but it is only a presumed condition. The matter can be considered at the November 27 meeting to finalize it. Consideration of C-4 district regulations -was brought up. City Planner Swan stated that this should be considered in conjunction with a proposed new sprinkler ordinance; and the City Attorney added that it is possible this latter may be considered soon. Schedule of future meetings was discussed. It was agreed that the special meeting of November 29 would be cancelled. The meeting of November 27 is to be adjourned to the meeting of December 11 so that there can be an action meeting. The City Planner introduced a Mr. Cole and a Mr. Zigman, both of whom are involved in preparing EIR's. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:30. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary