Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.10.11THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION October 11, 1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Kindig (excused) City Planner Swan Mink Jacobs (excused) City Engineer Marr Norberg City Attorney Karmel Sine Bldg. Inspector Calwell Taylor Fire Inspector Pearson CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from the regular meeting of September 25, 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 Taylor was excused until after 9:00 due to a previous commitment,. HEARINGS: 1. APPEAL OF DECISION BY BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTOR AT REQUEST OF JOHN W. GEER PER SECTION 18.08.050 (2) Chairman Cistulli announced this appeal for hearing. John Geer addressed the Commission stating he wished to appeal the decision of the Burlingame Building Inspector regarding an electrical box which he had installed in remodeling his property at 2104 Carmelita for rental purposes. He understood this was within his rights according to law and requested the Commission's consideration. Building Inspector Calwell declared that this matter was strictly a code violation, and Mr. Geer had no right to appeal it. He stated Mr. Geer was issued a permit to change the electrical service on his house. When the work was finished, the electrical inspector checked it, and it was not to code. The old meter box had not been changed from its original position of 12" or 14" above ground, whereas the code states it must be at least 30" above ground. Mr. Geer was informed of this and refused to change the location of the box, stating he might dig a hole in the ground instead to effect the desired height. The Building Inspector commented this would constitute a definite safety hazard since seepage and rain water could collect in the hole and there would be danger of electrocution. He repeated this was a flagrant code violation and he did not think it should be subject to appeal. Chairman Cistulli read correspondence from P.G.E. to Mr. Geer and City Manager Schwalm advising that wiring and meter were not according to code, and attaching minimum standards for installation. - 2 - Mr. Geer referred the Commission to the minimum standards and protested discrimination in that he was expected to conform to standards for exterior installation whereas his is an enclosed installation. He distributed photographs of his meter installation and stated he saw no safety hazard whatsoever. Chairman Cistulli queried City Attorney Karmel as to process of this hearing. The City Attorney went into the background of appeals from the discretion of the building inspector, and stated that in this case the burden of proof lay with the person appealing - he must show wherein the building inspector should be asked to depart from the building code. He also noted the possibility that P.G.E. may have safety rules which are not binding upon the City of Burlingame. Chairman Cistulli asked the building inspector what the code requirements were. Building Inspector Calwell repeated the code provisions as to box height, again cautioning about the danger of electrocution if a hole were dug. He added that P.G.E. Company will not service if this is not brought to code. Mr. Geer again stated he could see no safety hazard - that the box had been in the same position for 24 years, and he wanted only a reasonable interprdation of the code. He was reminded by Chairman Cistulli that he had upgraded a service in his residence, and he was expected to upgrade it according to code. Commissioner Sine commented he had electrical service changed at his property, had hired a licensed electrician to do it, and it conformed to code, suggesting that if Mr. Geer had hired a licensed electrician, there would have been no problem. Mr. Geer stated he did hire a licensed electrician. Both the Building Inspector and Chairman Cistulli inquired the electrician's name. Mr. Geer stated he did not wish to give this information. In following discussion it was established that the holder of a home owner's building permit may hire someone on day labor, not necessarily licensed by the State. Mr. Geer then stated that Atlas Electric had checked the service and recommended bringing in the 220 line, reworking the box, and changing the wiring according to code. At that time there was no mention made of moving the box. Commissioner Mink brought up the question of code violation in the extension of a non -conforming use, and suggested the possible necessity of rewiring the entire house because of the installation of 220 in this area of the non -conforming box. He then asked Mr. Geer if it would be possible to make the minor modification and bring the box up to code. Mr. Geer admitted that it would be possible to move the meter box 30" above the ground without a great deal of expense. He stated that his whole point was to find what was a reasonable interpretation - 3 - and what was the purpose of the building code. Is it to protect the people, or is it merely to insure that they conform? Commissioner Mink pointed out that we have codes to protect the home owner, but also to protect the people who service our utilities - safe working conditions must be maintained for services we depend on. Fire Inspector Pearson added that it is sometimes necessary for the fire Department to pull the meter to disconnect it. Commissioner Sine moved that the Planning Commission sustain the Building Inspector in the case of John W. Geer, and that Mr. Geer be granted a two week period from today to comply with the code. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously on roll call vote. Mr. Geer is to receive a formal communication from the Planning Department advising him of this decision, and Building Inspector John Calwell stated he would communicate with P.G.E. 2. DESIGN REVIEW OF UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN REQUIRED SIDE YARD AT 1205 EL CAMINO BY NEIL J. VANNUCCI (REF. ZONING CODE SECTION 25.62.08) (1) City Planner Swan quoted this code section referring to underground garages in setback areas which states in part: "Plans for such underground garages, together with methods of access and egress for the vehicles, must be prepared and submitted for approval by the planning commission . . ." He went on to say that this development was first proposed as a 30-unit apartment building but was now changed to an 18 unit condominium. He noted the presence of architect Neil Vannucci and owner Michael Kalend. The architect distributed plans for the garage and the City Planner explained them in detail, commenting they do meet the parking requirements. He also read a communication from Fire Inspector Pearson stating the garage would meet fire department regulations. Commissioner Sine was concerned about the people in the neighborhood who were interested in these plans and was told they had been informed of this meeting. Mr. Vannucci commented that the landscaping on top of the garage slab actually constituted an outdoor recreation area. Commissioner Mink commented that he did not consider 12 planter boxes as land- scaping, and having a living space right up against an easement with a subsequent trash and debris problem was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Vannucci assured him that with the high class clientele and the building maintenance system which the condominium will have there would be no such problems. Mr. Kalend added that the design was much improved since it provided for 18 units instead of the previous 30. Commissioner Sine moved that the Planning Commission approve the underground garage in the required side yard at 1205 El Camino in conformance with zoning code Section 25.62.080; and that the Planning Commission at any time in the future have the option of calling for a full review of the landscape drawings by a - 4 - landscape architect by the Commission. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. Mr. Vannucci commented that the Commission already had in their hands landscape drawings by designer George Machado. Commissioner Norberg objected to the landscaping shown on the deck,stating it was inadequate; and also objected to the fence shown on the deck in that it was too far above grade. Commissioner Mink withdrew his second to the motion, stating upon reconsideration it seemed the Commission -already had a bona fide landscape plan and should decide if they wished to review it or not. City Planner Swan suggested that since there was a motion with no second, perhaps there should be a motion to continue this hearing. Commissioner Mink moved to continue. Commissioner Sine stated he would not withdraw his motion until Commissioner Norberg defined his opinion. Commissioner Norberg again stated that the fence on the deck was too high above the natural grade to be built and there was not enough landscaping on the deck. Mr. Kalend suggested that the slab be approved, and landscaping plans could be brought back later for amendment and approval. Chairman Cistulli asked for a second to Commissioner Sine's motion. There was none. There was much further discussion. Chairman Cistulli then declared the motion dead for want of a second. Commissioner Mink moved that this item be continued to the next regular meeting of October 30. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION Chairman Cistulli announced consideration of study agenda at 9:25 p.m. pending Commissioner Taylor's arrival for vote on adjourned item. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN IN -BAY AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AT 1490 BU RLI NGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BY SHELL OIL COMPANY City Planner Swan noted that Mr. Williams of Shell Oil Company, and Mr. John Hughes, station operator, were present. Plot plans were distributed. He stated that precedent for this type of car wash was established at the Shell station on Burlway Road with similar equipment, and asked Mr. Hughes to explain the physical setup of where cars would be stored before and after washing. City Engineer Marr also requested information about the waste water. Mr. Hughes explained that there will be no storage or drying of vehicles, that when the car is driven out of the car wash it dries clean. Mr. Williams indicated the sump for wastewater on the plot plan, but the City Engineer stated there must also be a sediment pit. He was concerned about the soap or detergent used. It was further established that the car wash bay will be 13' x 281; will use cold water; the automatic car wash will be - 5 - hydraulically operated, starting at the front of the bay with its wash cycle, and going into the rinse cycle on the return. Mr. Williams noted the changes in landscaping and stated a small fixed sign "Free Car Wash With Fill -up" would be added. This is not a readerboard. There was some further discussion. Chairman Cistulli scheduled this application for hearing October 30, 1972. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH CAFE IN AN M-1 DISTRICT, ON BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SOUTH OF STANTON ROAD, BY KAISER AETNA AND AGENT, JACK WOODRUFF. City Planner Swan distributed plot plans for this proposed develop- ment which will be a three-story office building immediately adjacent to the building approved for the Christensen development. The Woodruff building will include a small cafe principally for the use of the building's occupants. The City Planner indicated receipt of an authorization from Safeway Company, present owners of the site. They have entered an option agreement for sale to the Kaiser -Aetna Corporation. The City Planner commented he thought the design of the building was commendable, and the application certainly merited consideration for a special permit. He noted the parking conforms to the code requirement. There was discussion of the parking, and a question as to the hours of operation for the cafe. Jack Woodruff replied there was not yet a lease agreement with any type of restaurant; but since this is strictly an office building, the restaurant would probably be a day operation. There was comment that the plans must be more detailed. Mr. Woodruff replied that complete documentation would be furnished in the process of time. He displayed elevations showing architectural character of the development, stating they wished to set this traditional building in a very strong landscaping setting. This is a 105,000 square foot wood frame building, wood floor and wood studs, and much use of wood for exterior trim. Interior landscaping is also used. Soil conditions make the area in front of the building unbuildable and it is to be a parking lot. Mr. Woodruff commented that this building requires a sensitivity in the reality of parking, but because of the landscaping the parking isn't the "usual trauma of bare steel and chrome." There was commission comment that the design appeared to be excellent. The application was scheduled for hearing October 30. Mr. Woodruff is to bring in completed plans, including landscape development plans. Commissioner Taylor entered the meeting at 9:45 P.M. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AIR FREIGHT FORWARDING BUSINESS AT 1341 MARSTEN ROAD, AN M-1 ZONE, BY INTERNATIONAL AIR COURIER City Planner Swan commented there was adequate documentation and a thorough presentation of facts on this application. He distributed plot plans to the Commission. Mr. Bruce McGlothlin of International Air Courier told the Commission this business would be housed in 1/4 of a warehouse at this address. They would use one Ford Econoline van, one Pinto station wagon and one Ford administrative car, and did not contemplate larger trucks in the future since they specialize in handling small merchandise. They have four parking spaces in front of the building. Other occupants of the building include an electronics firm and a restaurant supply company. Chairman Cistulli scheduled this application for public hearing October 30. The applicant was asked to bring plot plans to scale to the meeting. , ADJOURNED MEETING Chairman Cistulli announced return to agenda of adjourned meeting for consideration of one remaining item. 6. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 6-UNIT APARTMENT IN AN R-2 DISTRICT AT 1105 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, BEING LOT 14, BLOCK 5, EASTON ADDITION, BY LES ALEXANDER. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for public hearing. Revised elevation plans were distributed and considered. Commissioner Norberg commented these elevations were more attractive and inquired what kind of roof would be used. He was informed it would be heavy weight wood -treated composition shingles. There was some discussion of the previously considered plans. There was no audience comment either for or against the application, and the public hearing was declared closed. There were no commission questions or comments. Commissioner Sine moved that this variance for a six unit apartment be granted conditional upon using the alternate front elevation, Exhibit B. dated October 10, 1972; using 250# asphalt shingles; and using Exhibit A floor plan indicating a 6 unit apartment alternate to add one carport, a total of seven parking places. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG. SINE, TAYLOR, CISTULLI NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG, JACOBS - 7 - STUDY MEETING CODE AMENDMENTS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL Off -Street Parking Section 25.70.03. City Planner Swan told the Commission that the City Council had received a recommendation from the Parking Commission which was: Each dwelling unit with one bath and up to and including two bedrooms will require 1.5 spaces. Units with one bathroom and three or more bedrooms will require 2.0 spaces. Units with two bathrooms will require 2.0 spaces irrespective of the number of bedrooms.- On October 2 the Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission with the suggestion that the parking be related to the number of bedrooms, not bathrooms, and that rules allowing parking in the front setback be reviewed. The City Planner stated he had prepared four alternatives to the suggested parking regulation. He discussed these alternatives, and also explained the parking requirements for San Mateo County. He stated that all of these lead to his recommendation that no less than 1k spaces be used for each apartment unit., There was discussion of these various alternatives, and also of when it would be best to have a public hearing on the regulations. It was noted there was some urgency in the matter since the City Planner stated he had been reviewing building applications, and informing the public that 1h spaces are needed. The City Attorney commented that the commission was charged with the responsibility of making a study and recommendations on the parking problem; and suggested it would be possible for the Council at its November meeting to adopt an interim emergency ordinance as long as there was a bona fide study going on. The commission could make such a recommendation to the City Council. Such an emergency ordinance would remain in effect for a period of four months with the possibility of extension. It was agreed that the review of the parking code would be on the agenda for October 30. Comment was also made that because of lengthy discussions, special meetings should be called to consider this matter, as well as R-2A regulations and architectural review. Design review standards in C-4 City Planner Swan informed the Commission of Council recommendation by Councilman Martin that C-4 District Regulations be examined to determine whether or not they should be made more restrictive. This might include exploration of height limitations, landscaping requirements, public access to the bay, and the possibility of requiring a use permit for every development. The City Planner suggested several areas of discussion. He stated he thought height limitation might be the key to the situation; and in addition, an automatic sprinkler ordinance. He added that Fire Inspector Pearson would comment on this item. City Planner Swan also suggested the application of a special permit to any building over four stories in this area, and noted there should be some sort of architectural review. There was some discussion of height limitations being enacted ■Q as an emergency interim ordinance while regulations were studied. This was with particular reference to plans for a 16 story building in this district. Fire Inspector Pearson reported to the Commission that the buildings in this area are becoming bigger than the ability of the Fire Department to cope with them. Burlingame's fire department does not have enough men for effective fire fighting at very large buildings. He commented that larger cities may use the same building code as Burlingame, but here there is no relation between the size of the fire department and the size of the building. Burlingame is not going to get enough manpower to cope with these large buildings; therefore the Fire Department suggests that these buildings have protection built into them with automatic sprinkler systems, and that this be an ordinance. He suggested a minimum of 15,000 square feet as a guideline in building size, adding that this would not be a hardship on building owners because sprinkler systems would be more effective than building fire walls. He pointed out that 6 - 10 sprinklers would control 90% of all fires, since the minute that water starts to flow, the Fire Department is notified and measures would be taken to stop the fire. He emphasized that fire protection for these large buildings is becoming a serious matter, and commended the Commission for their interest in fire safety. The Commission indicated approval of the proposed ordinance to require automatic sprinkling systems. There was Commission suggestion that bulk limitations also be considered for the C-4 district to preserve the view of the Bay, and also to prevent any assemblage of long, law -lying buildings along the entire Bay front, with the example being given of Playland-at-the-Beach. There was a proposal that the Planning Commission control everything other than single-family residences, with the idea that this would be self -restricting. There was comment that this might be too arbitrary, but the idea was presented that if there are definite controls established in a district, builders will have a tendency to abide by them. After further discussion it was agreed that C-4 district regulations would be scheduled for the study meeting in November, when the full commission would be present. ANZA PACIFIC BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT City Planner Swan noted the previous transmittal to Commission members for information only of comprehensive material on the Anza Pacific Boundary Settlement. He commented that the State would have control over the lands it owns and they would not be subject to BCDC control. However, the types of uses allowed would be the types allowed by BCDC, and the development must be consistent with the local and regional ordinances. He said that in discussion of the development with George Keyston, it was agreed that the area under Anza Pacific control could be classified as an "office park." He added that it was necessary the City have some guidelines on such a designation, to achieve high quality improvement projects. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS The City Planner noted his distribution of reference material on this matter which included memo of opinion from City Attorney Karmel, League of California Cities letter on Supreme Court Opinion, and copy of newspaper item dated 10,/6/72 on the subject. In connection with this he stated he had just received a letter from Richard Ware, Charles King and Associates, referring to their proposed 16 story building and requesting review of their impact statement at the Commission hearing of October 30. Chairman Cistulli read the letter from Mr. Ware. There was discussion. The City Planner commented it seemed a logical procedure for the Commission to review the impact statement and make recommen- dations to the City Council, adding that it should be noticed in the newspaper. City Attorney Karmel felt that since no definite procedures have been set up, the Planning Commission should not allow one applicant to stampede them into taking a position which both he and they might regret later. He felt this could be delayed for another month until procedural methods could be formulated. Since the Courts' decision would be retroactive, he saw no reason why the applicants could not make their report and it could be held until later. He added that the great difficulty with the Supreme Court Decision is that there must be an opportunity for public input, and for this reason any hearings should be noticed. He added that restraint in action at the present would be advisable since there has been an application for rehearing filed with the Supreme Court. This rehearing is for purposes of clarification and he felt it would be granted, since the Attorney General is joining in this request. The League of California Cities is getting together a number of city attorneys who are going to review and come up with recommendations. The City Attorney went on to say that under Federal legislation there is an environmental impact statement; under the State legislation there is an environmental impact report. Whenever the City is asking for Federal money it must have the impact statement, which involves neither notices nor hearing. He spoke of the import-ance of having a "conservation element" in the General Plan. Cities which have one can delegate to some officer hearing responsibility for the environmental impact report. If the city does not have one, the statute says the legislative board must conduct the hearing. He repeated that it would best serve the interests of the City to withhold action until procedural methods had been set up. There was considerable discussion. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan told the Commission that the City Council had directed him to get a proposal from a plannin consultant to help with the General Plan in obtaining a conservagtion element. Three - 10 - firms have been contacted, and proposals are to be submitted by October 26. The City Planner spoke of recently passed Bill AB1725 which defines the term consistent and requires planning commissions to make specified findings re general plans after hearings to adopt or amend zoning. The purpose is that local zoning be consistent with general plans by January 1, 1973. Chairman Cistulli announced that at the next regular meeting of October 30 the Commission would set dates for special meetings to resolve such matters as appearance review, parking, C-4 district regulations, and the proposed R-2A District Regulations. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary