Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.05.08THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION May 8, 1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER The monthly study called to order on presiding. ROLL CALL None City Planner Swan City Attorney Karmel City Engineer Marr meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli All members of the Commission were present. APPLICATIONS 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW REBUILDING OF THE EXISTING STANDARD OIL COMPANY SERVICE STATION AT 1501 EL CAMINO REAL, BEING PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 51, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION'TO BURLINGAME NO. 5, ZONED R-3. This application was announced for study by Chairman Cistulli. City Planner Swan reviewed the application, stating that Standard Oil wants to build a two-story service station at El Camino and Adeline on the site of the existing service station. Some features will be inside trash containers, interior restrooms and a place to house all vending machines. He noted that the lot is 8,127 square feet in area, and that some cities have service station standards which require a minimum of 20,000 square feet in lot area. R. H. Rieber of Standard Oil addressed the Commission and showed a rendering of the proposed service station. Plans were distributed, and he commented that the rest rooms and storage area were on the second floor to conserve space on the small lot. He stated that there was no way to get additional property and there is at present a 45' easement on it. The present station will be demolished for the new building. The new station will have all diffused lighting, and the overall height will be approximately 20' from peak to grade. The roof material will be simulated shake shingle, which is a concrete shake, or earth tone. The City Planner added that the reason for the variance is the existing non -conforming use in an R-3 zone. The previous station was established about 43 years ago. Mr. Rieber stated it was proposed to plant 12' high 2Y' trees in the parking. The plans were distributed, and the City Engineer questioned the property line with reference to the trees. Chairman Cistulli announced the application would be heard at the next regular meeting of May 22. - 2 - 2. VARIANCE TO COVER MORE THAN FORTY PERCENT (40%) OF A LOT IN THE R-1 DISTRICT, AND WAIVE PARKING REQUIREMENT, AT 1556 MEADOW LANE, BEING LOT 24, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME VILLAGE, BY ROBERT S. GALLUCCI. A drawing was presented to the Commission on this application. Chairman Cistulli questioned the applicant who stated that this new addition comprised family room, bedroom and bathroom. There is only parking for one car in a single garage and this does not meet parking require- ments. City Planner Swan commented that this addition would make a lot coverage of 43.1% and that there was no possibility of adding to the garage which is 25' from the front property line. He commented that the variance was not for setbacks but for lot coverage and the garage and driveway requirements. There was discussion of the drawing and Mr. Gallucci stated he would have the architect draw a set of plans. On being questioned if the high lot coverage would be cut down, he stated that if the area were cut down, the family room would not be large enough. The drawing was discussed, and the application was scheduled for the regular meeting of May 22, 1972. 2A. VARIANCE TO COVER MORE THAN. FORTY PERCENT (40%) OF A LOT IN THE R-1 DISTRICT WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED SIDE YARD, AT 1364 COLUMBUS, BEING LOT 41, BLOCK 59, EASTON ADDITION #7, BY RAY AND ROSALIE HOLLASCH City Planner Swan commented on this application. He stated that lot coverage would be 43.5/. There is a proposed addition of 447 square feet. This would be'2 bedrooms above a rumpus room. There is a problem of the side yard which is adjacent to a 7' easement. The front part of the present building has a side yard of 1'10" also. The side yard required for one story is 4'; for two stories 5'. The code does permit an extension where it is an extension of an existing building wall. However, this extension would be 4' beyond the existing rear wall. There is a possibility of the property owner buying adjacent right-of-way. Otherwise, he felt, this variance should not be recommended. Mr. Hollasch addressed the Commission and explained the details of the plans. The City Planner commented that this is at present a non -conforming building and the easement is for the P.G.E. There was Commission comment that they had not had adequate time to examine the plans. The City Engineer commented that the Commission,would be aggravating a present non -conforming use by the use of these plans. It was the consensus of opinion that Mr. Hollasch should redesign the plans and present them to the Commission at the next study meeting of June 12. He agreed to this. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE BUILDING IN AN M-1 ZONE, AT THE SW CORNER OF BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND HINCKLEY ROAD, BEING LOT 1, BLOCK 6, EAST MILLSDALE PARK UNIT 2, BY BOMAR INVESTMENT COMPANY The City Planner distributed copies of reduced plot plan to the Commission. He explained this application was for a two story 18,000 square foot concrete office building with 60 parking spaces on the - 3 - property. Mr. Charles Boone, representative of Bomar Investment Company, was introduced and he read the letter of application which noted proposed multiple tenant occupancy and installation of landscaping. He went into details of the plan. City Engineer Marr stated he did not think the plans would present any problems, but questioned if the parking spaces were legal size. The City Planner informed him that they were 2' less than legal across a total length of 13 spaces; that technically each parking space was 2" too narrow. There was discussion, and several suggestions as to widening the parking spaces, including one of moving the building back toward Old Bayshore. Another was to make ground cover area 1' instead of 10', extra space to be given to the parking. Also, it was noted that if 10' of the building were eliminated, the problem would be solved. Mr. Boone informed the Commission that the adjacent property owner thought it would be of mutual interest to have a joint agreement for the use of his driveway. The Commission suggested that Mr. Boone revise his plan to show legal size parking, and the application was scheduled for hearing on May 22, 1972. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH WAREHOUSE IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT THE S.E. CORNER OF ROLLINS ROAD AND EDWARDS COURT, BEING PARCEL B ON PARCEL MAP 11/15 EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL PARK, BY ANDREW MORROW, INC. DEVE MPMENT. The City Planner distributed a set of plans for this proposed building. He reported to the Commission that basically this was an office building with a warehouse in the rear, and that a major issue to consider is the fact that more than one-half of the building is to be used for offices. 55% of the gross floor area is for office use. He noted that a joint egress -ingress is to be worked out. He commented that the deed restrictions call for a 20' setback from the property line along Rollins Road, whereas this proposed building has an 18' setback. He then quoted from the County Recorder's statement regarding the deed. He added that parking for this building does meet the requirements of one space per 1,000 square feet for warehouse and one per 300 square feet for office. Richard Lavanstein, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He introduced Andrew Morrow, developer; James Thorne, architect; and a Mr. Sanchez, an associate. Mr. Lavanstein contended that the deed restrictions regarding 20' setback had never been enforced before since all buildings presently situated within the Edwards tract are within 16' of Rollins Road. He took the position that this development did not require a special permit for several reasons. This.is not an office building per se - it is an office -warehouse building. Basically, it is for warehousing, permitted in an M-1 zone, with a tentative alloca- tion of office space necessary to estimate parking requirements. He stated that a precedent had been set within the last year, after a conference with the previous City Planner, by the construction of the same type of building on adjacent property for which no special permit was necessary. He compared this building with the proposed development in area, and percentage of office and warehouse space, noting similarities. Mr. Lavenstein commented that even if the developer wanted an office building on this property, it would be impossible because there is not enough area for parking. Every time these properties are improved, he stated, it requires a special permit, and requested the Commission make a decision in this case, making it unnecessary to obtain one. There was Commission discussion of the plans and Mr. Lavenstein's presentatio: Mr. Lavenstein repeated that a special permit was not necessary and that the element of time was basic in this development. He was reminded by the City Attorney that the Commission, in a study meeting,could not make a decision to waive the special permit requirements; and there was Commission comment that if it were considered on the basis of ambiguity of use rather than special permit, the time would be even longer since the ambiguity phase must be considered by Council also. There was also comment that the action of a previous City Planner had no bearing on this specific application. On a question from Commissioner Mink, City Planner Swan reported that if this building were used wholly for office space, there would not be sufficient area for parking. The easement agreement necessary for use of adjoining driveway for egress was discussed. Since both properties are owned by the same man, this agreement must be executed with a third party. The City Attorney suggested that the planning commission take its final action contingent upon the execution of an easement agreement with the City. There was further discussion. This application was set for public hearing on May 22. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE SALE OF PRE- FABRICATED CEDAR LOG BUILDINGS AT 312 LANG ROAD, BEING LOT 4, ANZA AIRPORT PARK #2, ZONED M-1, BY MARVIN NACHTSHEIM. City Planner Swan reported on this application, stating that a previous special permit granted for the same use had expired in January, 1972 making it necessary for the applicant to reapply. He stated the building would have to meet all building and fire codes; a check must be made of water and sewer facilities; and that since only one house is permitted on a lot in the M-1 district, the applicant would accept the condition that the building presently on the property be removed. He commented that it was hard to evaluate the parking requirement for this type of establishment; however off-street parking must be provided. Mr. Nachtsheim stated that parking had been increased on the plan over that of the last permit, and fire code requirements had been discussed with Fire Inspector Pearson. Commissioner Kindig commented that the Commission had considered the same application before, which still had the same requirements and restrictions. This application was scheduled for public hearing May 22 without further detail. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUSINESS OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USE OF UNCLASSIFIED LAND AT 290 BURLINGAME SQUARE, BURLINGAME DEPOT, BY MRS. FRANCES FENA, TENANT ON LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY Chairman Cistulli announced this application for Commission consideration and ascertained that Mrs. Fena was present. He then asked the City Planner for comments. City Planner Swan reported that this application was brought about because Mrs. Fena had requested transfer of a business license from the S.P. Station at Broadway and Carolan to the S.P. station at Burlingame Avenue. There is necessity for a special permit since there are living quarters attached to the station at Burlingame - 5 - Avenue, and this railroad property is unclassified land. He commented that her lease with S.P. probably stipulated maintenance of the garden to the rear of the station, and that he had requested Mrs. Fena to bring a plot plan. Chairman Cistulli questioned the City Attorney if it were permissible for anyone to occupy a's living quarters property on unclassified land. City Attorney Karmel replied he did not see what difference this would make; that consideration of the special permit would be to resolve the question of whether these two uses of business and residence could be combined on unclassified property. Mrs. Frances Fena addressed the Commission. She presented a rough sketch of the station property, stating the cottage had been used by the station master until 1957 after which she had leased it. She stated she must have someone living there because of burglaries and vandalism, noting she had had several tenants, the last of whom is her son who is now occupying the cottage. She stated she did not need the station office, but merely the use of the station as a business address; that she has offices in San Francisco and in the Hillsdale Southern Pacific Station. There was discussion of maintenance of the garden area, which Mrs. Fena is to assume, and the fact that the City maintains the area in front. She pointed out that she had always had reputable people living in the property. The City Attorney was asked if it would be better for the city if the land were classified before a permit were issued. He replied that the City would be in a better position if it was kept un- classified. There was a question of fire inspection of the premises. It was determined that the Fire Inspector had recently inspected the exterior only. The City Planner made arrangements with Frank Fena, Mrs. Fena's son, present at the meeting, to allow the Fire Inspector to investigate the interior of the building Wednesday afternoon, May 10. It was suggested as a condition of the permit that it be granted to Mrs. Fena only and not to any succeeding lessee. The application was scheduled to the public hearing of May 22, 1972. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONTRACTORS STORAGE YARD IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1367 MARSTEN ROAD BY ROUNTREE PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for study hearing. City Planner Swan commented that this special permit application was necessitated by the applicant's request for a business license. Mr. Waters, representative of Rountree Plumbing, told the Commission that the company had 12 vehicles, only one of which was stored in the yard; and that there was no vehicle service. On a question from the Commission he stated that they do have a couple of gas tanks under pressure, but that they are eliminating this type of equipment and they do no refilling themselves. The City Planner requested permission to inspect the property before the hearing and it was given. This application was scheduled for hearing May 22. - 6 - OLD BUSINESS: Report on Code Enforcement City Attorney Karmel reported on a conference he had with the owner of an illegal unit at 1528 Newlands. The owner had requested that he be given more time to vacate the premises since his tenant is old and has some difficulty finding a place to live. The tenant also had talked to the City Attorney and asked for time until June 1. This request was granted. City Planner Swan reported that the dwelling at 1511 Newlands still had not passed final inspection. He reported staff efforts regarding an illegal unit at 1436 Edgehill, an R-1 lot, owned by Mrs. Regan. This unit is in a shed at the rear of the building which is being used as a duplex. Living quarters in the shed had previously been abated, but a kitchen and bath have recently been reinstalled. He stated that inspections had been made by fire and building inspectors, Mrs. Regan had been contacted personally and by letter and had been made responsible for correcting this illegal unit. Business Licenses: City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that Commission suggestions on business licenses had been conveyed to the City Manager and have been directed to the City Council for study. The sign ordinance has been placed on the Council agenda for hearing. He also mentioned a number of recent inquiries about property for used automobile establishments. Suggested Code Amendments to Title 25, zoning: There was some further discussion on business licenses and regulations, particularly with regard to adult book stores. With regard to zoning amendments, there was discussion of why apartment hotels in a C-1 district should be a conditional use. The City Planner explained that hotels could be constructed within the downtown parking district with no offstreet parking; also there is a potential for senior citizens retirement type dwellings being constructed within this district. The City Planner commented that these code amendments must be supported by resolution and findings from the Commission for consideration of the Council. The City Attorney noted that if these items are to be put on the agenda, notice must be published in the newspaper. There was further discussion, and it was decided to hold a public hearing on May 22 on amendments to the following zoning codes: 25.08.350; 25.28.030; 25.32.030; 25.34.030; and 25.74.020. Tentative Draft of R-2A Regulations: It was decided to set this item aside for a future meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Communications: City Planner Swan submitted a tentative response to a letter from - 7 - City Manager Schwalm with regard to Commission attendance rules. The letter in response was signed by Chairman Cistulli. Proposed Burlingame Bikeways: City Planner Swan showed the Commission the bikeways established by the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee, including the route approved by the Hillsborough Police Chief. He then demonstrated another plan, a preliminary Recreation Element, which showed bikeways tied in with schools and recreation areas. It illustrated that the bikeways would be included in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. The Recreation Element will be prepared for commission approval and recommended to the City Council for their subsequent adoption by resolution. There was further discussion of bikeways east of Bayshore, a bridge over the Freeway, and a future bike path along the shoreline. Commissioner Sine brought up further items of code enforcement. These included the Charles Thompson property, still under litigation; the illegal Exline fence at 2805 Frontera; and Gabrielson Autos sign. The Chairman stated there should be a report from the building inspector on the Exline fence. ADJOURNMENT: The study meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary