Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.12.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER The monthly study called to order o presiding. ROLL CALL None City Planner Swan City Attorney Karmel City Engineer Davidson Building Inspector Calwell (9 :00 ) meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was n the above date at 8:00 P.M., Chairman Kindig The above members were present. APPLICATIONS 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE UNCLASSIFIED PROPERTY LEASED FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT FOR PRIVATE OFF-STREET PARKING LOT, IN 1800 BLACK ON EAST SIDE OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY B. CARL SNYDE R Revised plans for this site were distributed. Both Mr. DeWolf and Mr. Snyder were present. They told the Commission the revised plans make provision for either diagonal parking, which provides about 62 spaces, or parallel parking which provides about 65. They commented that parking at the site of the medical building was 170 spaces which is in excess of code requirements; and parking at this site would give them even more excess uhich would aid in the present parking difficulties. A conference had been held with Park Director John Hoffman to discuss his planting and maintenance requirements. It was again asserted that Sgt. O'Brien, Traffic Director, had stated he would locate proper crosswalks when the project was completed; and a fence would be installed of 18 gauge wire hung on channel fence posts. The City Engineer questioned the pavement design and was informed that a 4" rock base would be used over the entire site rather than blacktop. Dust would be controlled by spraying. Parking spaces would be marked and there would be bumpers. The City Planner reminded the principals that a determination should be made on maintenance of the public right of way between the leasehold and the California Drive curb. Mr. DeWolf stated that planting and maintenance would be carried out according to Park Department specifications. He definitely stated planting would be watered. City Engineer Davidson asked if Mr. Snyder had legal access onto existing S.P. parking lot. The reply was affirmative. - 2 - Mr. DeWolf also said the City of Millbrae had been advised of the proposed development and had taken no action. The land is leased on a yearly basis. The principals indicated they were aware of the possibility of street widening. Commissioners voiced concern about the safety of the proposed type of fence. Mr. DeWolf stated that when cyclone fence is put in, papers and other debris collect up against it, and the planned fence is not in a spot where it would be harmful to pedestrians. One Commissioner commented he was not convinced the project was needed and did not want to see the property tied up with resultant loss of possible bike path and difficulties about street widening. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing December 26. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 AND 12, BLOCK 6, MAP OF SUB. #2, BURLINGAME PARK, (APN 028-315-050 AND 060) ZONED R-1, FOR MISS G. BERNICE BARNETT AT 1575 RALSTON AVENUE, BY H. G. HICKEY. Copies of the map were distributed to the Commission. Mr. Hickey reviewed the facts that this is two parcels of land totaling approxi- mately 17,300 square feet. It is proposed to redraw lot lines to make three lots of legal dimensions of 5,000+ feet each. The map was reviewed, and there was Commission comment on the difficulty of building on two of the lots without removing the existing large trees; and the practicality of building on Parcel C after the existing non -conforming dwelling is gone. This parcel is an irregularly shaped slope lot which has a creek on it. The engineer introduced Miss Barnett who told the Commission she had lived on the property for 53 years but could no longer take care of it. Subdividing into three lots would give her the opportunity of selling two and making a return on her property. In response to a Commission comment that lots on the other side of the street were 7,000 square feet, she noted there were a number of lots in this area which were smaller than 5,000 square feet. The engineer commented that proposed Parcel A had already been reserved for a potential buyer. There was further comment to the effect that with a 15' setback approximately only 30% of Parcel C would be buildable, and 2,200 square feet of this lot sets 9' below grade. This makesfor a very irregular lot. The engineer agreed this is not a prime lot, but it would have a certain monetary value, and anything built on it would have to abide by the City building code. On a question of responsibility for the creek channel, the City Engineer stated the property owner must maintain the creek banks, but it is the City's responsibility to see that there is no obstruction in creek flow. He went on to say that he assumed since the existing building is so close to the property line, both sewer and water are within Parcel C and would not require easements across any of the other lots. Also, there is a requirement that there be separate sewer and water service for each lot. City Planner Swan verified that these lots meet City legal require- ments, but remarked that this particular site would have deserved MM consideration under the R-2A approach. It is in the R-1 district and he thought it is not being economically developed because four or five townhouses would be reasonable. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing December 26. There was subsequent discussion, and a Commission question as to whether this resubdivision would stand up in court, if these are legal lots. The City Attorney, citing the case of Roussey vs. the City of Burlingame, said that it would if the property meets all the requirements of the City code. 3. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 1766 EL CAMINO REAL - FRANK KROHN. City Planner Swan told the Commission that Mr. Krohn had contacted him by telephone, and had withdrawn this application since the company is negotiating for sale of the entire property. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONTINUE USE OF OFFICE SPACE IN RICHMOND MODEL HOME IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 310 LANG ROAD BY NATIONAL DEVELOPERS INC. The City Planner reviewed the history of the special permit at this location, originally granted to Lindal Homes in 1965. In 1970 permit was granted for the construction of an additional model at 310 Lang Road. In 1971 a permit was granted to Marvin Nachtsheim for a model at 312 Lang Road. City Planner Swan explained that at this time a new lessee is buying the business. He stated he was in doubt as to whether the Commission wished to process another special permit since there is no change in the physical situation and the previous permit was not conditioned with a particular owner. It appears to be use that has gone with the land. He stated there was nothing in the minutes which indicated that the use went with the owner, and questioned if the Commission recalled that it did. They did not. The City Planner proposed that the check for application fee be returned to National Developers and that they be informed the permit is still valid. The Commission agreed. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FOOD SERVICE IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 819 MITTEN ROAD BY DAVE A. WEI SS. The City Planner stated an EIR form had been received from Mr. Weiss which included the statements that only 4 employees would be present during lunch hours and 2 employees at other times. Also that this operation would be quiet and would emit no unpleasant odors. He stated he would file a Negative Declaration. He introduced Mr. Weiss who addressed the Commission. He explained that the site consisted of three buildings surrounded by parking. He showed a site plan and the location of his restaurant ,in relation to the main office building. He also displayed a floor plan of the cafe, which will have floor length windows in the front and rear, and six parking spaces in the front. Total parking for the property.is 253 spaces. However, he expected most traffic to be foot traffic from the surrounding buildings. Mr. Weiss stated this would be basically a health food type of restaurant, with no cooking of greasy food products. He reported he had met with both the Health Inspector and the Fire Inspector on the premises and they had approved. He had talked to the Building Inspector and he seemed to be agreeable. The restaurant would have a total area of 853 square feet, with seating for 40 people. Hours would be from 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., week days only. There was some Commission discussion. Chairman Kindig scheduled this application for hearing on December 26. 6. VARIANCE FOR 8-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING IN R-1 DISTRICT AT HUMBOLDT AND ROLLINS ROAD BY ANTHONY AKELIS City Planner Swan distributed plot plan and elevation of this proposed 8-unit apartment. He commented that a 14 unit apartment had been approved in the past for this site, and in 1972 a ten unit apartment was approved, but not built. The City Planner noted that they proposed 8'two-bedroom units with 16 parking spaces. He evaluated the plan favorably. He went on to say that the applicant had discussed the undercpund fuel storage tank with the Fire Inspector, and this will be taken care of. The applicant was not present. There was Commission discussion of the drainage problem on this lot and unfavorable comment that there was no floor plan presented. The City Planner took the responsibility for indicating that it did not seem necessary that a detailed floor plan be presented for a variance. However, the Commission felt that the applicant should be present at the study session and they would want to see a floor plan. This application was carried over to the study session of January 14 with the request that the applicant definitely be present. 7. VARIANCE FOR LETTING OF ROOMS TO NOT MORE THAN 6 PERSONS IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 27 CLARENDON ROAD.BY MRS. KHADIJEH MC GAVIN Mrs. McGavin addressed the Commission. She told them she and her husband own a 7-bedroom house; 3 bedrooms of which are occupied by elderly ambulatory guests. They have a license to operate a home for the elderly. She said the 3 bedrooms are large and would easily accommodate 2 people instead of one each. She and her husband occupy the rest of the house, and her husband assists her in this business. Mrs. McGavin stated that both the Fire Inspector and the Building Inspector had visited her dwelling and had informed her that a ramp would have to be installed. Building Inspector Calwell reported that this seemed to be a very well -run facility and the housekeeping was especially good. In response to Commission questions, Mrs. McGavin stated she would comply with the request of the inspectors and that traffic would not be increased since very few people come to visit these elderly lodgers. She said she had been a nurse in Persia but had not passed the test for an R.N. here. After some discussion, the application was set for hearing on December 26. - 5 - S. SIGN PERMIT FOR EDANS SPORTING GOODS AT 783 CALIFORNIA DRIVE The applicant was not present at this meeting. City Planner Swan posted an illustration. -of the 12' wide and 6'8`:high wall sign. He stated there had previously been a wall sign but he thought it had been painted out. Chairman Kindig set this sign application for hearing December 26, and cautioned that the applicant must be present. 9. SIGN PERMIT FOR CHARLES KING & ASSOCIATES AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Mr. Dick Ware was present, representing Charles King and Associates. He displayed a plastic model of the sign which carried an illustration of the proposed building. This will be a temporary sign during the construction period and will come down on the completion of the building. The sign is 16' x 16' and is 4' off.the ground. He also showed a drawing and commented that the sign is large because of the importance of the project. He stated it will have low level lighting. The supports for this temporary sign will be of wood. Building Inspector Calwell indicated he could condone a temporary sign of this type but questioned if other signs, such as construction signs, would be involved. This led to a discussion during which Mr. Ware conceded that other names could be put on the proposed sign. There was Commission suggestion that if any other signs went up on the site this large sign might have to come down. Mr. Ware indicated he would be happy to control other signs if he could receive parameters of action from the Commission. He also suggested the possibility of splitting the sign at the back so that it could be viewed from two angles. This application was set for hearing December 26, 1973. 10. SIGN PERMIT FOR BANK OF AMERICA 65 SF POLE SIGN AT 400 EL CAMINO REAL BY FEDERAL SIGN CORPORATION Mr. Ray Olson represented Federal Sign Corporation of Oakland who propose to erect this sign. It is to be 1015" wide and 6'3�" high. City Planner Swan showed an illustration of the sign and a detailed plan. He also displayed sign materials of white and slate gray plastic. The sign will show simply "Bank of America" and only the letter: and the border will be illuminated. This sign will parallel E1 Camino. There was Commission comment that a great deal of effort had gone into making the site and the building beautiful, and this sign was unattractive. It was suggested that an illustration of the sign be superimposed on the building so that the total effect might be evaluated. Mr. Olson agreed that the sign did seem stark but would give a different total effect. The City Planner stated that wall signs are also proposed for the structure, although this pole sign application is the only one received. Mr. Drummond Graves of Continental Service Company told the Commission that the sign company or Arthur Brothers will be making applications for the wall signs. After more discussion it was decided by the Commission that it would be necessary to have documentation of total signage requested, and an illustration of its use in context with the building and landscaping before this application could be heard.. Upon inquiry, both Mr. Olson and Mr. Graves agreed this could be done for the study meeting of January 14, 1974. 11. CODE AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT 3-STORY BUILDINGS IN R-1 DISTRICTS. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL FOR RECOMMENDATION. City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that the City Council had referred to them an apparent conflict between the building code and the zoning code in the matter of height determination on a slope lot in the R-1 zone. Particularly referenced is a dwelling on a slope lot on Loyola Drive which has a basement garage and two dwelling stories above. This looks like a 3-story building. Building Inspector Calwell stated that this basement is not considered a story by the building code (which specifies that "If the finished floor level directly above a basement . . . is more than 6 feet above grade . . for more than 50% of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade . . . at any point, such basement . . . shall be considered as a story.") City Planner Swan illustrated with a blackboard sketch the definition of building height according to zoning code on such a lot sloping upward to the rear. This he stated as 2h stories or 35' above grade at the setback line. He also illustrated a downward sloping lot which has a structure height of 2'h stories or 35' above the curb. In this instance there could be several more stories on the downhill side. This initiated discussion of where setback line should be placed. The City Planner commented that the code in one place specifies "All front setbacks shall be measured from front property line to the front wall." There was commission comment that where the lot slopes away could be one story above the curb. There was a suggestion that the height be 35' at the 15' setback at the natural grade or the applicant could come in for variance. In addition, where there is a cross slope the average original ground level 15' from the front property line shall be used. Grades of 5% or less could be eliminated. There was agreement that requirements for slope lots must be more clearly defined since others on Adeline and Canyon may be in the city eventually. The Building Inspector commented there are three such lots now in the city. In response to a question on the quality of fill on slope lots, he stated that both a soils report and an engineer's report is required. There was discussion of preparation of resolution for action at the meeting of the 26th. City Attorney Karmel suggested that the Council might wish to adopt an emergency ordinance on this subject at the next study meeting, and a report by the City Planner from the Commission would enable them to do so. Then the code amendment - 7 - could be worked out later. There was agreement that this would be the best procedure, since it was felt this subject should be pursued in depth and reasonable provisions for code amendments drawn up. 12. URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CODE AMENDMENTS TO C-4 DISTRICTS TO ADD HEIGHT AND BULK REGULATIONS City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that several applications have been received for the C-4 District, but the City has a problem in defining and regulating structures in this area. He suggested amendments to the C-4 district code, which would be entirely new inserts. These were: Section 25.41.025, "Conditional uses requiring a special permit" which covers structures more than 35' in height within 100' of the Bay, all structures more than 50' in height, and structures having a floor area ratio of more than one. Section 25.41.090, "Height and bulk of buildings." The points in this section are briefly defined as follows: 1. Floor area ratio in C-4 district shall not exceed 2.0. 2. FAR is applied to gross floor area above curb opposite front wall. This point notes exclusions such as chimneys, cupolas, fire towers, etc. 3. Computation of floor area ratio for parking structures, auditoriums and commercial amusement buildings. 4. Stipulation that basement shall be considered a story if finished floor above is more than 4' above the top of the curb. Considerable discussion followed. There was a suggestion that the area of the underground garage above ground could be pro rated, and that an underground garage could not be considered a structure if it did not have walls. More discussion followed on this point with Mr. David Keyston participating. The question was raised of how to figure the GFA of a building with a cavity; for example, a hotel with an open lobby and guest rooms around the perimeter of each floor. Would it be counted as a floor every 14'? The City Planner thought in this case the floor area of the "cavity" would be counted just once. Mr. Keyston commented that Anza wishes to initiate planned unit development. However, he cautioned against making guidelines too tight. He thought Items 1, 2, and 3 could be combined and preferred the use of "chargable" floor area rather than "gross." A Commission suggestion was "calculated floor area." There was much more discussion particularly with regard to underground parking garages. Commission agreement followed to study further at the January study meeting and possibly present at the January public hearing. 13. REVIEW OUTLINE OF TENTATIVE DRAFT PROCEDURES FOR ANZA MASTER PLAN, NOVEMBER 29 MEETING REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL City Planner Swan discussed his report to the City Council. This report had also been distributed to Commission members and covered a meeting of Messrs. Keyston, Karmel, Rebazchik and Swan to work out review procedures for this Master Plan. Topics covered included size of planning area, a Shoreline Specific Plan, an overall traffic study, tentative map and final map for land subdivision, a tentative EIR and a set of final EIR's, special permits for building bulk, BCDC review and approval; improvement of vehicular access. The City Planner emphasized that the Shoreline Specific Plan was most important since it will regulate what this area will look like in the future. He told the Commission they should consider the approach for EIR's, whether there would be a tentative one for the whole area plus a set of final EIRs for individual projects and to update the tentative EIR. He wished to get direction from the City Council on adoption of EIR procedures. He noted that BCDC approval is needed for most of the area, and in particular for the fill which will be necessary to widen Airport Boulevard. BCDC approves fill for recreational areas, and he stated one method of application to do that is to present to BCDC an adopted Shoreline Specific Plan. One shoreline specific plan could be a special area plan incorporating Bayside Park and Anza Pacific. This would be one way of gaining approval for fill. David Keyston, among other comments, stated he did not take exception to any point in the City Planner's report except that pertaining to subdivision. However he observed that these procedures are being approached from the standpoint of the City and Anza considers the time element to be of especial importance. They wish to progress as soon as possible. He stated he had replied to the City Planner's memo and had asked the City Council to review the Master Plan in January. He agreed that a terfative EIR could be considered for all of the property with a final EIR to be completed on each building. 14. REVIEW PROJECT PLANS OF 5-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 533 AIRPORT BOULEVARD FOR COMMENT TO COUNCIL Detailed plans for this building were distributed and discussed. David Keyston told the Commission this will be a twin building to the one now in the process of completion, and Anza Pacific will subdivide to have it on one lot if desired. He noted that the parking structure 4' above the ground must abide by setback requirements. This building will be about 500' from the Bay. Bronze glass will be used on the northern exposure. As yet, there is no tenant for the building. There was some discussion. Commission comment was desultory and unenthusiastic, although in general approving. 15. LETTER FROM DONALD TATEOSIAN REGARDING A STUDY OF RECLASSIFICATION Chairman Kindig read communication of December 6, 1973 from Donald D. Tateosian. As a property owner on Carolan Avenue, he requested the Commission to make a study for reclassification of areas on Carolan Avenue from M-1 to C-2. The City Planner displayed an illustration of the existing zoning and then showed it'with an overlay of C-2 as proposed. He specified the uses in this area which are now mostly commercial uses. The Chairman asked for Commission opinion on this study. It was stated that the General Plan probably contemplated C-2 for this area. There was some discussion of parking requirements. The City Planner commented that it first should be determined how much of the area should be rezoned, then the property owners should be contacted and their wishes determined. He mentioned that a reclassi- fication would require an EIR, and the property owners should retain a consultant to prepare it. The Commision agreed that the City Planner should contact property owners for purposes of study and report. 16. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES IN 1974. The City Planner presented a schedule of meeting dates for 1974. There was no disagreement, and this will be presented at the regular meeting for adoption. CITY PLANNER REPORT The City Planner told the Commission of receipt of report on station site concepts for BART. There was some discussion of BART. The City Planner outlined work which the Commission should accomplish in the next year. This includes city circulation system, shoreline specific plan, residential land use, bike path, and four mandatory elements of the General Plan that must be completed by September, 1974. However, he told the Commission that his priorities for the next 6 months would be Burlingame Transit, urban design, signs, and a record keeping system for planning. There was general agreement that this seemed feasible. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Sine Secretary