Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.11.12THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 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 Fire Chief Moorby meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was n the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Kindig The above members were present. APPLICATIONS 1. REVISED DRAFT EIR-20P FOR AIRPORT MARINA PROJECT. 2. VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT MARINA HOTEL EXPANSION Messrs. Jim Ruthroff and Paul Fratessa of Ruthroff and Englekirk; Frank Liptman of the Amfac Corporation; Bill Tighe, President of Fred Harvey Restaurants, and Del Davis of Del Davis Associates were present at this meeting. Chairman Kindig announced the first consideration would be the corrected draft EIR. He stated that Fire Chief Moorby wished to address the Commission. Chief Moorby referenced a communication of November 5, one paragraph of which states, "The new building will have an automatic sprinkler system. Our existing building has an automatic sprinkler -system only in the public areas and a complete dry standpipe system. However, in the event other hotels are required to sprinkler their rooms we will do so at that time." He stated the Fire Department had asked that the whole present building be sprinklered also, since having only part of a building sprinklered causes problems in fire fighting techniques. He noted that at the time of construction of the present building there was no sprinkler ordinance, but there is one now; and repeated he felt the old portion should be sprinklered as well as the new portion. On Page 20 he questioned the statement attributed to a member of the Fire Department, to. . .the City has the ability to fight multi- story fires effectively " He noted the individual had indicated this with the assumption that the entire building would be sprinklered. The Fire Chief also questioned the statement on Page 31, Paragraph c, "The existing fire protection facilities are adequate to provide a desirable level of service to the expanded facility without adverse impact - 2 - He noted that the revised plot plans still do not provide access for either autos or fire, equipment in the rear of the building. He thought it important that the Fire Department have adequate access around the building so that equipment could proceed both ways. Mr. Ruthroff replied that Fred Harvey would be willing to sprinkler the old portion at a time when a general program was adopted by the City; but did not feel it was necessary at this time. He noted the two fire hydrants on the hotel site. He said two problems would stand in the way of sprinklering the old portion - difficulty of installation and excessive cost. Mr. Ruthroff stated the matter of the access road in the rear was at an impasse since the hotel is willing to build it but BCDC would not accept a road in this area. He added that Airport Marina would be willing to proceed in a manner acceptable to both the City and BCDC, and suggested the compromise of an unpaved emergency road. Fire Chief Moorby informed Mr. Ruthroff that none of the present hotels even come under the provisions of the present aprinkler ordinance and added that one hotel of only 3 stories has four hydrants on its site. He thought that an emergency road could be worked out, but would have to be 201 away from the building for ladder work and would need a strong substructure for the weight of the equipment. He added that an aerial truck with supports is about 14' wide. There followed discussion, including the concept proposed for Northpark Apartments using an emergency access easement as a fire access road. City Planner Swan stated he had correlated the corrected EIR with the minutes of the October 13 study meeting, and felt they had done a very able job in redrafting. He suggested that, in lieu of inspecting the EIR page by page, attention be concentrated on the 8 - 10 pages of new material which had been inserted. He noted that the Council would make the final EIR since they must act on the emergency ordinance. The City Attorney confirmed that in this case the action of the Planning Commission would be recommendatory. The City Planner noted the following additions and corrections: Following Page 16 - new page on visual and aesthetic, and photographs. Page 18, 4th line - the word "peak" should be deleted. Following Page 19 - New paragraph on solid waste disposal. There was discussion on placement and type of collection boxes. Following Page 20 - new paragraph on fire protection. Following Page 21 - new pages on traffic. The City Planner suggested these be studied carefully. There was considerable discussion on the unusual traffic peak on Bayshore Highway between 2:00 and 3:00 A.M. Mr. Davis commented this was a unique traffic pattern. City Planner Swan emphasized the statement in the report that - 3 - the daily traffic flaw would range between 3,600 and 4,400 autos per hour, and cautioned that this is before the Airport expansion, the S.F. Towers, and other projects. He questioned Mr. Davis' use of the words "desirable capacity" in relation to these figures. Mr. Davis replied that anything exceeding these would impair the efficiency of the street. Page 23 - Parking demand. The parking garage will provide 421 spaces instead of 322. It was noted that employees would park on site; thereby decreasing available spaces. Page 26, Paragraph 2. The City Planner noted last sentence about pedestrian and bicycle pathways " . . .to be designed and developed in coordination with plans developed by the City of Burlingame and the Bay Conservation and Development District." He commented that BCDC will review plans after they have been approved by the City, and suggested this sentence read ". . .plans developed by the City of Burlingame and subsequently approved by BCDC." Following Page 34 - Mitigation of Visual Impacts. Paragraphs 2 and 3 state "No mitigation necessary." "Necessary" should be omitted since it is not the purpose of the report to determine this. Appendix A, Page 7, last paragraph. Dimensions of level in parking garage should be 130 x 172' instead of 120' x 160'. Commissioner Norberg questioned the exact number of parking spaces now in effect and was informed it was 677 for the revised plan. This initiated a discussion of parking with particular focus on the parking of employee vehicles at the site. Mr. Liptman emphasized that the total parking is now in conformance with the City code. Commissioner Taylor again presented the idea of offsite parking for large hotels, with shuttle bus service. Mr. Fratessa and Mr. Davis indicated approval. Mr. W. Orr, Chairman of the Parking Commission, was accorded the privilege of the floor, and presented his observations of restaurant parking problems in the area. Commissioner Jacobs requested explanation of statement in Appendix A, Geologic Conditions, that there is movement of the site toward the Bay. Mr. Ruthroff explained this is a problem with all of this area, and is mitigated by proper engineering design of construction. This led to discussion of construction methods with Commissioner Mink questioning exactly how the new building would be attached to the old building which has settled. He was particularly interested in pipe connections. Mr. Ruthroff replied this problem is easy to solve if it is planned for. Mr. Ruthroff went on to comment that two variance requests had already been negated - those of parking and public access. There remained only the variance for setbacks of the parking structure and sign permit. City Planner Swan concurred, adding that the landscaping has been checked and found to be more than 15%. With respect to the sign, he noted it had been erected before the special sign - 4 - regulations were in effect. However, since additions are being Proposed to the present sign, which is now non -conforming, he suggested a phasing -out period of 5 - 10 years. There was Commission objection that removal of the sign should be a part of the mitigating circumstances in order to reduce visual impact of the whole package. Mr. Liptman objected that this $30,000 sign is important to the hotel, and suggested the alternative of facing it toward the Bay or to the North. Commissioner Mink stated he was willing to go along with mitigation, but wished the record to show that the sign offended him. He thought that mitigation of visual impact should include a statement that the sign was somewhat overpowering and the mitigation is planned removal over a time period. There followed discussion of relocation of the sign but with the prevailing idea that the sign should either be removed immediately or over a certain time period. Commissioner Sine initiated discussion of the parking garage, suggesting it should have either two elevators instead of the one shown or a covered bridge to tie in with the hotel. Commission comment followed. Mr. Fratessa reminded the Commission there was now no variance requested for parking, and the structure itself would not be subject to review. Commissioner Sine questioned what hardship there would be in erecting only an eight story addition. Mr. Liptman indicated the addition would have to be 11 stories or not at all. He cited economic factor of cost of $7,000 per room above what they have ordinarily paid due to such items as pile driving, parking structure, automatic sprinkling system, outside sewer cost, gift of 30' easement, contribution to traffic cost and signals. He stated he was uncertain if the board of hotel directors would buy the idea even if the City approved. Chairman Kindig, commenting the EIR must be rewritten, asked Mr. Davis if this was possible within 10 days or less than two weeks. Mr. Davis affirmed he probably could get revised copies to the Commission several days before the public hearing. Chairman Kindig set hearing date of November 26 for variance and EIR. RECESS After a short recess at 10:00 P.M. the meeting reconvened. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT AT CORNER OF CHAPIN AND EL CAMINO REAL BY GLEN D. HAGEY City Planner Swan reported that this proposed map had been delayed until actual construction had started, and could now be heard at any time. There was some discussion as to the progress of construction on the site. The parcel map was set for hearing at the meeting of November 26. Commissioner Sine raised the point that there was included in the construction documents a sign that is to come before the Planning Commission for a sign permit. - 5 - 4. FLORIN RHOADS PARCEL MAP The City Planner reported that this parcel map had been received by the City Council and they had returned it to the Planning Commission for further review. He asked Mr. Rhoads to explain the map to the Commission. Mr. Rhoads told the Commission the purpose of the map was to show a lot line existing between Parcels A and B, and to transfer a small piece of property from lot 8 to Parcel B to make an access to a driveway possible for these two lots. City Engineer Davidson confirmed that lot line between A and B is shown on the county records but is not shown on City records. He stated the lots would front on a dedicated private driveway with common ingress and egress for fire protection only. The map was set for hearing November 26, 1973. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 9 AND 12, BLOCK 9, MAP OF SUB. #2, BURLINGAME PARK, FOR MISS G. BERNICE BARNETT AT 1575 RALSTON AVENUE, BY H. G. HICKEY. City Planner Swan noted correction should be made in the map to show "Block 6" instead of "Block 9." He stated the original lot of about 16,500 square feet is being divided into 3 legal size lots for resale. He commented on the difficult lot shapes in this quadrant and the fact that the present residence of Miss Barnett, an old carriage house, is located practically on the lot line. There was discussion of lot sizes on the proposed resubdivision and the non-conformance of the present building. City Engineer Davidson told the Commission if they wished to approve this map it would be necessary to install separate sewer laterals to each lot and separate water lines. This should be a condition of approval. This application was set for hearing November 26. 6. SIGN PERMIT FOR 40 SO. FT. POLE SIGN, 20 FEET IN HEIGHT AT 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE FOR ARATA PONTIAC. Mr. Glen Cromb was present as representative of Cummings Sign Company. City Planner Swan told the Commission this was an application for a new sign for the body shop at 123 California Drive. Chairman Kindig noted previous Arata signs were approved on the condition that others were to come dawn. He questioned Mr. Cromb as to what had brought the need for this sign. Mr. Cromb stated he was not familiar with the previous sign program and that there were no signs on this property now except a wall sign. There was Commission question as to the value of granting a sign of this type to a service area. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing on November 26, and requested that Mr. Arata be present as well as the sign representative. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1555-1561 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY DFK INVESTMENTS Attorney Cyrus McMillan represented the applicant, Trans -Rent-A-Car. He reported to the Commission that his client wishes to buy this property. There are two buildings on the site - a 5,000 sq. ft. office building and a 7,000 square ft. warehouse. There will be 21 parking spaces.for the entire parcel. 15 car rental spaces will be allowed, but will not be filled all the time. He explained there are only three employees in the warehouse. City Planner Swan asked for a square footage report on each tenant so that parking spaces could be allocated. Attorney McMillan promised a breakdown of occupancy. This application was set for hearing November 26. 7B. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SMALL ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND ASSOCIATED OFFICES IN C-2 DISTRICT AT 1101 JUANITA AVENUE, BY AGENT, JOHN F. ROSS Mr. John Ross of AVR Realty represented his client, Dr. G. E. Frey. City Planner Swan explained this is an existing two story office building at the corner of California Drive and Juanita. Mr. Ross said this structure was built in 1961. The first floor would be used as a small animal hospital, employing one doctor and one nurse. The second floor would be occupied by an accounting office for the clinic. He said there would be approximately 7 parking spaces. There would be no boarding except for operations, etc. Tenants on California Drive, as well as adjoining property owners, had been contacted and offered no objections. There was discussion, and Mr. Ross was informed he must have a plot plan drawn to scale showing structural changes, if any, and showing parking. Also he must submit a letter detailing the use and reasons for it. He was requested to have the prospective tenant, Dr. Frey, present at the meeting. This application was set for hearing November 26. COMMUNICATIONS City Planner Swan noted two applications which could be forthcoming in December: Special permit for Air Transport Workers Union at 1511 Rollins Road, and a parcel map for Pacific Standard Life Insurance property at Trousdale between El Camino and California Drive. He reported that the Bubble Machine had submitted a rendering showing revisions of elevations and inclusion of a tile roof in compliance with conditions of permit. He noted the application for Halfway House at 1035 - 1039 California Drive had been withdrawn because of excessive cost in meeting Fire Department regulations for this structure. The City Planner also expects an application in November from the auto rental agency using the site where Gulliver's will be located. He reported that the applications from B. Carl Snyder and the Llewellyn Restaurant had been continued and would be on the November agenda. Dragon Wang - 7 - had erected a sign of less than 32 square feet and their special sign permit is not necessary. He added that the Plena parcel map would be heard by council on November 19, 1973. Since the regular meeting date in December would be on December 24, Christmas Eve, it was agreed that the December meeting would be held on Wednesday, December 26, 1973. ANZA PACIFIC PROJECT PRESENTATION: A plastic scale model of proposed buildings on all. Anza Pacific property south of Broadway was presented for Commission inspection. Also offered was a large plot plan of the area and' elevations of certain buildings along the lagoon to illustrate handling of view corridors. Detailed plans were also distributed for inspection. Mr. David Keyston told the Commission that this master plan represented 14 years of effort, and expressed appreciation to the City for its help over the years. He said this plan had been presented to the Council at their study meeting. Anza Pacific is not asking for approval of this plan since it involves only special permits under the emergency zoning ordinance; but wishes as much comment and feedback on the plan as possible from the Planning Commission, the Council and staff. -Letters regarding this plan have also been sent to various interested groups in the city for input. Mr. Keyston stated Anza Pacific believed this plan was fully in compliance with C-4 zoning, and with the spirit and letter of the Open Space Element; Urban Design guidelines, and the Conservation Element. Mr. Keyston then requested Architect Robert Blunk to describe the development in detail. Mr. Blunk stated that in general the intent had been to devote the area to the south to office buildings and the area to the north to public uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, shops. The office buildings generally are grouped in clusters so that the visual impact will be good, and there is extensive landscaping over the entire area. There will be more than adequate parking since there will be parking lots underground below the plazas. After more general information Mr. Blunk :introduced Mr. Dushan Hrovat for additional details. He directed attention to building heights, stating they had attempted to have low rise buildings close to the Bay, stepping up the height toward the freeway. Circulation for the area is provided by Airport Boulevard with ramps to the plazas and ramps going down to underground sparking. Clustering of office buildings would facilitate transit stops for servicing large numbers of people. Underground parking structures will have a concrete deck for the second level of parking with planters on top. Access from garages to ground level would be by elevators. Mr. Keyston stated the total project should eventually contribute some $500,000 annually in hotel taxes. He explained a table of areas of space: square footage of office space, percentages of lot coverage, parking in terms of number of cars, percentages of open vistas. He discussed each of these areas, noting particularly that there will be a total of 8,193 parking spaces with only 2,193 on the surface. Mr. Keyston indicated a period of ten years for completion of this project. He discussed methods of ventilation of the underground garages and security measures planned. These include three armed patrol cars on the property on a 24-hour basis and the use of identification stickers for employees. Mr. Keyston closed his discussion with the comment: that Anza Pacific has included in the cost of the EIR for this project a contribution to Burlingame's overall traffic study. Commissioner Norberg complimented the developer on his project. URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES City Planner Swan reported that the Council had gone through the Spangle Report No. 7, Urban Design Guidelines, and made comments which he would like to pass on to the Commission. There was some discussion of scheduling a special meeting for this purpose but no date was set. The City Planner commented the basic recommendation by Spangle was that permits should be obtained for all buildings more than 35 ft. in height. Emergency Ordinance No. 994, which provides for this regulation, will expire March 2, 1974. The City :Planner suggested that instead of height limits by zoning district more flexible design guidelines might be established considering the height of structures, lot coverage and building bulk. He suggested the concept of "floor area ratio" (FAR) which would be determined by the gross floor area divided by the lot area. FAR ratio = GFA Lot Area He believed building bulk could not be limited by parking regulations. Garages add bulk and the cars add traffic. with four new projects there will be an increase of approximately 11,000 ADT (average daily traffic) on Bayshore Highway. Anza Pacific's project will cause from 30,000 to 40,000 ADT on Airport Boulevard. There is not enough freeway capacity to carry this many cars in and out. There would be need for more freeway lanes and more local street capacity or less autos or less floor area to balance the proposed land uses with the circulation system. City Planner Swan then reported approximate floor area ratios of the following local projects. (See following page for table) - 9 - Floor Area Ratios Without Including No. of Est.Percent Garage Str. Parking Str. Proiect Floors Lot Coverage_ FAR FAR Woodruff 3 18% 0.53 - Sheraton Hotel 10 18% 0.91 - Airport Marina Existing 10 - 0.91 - Proposed 11 30% 1.44 2.10 433 Airport Blvd. 5+ 68% 1.02 1.50 SFO Tower 16 30% 1.15 2.03 1828 E1 Camino Real 8 69% 1.54 2.66 350 Primrose 6 619E 3.25 - The existing C-1 district regulations permit a FAR of 3.6. Something is wrong because this is out of balance. City Planner Swan suggested a double threshold of permitted FAR. The lower limit would be a permitted use requiring only a building permit. When the FAR is between this lower limit and the permitted upper limit, the project would require a special permit. For the C-1 district he suggested a special permit for a FAR greater than 2.0 and up to 3.0. In the C-2 district the upper limit might be similar or perhaps only 2.5. Then buildings with a FAR of 2.0 could have two floors and cover 100% of the lot, or four floors and cover 50% of the lot. Greater bulk would be permitted by special permit up to a FAR of 3.0. Such a regulation might be helpful in the downtown parking district. The City Planner suggested that the C-4 and M-1 districts require a special permit for a project with a FAR greater than 1.0 and up to 2.0. The difficult problem is to locate a balance between height and coverage to achieve reasonable bulk. It appears that when the FAR exceeds 1.0 they go to a parking structure. Regulation by FAR is a more detailed :approach and we might eliminate the special permit for all structures over 35 ft. in height. The Planner thought 50 ft. in height a better threshold for requiring a special permit in the C-4 and M-1 districts. He felt a special permit for projects with a FAR greater than 1.0 would have more merit. There was Commission discussion of the FAR idea with general approval. Mr. Keyston commented he thought it penalizes the guy who goes under- ground in a sense. He thought the formula counterproductive if you want open space and landscaping at ground level. Counting the below ground level parking as floor area hurts. City Planner Swan commented we must agree that a parking deck above ground level is building bulk. Commissioner Mink remarked the two projects with high FAR's did not come before the Planning Commission: they happened. He suggested study of underground parking to determine what portion should be - 10 - considered. as structure. If it were below grade or curb level it might be excluded. SHORELINE BIKE PATH City Planner Swan commented that after finding out current traffic figures on Bayshore highway there can be little quarrel with the necessity for a bike path along the shoreline. lie noted it would be possible to approve the proposed bike path in concept and recommend it to the City Council. Study and specific details could be accomplished later. There was Commission agreement that this item should be on the November agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:02 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary