Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.06.25THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 25, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Marr Kindig City Attorney Karmel Mink Bldg. Inspector Calwell Norberg Planning Intern Eley Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Kindig presiding. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of May 30, 1973 were approved after correction of vote on EIR-17P and Resolution 3-73 on Page 9. Commissioner Norberg participated in voting but was not eligible because of his absence from regular meeting of April 23 and study meeting of April 9. Correction was made to show him as abstaining from vote. Minutes of June 11 adjourned meeting and June 11 study meeting were approved and adopted. HEARINGS: 1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EIR-18P, PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, FOR THE BURLINGAME BUBBLE MACHINE 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CONVEYOR TYPE CAR WASH AND GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AT CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND HOWARD AVENUE IN C-2 DISTRICT BY STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE BUBBLE MACHINE Chairman Kindig announced receipt of letter from Standard Oil Company dated June 25, 1973 requesting this application be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. There was no objection from Commission members. 3. DRAFT EIR-19P.BY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES FOR ARCO GAS/CAR WASH AT BROADWAY AND ROLLINS ROAD 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW REBUILDING A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND A NEW CONVEYOR CAR WASH IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1000 BROADWAY BY ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY Chairman Kindig announced public hearing on this application and questioned if representatives of the applicant were present. - 2 - Mr. T. T. Clausen of Atlantic Richfield Company, and Mrs. Faye Beatty of Environmental Impact and Engineering Associates, were in the audience. Upon invitation of the Chair, Mrs. Beatty addressed the Commission, stating she felt the EIR which they had received was self-explanatory, and she was available for questions. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment on the EIR, and the public hearing was declared closed. City Planner Swan had no comments on the EIR, but did caution the Commission that the sign application was not a part of it and would have to be handled separately. The Commission agreed that the sign application would be scheduled for study on July 9, 1973. Commissioner Taylor remarked on the EIR's statement that the*car wash would tend to lessen air pollution, vaporization of the water saturating dust particles. Commissioner Cistulli established that the car wash tunnel would be open at both ends. There were some further remarks relative to machinery. Commissioner Taylor moved that Draft EIR-19P by Environmental Impact and Engineering Associates be adopted as the EIR report of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR,KINDIG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Mr. Clausen addressed the Commission on the subject of the Special Permit. He reported that Arco wishes to change its present operation at this site to a strictly gas and car wash operation which will be company operated, not tenant operated. Thus there -will be strict maintenance of standards. The new building will be constructed of slumpstone, and landscaping will be increased, adhering to Park Department specifications. There will be only one driveway exiting on Rollins Road and one driveway entrance on Broadway. The exit on Rollins Road would be rarely used, he felt, and could be cut down to 150 and moved back from the corner. With regard to the sign he stated it would be 54 square feet as opposed to the present 85 square foot sign, a 30% decrease in sign size. It would be mounted on a slumpstone pilaster similar to the building. Mr. ClAusen thought the car wash would cause very little traffic congestion, particularly in view of the fact that weekends are the busy time for a carwash and week days are the busiest for the intersection. In response to questions from Commissioners Taylor and Jacobs, Mr. Clausen indicated that one car at a time goes through the tunnel wash, the driver remains in the car, and there is no vacuuming or - 3 - exterior work on the car. It is designed as a fast exterior car wash situation. There was no response to Chairman Kindig's request for audience comments for or against. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned Mr. Clausen, particularly with regard to the length of car wash time and method. Mr. Clausen estimated that a car would normally be washed in 211 minutes and there would be no hand drying or hand cleaning. Commissioner Sine questioned the City Engineer as to code requirements on exits. City Engineer Marr replied that the only requirement is that no more than 25% of frontage shall be open for driveways. In this case, there are only two driveways on the street - the existing one and the 15' on Rollins Road. Therefore, they are well within the code. Commissioner Sine stated this was a bad location for this station because of the traffict suggesting that the Rollins Road exit be cut down to 10' to prevent a right hand entrance. He questioned the validity of the present energy crisis, suggesting this might be a ploy on the part of fuel suppliers to raise prices. Commissioner Cistulli reminded the Commission that Broadway has recently been widened at this point because of increased traffic congestion. He cautioned that allowing this operation might again increase congestion and that cars could stack up from the overpass. There followed discussion of how far North the Rollins Road exit could be moved and how wide it should be. Commissioner Mink thought it must be at least 15' wide to allow a better turning radius. Commissioner Cistulli commented that Rollins Road and Broadway must be used for fire equipment from the Rollins Road Fire Station and traffic from this establishment could interfere with passage of the fire trucks. There was some discussion of the difficulty of exit from Whitethorn Way and the Chair requested the City Planner to show slides of this exit. This was done; the City Planner Commented that there would be no difficulty turning right on Rollins Road from Whitethorn but a left turn would be hard to make. The City Planner raised the question of the permit granted nine months ago, still valid, to rebuild this service station. He noted that if the car -wash appli- cation is approved, the previous special permit should be rescinded. He considered the applicant was obligated to indicate which plan they definitely wish to pursue. Mr. Clausen replied that company.policies and programs do change, but as far as he was concerned this car wash plan is definite. He also remarked he had checked with Sergeant James O'Brien, Burlingame Traffic Director, who had inspected the plans and thought ARCO could be relieving the congestion because of only one driveway on each street and no in and out traffic in the same driveway. Mr. Clausen stated he had also presented the plans to the Fire Department. There was more discussion of the left turn off Whitethorn, with Mr. Clausen questioning how many people would normally make this backward turn. Commissioner Norberg suggested that aesthetically it would be better if the planter area on the west end of the lot could be curved as it is on the opposite end. - 4 - Commissioner Sine objected to the noise of the blowers from this open end tunnel. Commissioner Mink expressed the opinion that it is better to have such noise in -an industrial area such as this than in a commercial or residential area, granting that the 40 hp blower would be noisy. Mr. Clausen pointed out that if the ends were closed there would be a tunnel reverberation; adding that the noise level from the freeway is approximately 75-80 dcb at that point and the blower at a distance of 100 feet will not be more than 65-70 dcb. There will be less concentration of noise if the ends are left open. Commissioner Cistulli again stated he was not against the car wash but thought it was a poor location. Commissioner Sine moved that this special permit for car wash be denied. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, SINE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR, KINDIG ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Jacobs moved the special permit for car wash be approved with the following conditions: 1. The planter box at the SW end be rounded to conform to the planter box on the SE end and be turned to conform with the flow of traffic. 2. The driveway exit onto Rollins Road be 15' wide and be moved north. 3. Special permit previously granted be rescinded. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG,TAYLOR, KINDIG NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE City Engineer Marr specified that he must reserve comments on drainage in this area until more drawings are submitted, and that the drainage system could not be fixed and accepted at this night's meeting. Chairman Kindig told the applicant that the sign application would be considered at the study meeting of July and there would be probable action on July 23. 5. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 6-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH SIX PARKING SPACES IN AN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1510 NEWLANDS AVENUE BY BRUCE STEWART, AGENT FOR OWNER, RICHARD GARCIA Chairman Kindig requested the City Planner's comments on this application. - 5 - City Planner Swan told the Commission that this single family dwelling in an R-1 district had been remodeled into a seven unit apartment building quite a few years ago without benefit of a building permit. In 1971 an inspection of the property was made by various city officials and it was determined that building did not conform to either the building code or the fire code. A list of necessary modifications was drawn up by the Building Inspector. The property was recently sold, and this application is a proposal of the new owner to make the building safe by remodeling the structure and reduce the number of units. He commented that if variance is not allowed and the building is razed by fire, it would revert to its R-1 status and only a single family dwelling could be built on it. The Chair asked if Mr. Stewart, representative of Mr. Garcia, wished to comment. Mr. Stewart reiterated his previous presentations, stating that both the seller and buyer wished to bring the building up to code and would put monies in escrow to cover the contractor's work for which an estimate had been received. He detailed some of the work that must be done, with an end result of building up to code, six units, and six parking spaces. Commissioner Cistulli wanted to be sure the applicant knew what the work would cost. Mr. Stewart informed him they had obtained a firm bid. Commissioner Mink questioned if this would be the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Stewart was not certain, but knew it would comply with the Burlingame Building Code. Commissioner Sine confirmed that the building inspector had made a list of corrections to bring the building to code at a meeting which the Commissioner, the Fire Inspector, and the property owner attended. Chairman Kindig asked if any in the audience were in favor of this application. There was no response. He then requested audience comments against the variance, cautioning that the audience should remember that this is an existing structure that the owner wishes to bring to building code. Mr. Robert Anderson, 113 Crescent, was opposed to the application. He questioned the zoning relationship of this area to the General Plan. He was informed by the Chair that the General Plan specifies density rather than zoning. The City Planner noted if this were changed to R-3A, one unit would be permitted for each 1,500 square feet. The size of this lot would afford five apartments. Mr. Anderson thought to legalize this building was not good but suggested that since it was already there, the density or number of units should be reduced. He proposed five units with the six parking spaces. Mr. Murray of 1525 Newlands was opposed, stating he did not believe the person who bought the property did not know that the variance would be necessary. Mr. Robert Ohlson of 211 Occidental objected to the idea of anticipating something not yet adopted as an excuse for this type of variance. Mr. D. C. Cole, 117 Occidental, felt that allowing this building to exist was not fair to people who live by the rules. He recalled a similar case on Occidental where an illegal apartment was abated. Mrs, E. J. Rogers, 1575 Newlands, thought it would be nice to have it burned down now. Marie Finlof, 1520 Newlands; Douglas Bowles, 136 Occidentall Ron Jansen, 121 Crescent; Michael Mustachia, 1529 Newlands; were all opposed. There were no more comments and the public hearing was declared closed.. Chairman Kindig asked Building Inspector Calwell if he had any comment. The Building Inspector replied that there were 7 or 8 houses in the neighborhood that were also illegals and in his opinion this one should be reverted back to a single family dwelling. He added that while the City was at it they might as well as take care of the rest of them. Commissioner Taylor questioned the City Attorney as to what abatement procedures would entail. The City Attorney stated that one of the speakers made reference to the property on Occidental and a similar type of action could be taken against the Newlands property. However, there were factual differences. The Occidental property had an illegal apartment over the garage, and at the time of sale an action was commenced and the apartment was eliminated. The property at 1510 Newlands could be abated for the following reasons: Basic violation of building code Building without a building permit Violation of zoning code - multiple occupancy in a single family zone. He stated that the practical problem is to get an order out of a judge to compel a building to be razed. It might be easier to get an injunction against the use of the property for other than a single family, which in effect would leave the property unoccupied. Commissioner Sine questioned the applicant as to his reaction to five units instead of six. Mr. Stewart replied that he would have to confirm with Mr. Garcia, but there was a possibility that one of the single units could be converted to a two -bedroom unit. The commissioner commented that even with a five unit building there would be a parking problem, but it was to be assumed that the owner bought the property in good faith and was inheriting the sins of a former owner. He noted that the option of abatement would be difficult to approve in court. C- missioner Sine stated he was in complete sympathy with the people in Burlingame Park, but suggested the application be continued to investigate converting this to a five -unit. Commissioner Mink felt that action on this particular application would be precedent -setting. He liked the idea of giving the applicant more time, but in deference to the many people who had appeared for this hearing, he thought action should be taken at this meeting. Commissioner Taylor stated he had voted against every application for increased density in this area, but this was a different dilemma and an increase in density was not being proposed. He preferred to be guided by the City Attorney's statement that abatement proceedings are difficult. He saw no alternative to either approving the application and improving a condition or disapproving it and leaving the property in its present bad state. He noted that approval would mean moving - 7 - moving present zoning only one block West and the property would then be taxed at its true rate. Commissioner Norberg disliked legalizing an illegal building but agreed with Commissioner Taylor that it would be better to have the building brought up to code. He suggested four apartments instead of five. Commissioner Sine commented that this would be a major change for this structure but changing to a five -unit would be simple. Chairman Kindig remarked that he would like to see the General Plan changed at this location with relation to density. He was undecided on the question of five units versus six units. Commissioner Taylor moved that the variance be approved for a six -unit building with six parking spaces, the variance to be effective upon the reconstruction of the building in conformity with various building codes. cammissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. Cm-nissioner Sine objected that the applicant had indicated he might be able to develop a five -unit building, and in fairness he thought the application should be continued to give this chance. Commissioners Norberg and Cistulli agreed. Commissioner Taylor withdrew his motion with the specification that Mr. Garcia as well as Mr. Stewart be present at the continued meeting. Commissioner Cistulli moved this application hearing be adjourned to the study meeting date of July 9. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. At this point, City Planner Swan introduced Planning Intern Charles N. Eley, an architect and graduate of the University of Berkeley. RECONVENE The meeting recessed at 10s1S P.M., reconvening at 10s20 P.M. 6. VARIANCE TO ENLARGE A 3-13EDROOM HOUSE WITH LESS THAN TWO GARAGES OR CARPORTS AT 518 CORBITT DRIVE BY JOSEPH L. MC GRATH Chairman Kindig invited the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. McGrath stated he wanted to improve his home by enclosing a sundeck at the front of the house. This would be for his own personal use and would not be rented. The difficulty is that his 3-bedroom house requires a double garage and he has a single garage. However, the driveway will accommodate two extra cars parked tandem. Mr. McGrath said he had discussed this with his neighbors and none had any objections. Some had even volunteered to come to this meeting. Chairman Kindig questioned if a bath was to be added. There is to be one and the entrance to the sun room is to be through a bedroom. There was no audience response to request from the Chair for c,"'ents. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine noted this remodeling would improve the devilling. There was some discussion of front setback required for this dwelling. City Planner Swan showed slides of the house, remarking that nearly Isr-40 all other houses in that block.have single or tandem garages. Commissioner. Mink moved the approval of this variance. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous roll call vote. 7. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ARATA PONTIAC PROJECT SIGNS 8. SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A POLE SIGN 47 FEET IN HEIGHT AND A POLE SIGN 36 FEET IN HEIGHT IN A C-2 DISTRICT AND SIGN PERMIT FOR 36 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN AT 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND 1123 HOWARD STREET BY CUMMINGS & CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR ARATA PONTIAC City Planner Swan, upon invitation to comment, told the Commission he thought more time was needed on this application. As far as EIR or environmental assessment were concerned, there was no written material, except a letter of application. In the absence of some design guidelines and rules, it was difficult to communicate to the applicant what is required. The proposed two signs need a variances but his suggestion was that this be continued. Mr. L. E. Goble of Cummings & Company pointed out that his company is interested in updating the sign program for Arata, and he realized the two signs requested are quite large, and suggested the possibility of a similar or lower sign in this locality. He felt the City Planner's suggestion of a continuation was well founded. Mr. Goble commented that in other cities the EIR procedure is not applied to signs. There was Commission discussion with the consensus of opinion that this application should be continued to another meeting, since an agenda item of this evening's meeting deals with sign permit procedures, and the applicant needed this information from the Commission. Chairman Kindig told the applicant this variance would be set for hearing on July 23 with detailed information to be presented at the July 9 study meeting. He requested Mr. Goble to confer with the City Planner, and told him that Mr. Arata must also be prebent at the meetings. 9. SIGN VARIANCE FOR AN 8' x 12' REAL ESTATE SIGN IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 2 ADRIAN COURT BY RICHARD LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY Mr. Lavenstein was invited to address the Commission. He told them he is developing this site with two one-story combination warehouse - office buildings which are under construction now. Brochures des- cribing this development had previously been distributed to the Commission. The purpose of this temporary sign is advertising for tenants, and it will be removed when the building is leased. This will be a single -faced sign identical in size to the two-faced sign previously on the property which has been taken down. The Commission studied plans for the sign, and the City Planner showed slides of the site, noting that the temporary sign will be located in a side setback area. The Chairman requested audience comments on the sign. There were none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink questioned the landscaping around this corner sign, with the idea that it could become a blind intersection if planting was excessive. Mr. Lavenstein told him there would be sprinklers and grass around the sign. Commissioner Cistulli moved that variance for this temporary 81xl2' sign be granted for a period of one year or until the building is leased, whichever is first, and the sign is to be removed at the end of this period. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 10. SIGN PERMIT PROCEDURES - DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 6-73 ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR SIGN REVIEW Chairman Kindig reminded the Commission they had all received City Planner's staff report on guidelines for sign review. He requested the City Planner's comments on the draft resolution findings. the and City Planner Swan reported that the findings to this resolution are a rewording of the basic concerns of the Spangle Guidelines. He thought this resolution would express the Planning Commission's concern about the need for study of relation of signs to their location. He referenced his memorandum of June 13, 1973 to the City Council which suggested a system for Administration of Signs more than 32 square feet in area. He noted the Council has scheduled this matter for consideration at their next study meeting on July 11. His memo covered several major items: the size of signs to be reviewed; the variations in sizes at different locations; and the significant item of environmental assessment. The man hours involved in sign procedures is another point. He asked; should the fees pay for the services required? Who will provide these services? He proposed a sign.review committee composed of five people to take over variances for signs and their visual impact. This committee could meet possibly every two weeks, thus saving time at Planning Commission hearings. Committee actions could be appealed to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. There followed considerable discussion on ambiguity in the sign ordinance as to what actually constitutes a sign. Is a structure which identifies a business, such as Howard Johnson's orange roof, the McDonald arch, the Safeway pylon, actually a sign? Commissioner Taylor thought the Planner's Report embodies the consensus of Commission opinion, and the guidelines in the resolution were the kind the city needed. Upon question from the Chair as to approval of this resolution, the City Planner commented that this is actually a draft and a more formal resolution with more detail could be brought back to the adjourned meeting. The resolution establishing guidelines he regarded as Step 1. Step 2 would be the Planning Commission's decision on how to use the guidelines. Commissioner Mink stated he would like the Commission to consider seriously the problem of dealing with aesthetic guidelines of the City - 10 - section by section. This would include all visual impacts - signs, landscaping, and the treatment of the outside of buildings. At this point City Planner Swan stated that the final report presentation for proposed urban design guidelines is forthcoming, and possibly will be presented by William Spangle on July 9. (We have since learned that this presentation is to be made July 23.) He then asked that the Commission consider Mr. Eley's impressions on sign procedures. Mr. Eley commented that using structures, such as Howard Johnson's, for identification, is just one area where it is hard to write a standard that an administrator can deal with. Regarding signs, there is always going to be discretionary judgments. That is the reason for the sign review board with appeal. Obviously, some things can be measured and defined. He thought the 32 square foot limit is a good temporary solution, but not a final one. This might be too large for the Burlingame Avenue area; in other areas it would not be large enough. It should be stressed that this is a starting point, and he thought the Planning Department could come back with some workable proposals. He agreed that signs are only one component of visual impact and should be seen in that context. 11. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSED OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT ON 3.85 ACRES MOL (APN 026-101-090) PORTION OF EASTON INDUSTRIAL TRACT BETWEEN NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE AND ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-lf OWNER, ALFRED J. MARSTEN: APPLICANT, HERMAN CHRISTENSEN The City Planner informed the Commission that this project is going back to the drawing board and is subject to future review and reevaluation. GOOD OF THE MEETING City Planner Swan advised receipt of communication from the Burlingame Park and Recreation Commission requesting Planning Commission OPInion on establishment of the Burlingame Bird Sanctuary in the area near the Fisherman Restaurant. Mr. Sandy Towle, Burlingame businessman, spoke of his interest in signs and hh concurrence with the idea of a review board. Chairman Kindig questioned the City Planner if action would be taken on Mr. Spangle's presentation of urban design guidelines. He was informed that the information presented would be the consultant's recommendations. These would deserve detailed study and discussion before Planning Commission recommendations could be acted upon. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the meeting of July 9, 1973 at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary