Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.03.12THE CITY OF BU RLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs (excused - City Planner Swan Kindig out of town) City Attorney Karmel Mink Norberg (excused - City Engineer Marr Sine ill) Taylor CALL TO O RDE R The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 P.M., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above members were present. APPLICATIONS I. VARIANCE FOR BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING WITH PARKING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHAPIN AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 AND R-4; BY CONTINENTAL SERVICE COMPANY J Chairman Cistulli announced this item would be considered first out of its order on the agenda. He questioned Architect Ronald M. Merkadeau if he had any further presentations to make. Mr. Merkadeau stated they had made some studies but were unable to make any changes in the plan that were worthy of consideration. However, they did have a summary which he distributed to the Commissioners. He indicated confusion as to the exact need for a variance on the R-4 portion. Chairman Cistulli informed him that the variance was needed for the R-4 portion only. when the building is complete and before the resubdivision map is filed the lot lines will be deleted, thus rezoning the entire site to C-1. The Planning Commission was merely insuring that the building would go up as planned. Mr. Merkadeau was given a sketch of the site as revised by Col. Norberg for inspection. The architect expressed thanks for Commissioner Norberg's assistance, but gave specific reasons why this revision was not feasible. City Engineer Marr noted that the entrance driveway of the Bank of America was almost opposite from the exit driveway of LucVy Stores which is 108' from E1 Camino. He also commented that the Police Department was conducting a traffic survey at this corner at Commissioner Sine's request, which was not yet completed. Mr. Merkadeau suggested moving the exit farther east by the deletion of one parking stall. Commissioner Sine questioned why the Bank of America did not have - 2 - traffic studies run since Chapin is going commercial and this will be a key building from a .traffic flow standpoint, and could be the stopper for the entire street unless remedial measures are taken. He indicated a firm objection to the location of the present exit, and suggested that both the entrance and exit be taken to the east end. Commissioner Kindig questioned how the bank's customers would like the necessity of turning right. Chairman Cistulli pointed out that if the exit were moved to the east property line it would be adjacent to the driveway at the lawyer's office building and this could cause traffic problems. Commissioner Taylor considered the city was fortunate to get a one story building at this location instead of a higher structure. He was concerned about the auto making a right turn out of the bank and then making a left turn onto E1 Camino. Mr. Merkadeau replied that Chapin does not have heavy traffic and the bank would not contribute greatly to it. Commissioner Cistulli suggested that two parking spaces be taken out and the exit moved 20' east or 60' from the corner. Commissioner Taylor suggested that a 2' barrier be erected in the middle of the street. This would eliminate the possibility of a left turn. Commissioner Sine commented that a barrier would receive much opposition from Lucky. City Engineer Marr suggested that the driveways run clockwise instead of counterclockwise, but was informed by the architect that the location of the drive-in window necessitates counterclockwise driveways to avoid congestion on the lot. Commissioner Mink commented that in the interest of open space it did not make sense to move the building up against the property line. He suggested marking the curb from the exit to E1 Camino a no parking zone. City Planner Swan summarized the application as being for a special use permit, a variance for the R-4 portion, and a parcel map for removal of lot lines. The City Attorney indicated that the parcel map could be considered at a later date, and it was decided to hear the special permit and the variance application at the next regular meeting of March 26. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COVEY TRUCKING COMPANY IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1246 ROLLINS ROAD The City Planner introduced this application, stating this trucking company has a space adjacent to the freeway. Access is limited, circuitous, and a problem. This site, in the M-1 district is used for storage of trucks and contractors storage. This is not a large business, having only a couple of earth haul trucks. The fire inspector has insisted that a fuel tank be installed in accordance with fire department specifications. Mr. Barry 'GRaton, representing Covey Trucking, stated that while they have a Rollins Road address, the site is directly east of the P.G.E. substation. Access is by going east on Marsten Road to the corner and then through an easement. He is in the dirt haul business and dam has two trucks and a loader. In reply to a question from the City Engineer, he stated he did not have other construction equipment. The City Planner displayed an aerial photograph of the area, pointing out the difficulties of many unsurfaced driveways. He requested Mr. Graton to bring in a sketch showing the extent of their leasehold - indicating the size of the portion leased. Chairman Cistulli scheduled this application for hearing March 26. 3. VARIANCE FOR A FOUR -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX AT 922-926 CAPUCHINO, ZONED R-2 BY ABEL AND NANCY LAZAR City Planner Swan distributed plot plan for this project. He noted this is a four-plex development on two side by side lots in the R-2 zone. Each unit has more than five rooms and each unit should have two covered parking spaces. Provision has been made for eight covered parking spaces in the plan. The proposed apartment use is for occupancy by elderly people as "guests." Mrs. Lazar's representative, Mr. Tenge, told the Commission one ground floor unit would be occupied by Mrs. Lazar, the other ground level unit would be for rental, and it was established that the upstairs units would be for the elderly people. He reported that Mrs. Lazar has previously been in the business of care of the elderly, and that in this particular location there could not be a handicap as far as traffic is concerned. These will be separate units with separate exits and entrances. There was commission question on the space for 2 offices in two units and question if these would be used for nurses or attendants. The representative replied that Mrs. Lazar would be on the premises to take care of all supervision herself. On a Commission question as to lot coverage, the City Planner said the applicant claims 50%. There was question of visitor parking and also if this was a permitted use in this zone. The City Planner stated this is not a permitted use, there is no hardship, and he had recommended that application mt be made. Mrs. Lazar's representative commented there would be no problem with guest parking since few guests would have cars and there are no employees. Commissioners made the point that elderly people would have to walk up and down stairs, and it was noted that the floor area was larger on the second story than on the first. The City Engineer was questioned if this plan met the code provision that entry into the bathroom must not be made directly from the kitchen area, and he replied he did not think the plan conformed. There was commission discussion of design and the necessity for a better plan. Chairman Cistulli scheduled this application for hearing on March 26. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF PORTION OF LOT 8, BURLINGAME MANOR NO. 2 BY GORDON STROCHER ET AL City Engineer Marr explained that this parcel map was instigated by the City Engineering Department, since this property was divided into four parcels in 1963 by a resubdivision map. At that time a parcel map was not required. Since that time, changes in that property i have occurred, and some of it has been sold on the basis of metes j and bounds descriptions. There have been no changes in easements or private roads. However, a parcel map is now necessary to record the changes correctly. The tentative parcel map was examined by the Commission. Chairman Cistulli scheduled it for public hearing on March 26. 4A. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONDUCT RETAIL SALES OF CARPET, FURNITURE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 868 COWAN ROAD, LOTS 11 - 14 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 1, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK BY DELMA LEON HESKETT 4B PERMIT FOR SIGN LARGER THAN 32 SQUARE FEET FOR HESKETT' S CARPET COLISEUM AT 868 COWAN ROAD City Planner Swan explained that this building is the structure where Transcontinental Music was located. The rear of the property backs up to Millbrae. It is a one-story structure with 50,000 square feet of floor area. The Heskett Company does contract installation of carpeting; and wholesale and retail sales. A special permit is required for retail use in an.;.M-1 district. Concurrently, there is a sign application for an identification sign facing the freeway. The applicant stated it was necessary to have a concurrent approval of the use permit and the EI R on the sign. The City Planner distributed plot plan for the warehouse and documentation of the Heskett Company's operation. Mr. Heskett commented that the area of the site is 95,000 square feet instead of 158,000 as shown on his documentation. There is a side entry which is for an inside dock, but customer entry will be at the front. The City Planner confirmed that 76 parking spaces would be required. There will be no other tenants in the building, and 13 parking spaces in front will be used for the customers. Mr. Heskett stated he had been in business in Hayward since 1950. His establishment will be open on Sunday. There was Commission comment that the city had been trying to keep retail sales out of the industrial area, and this would be the first major operation there. The City Planner showed the Commission a drawing of the proposed sign which is 20' x 160', and suggested Mr. Heskett consider a wall sign rather than a roof sign. He quoted a recent sign ordinance adopted by San Rafael, which states if a sign does not project above the highest point of the roof it is still a roof sign. However, if the sign is higher than the roof, the sign is an incompatible part of the structure. Mr. Heskett claimed that because of trees on the side of the building a wall sign could not be seen. Chairman Cistulli announced that the special permit would be heard on March 26, and invited Commission discussion on the EIR for the sign. Mr. Heskett displayed a log book of his Oakland operation signed by customers he said had been induced by his sign, noting that he spent $25,000 a month for TV advertising in which the display of the sign played an integral part. He stated the sign would have no neon tubing - 5 - and was actually smaller than the code allowed. He pressed the point that May 1, 1973 was the occupancy date for his business. There was commission discussion, in which it was brought out that one of the criticisms in the Spangle report was the blatancy of signs already in this area. Commissioner Cistulli announced the sign permit would also be heard on March 26. 5. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE TO CONFORM THE GENERAL PLAN TO THE PRESENT ZONING CODE. Chairman Cistulli requested a report from the City Planner on this subject. City Planner Swan told the Commission that on February 20, 1973 the City Council had passed a motion referring this matter to the Planning Commission for hearing and report. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one hearing on possible change or addition to the General Plan. This must be accomplished within the next three months. He showed the Commission a map showing areas of the city where General Plan density classifications do not agree with development permitted by existing zoning. He stated that a change in the general plan is simpler than a change in zoning. He stated that Burlingame zoning is substantially consistent with the General Plan. The differences are very small and warrant a resolution showing Burlingame is generally consistent with the General Plan. The City Planner went on to recommend some zoning changes which he illustrated on the map. These include some reclassifications in the Broadway area and rezoning the area directly north of Broadway to C-2; reclassifying the 1100 block of Capuchino to R-3; rezoning one R-2 area to R-1 to maintain consistency with its use. In this area, he noted an existing duplex would then be considered a non -conforming use in this zone. Commissioner Kindig feared if the Commission immediately became involved in rezoning some of these areas, the conformity mandate would not be accomplished in time. He expressed the view that possibly what the Council has in mind is simply changing the General Plan to agree with the present zoning. Then rezoning could be handled at the Commission's convenience. He wondered if the issue of the conformity mandate should be complicated with rezoning at this time. Commissioner Taylor stated that when Burlingame adopted the General Plan it was with the idea of what would be desirable for the City of Burlingame. He stated he would be willing to try developing zoning changes to conform to what we feel the General Plan ought to be. City Planner Swan suggested that money be committed for a detailed analysis so that the City could make a decision on zoning within the year. He also suggested that another study be considered for traffic on the east side of Bayshore Freeway. Commissioner Mink thought zoning changes considered for a whole neighborhood rather than the policy of one block at a time would have a more favorable reaction. =4W Commissioner Kindig commented that changes of such areas as down- grading density north of Oak Grove might be opposed; although the Broadway area might not be too difficult. Commissioner Taylor felt that stating the General Plan was in accordance with the present zoning seemed to be an exercise in futility. Commissioner Mink asked if any other areas are suggested for study. The City Planner stated that a study is now under way in his office to establish boundary lines for a transition area between low density, established R-1, and high density areas. R-1 for example, could be established by using less than five dwelling units per net acre. He also noted that studies should provide guidance in transition areas - specific area plans should be developed where rapid change is being ex- perienced. There was comment that any statement that we are generally consistent with the General Plan would satisfy the State but possibly would not satisfy the Council, since they do not want any more multiple dwellings until the present area is used. City Attorney Karmel warned that every city and county has this mandate from the State. If it is not done, any citizen can bring. suit to compel it. He thought the State fears that where there is an actual inconsistency, the owner of property can go into court and tell the City to grant a permit for a higher density than the zoning will allow, based on the General Plan. He thought if the city does what the legislation wants, changes can be made by changing the zoning rather than the General Plan. Commissioner Mink indicated he would be out of town March 26 through March 28 and would not be able to attend on those dates. 6. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS City Planner Swan outlined for the Commission several aspects of the General Plan Update Program, commenting that the Open Space and Conservation Elements, presently being prepared by Wm. Spangle will be completed by June 30, 1973. The urban design framework, in which the city is presently involved, of course is related to open space and conservation. However, it consists of guidelines, not'regulations, and is a policy declaration. Other aspects of the future update program are the Circulation Element, Land Use Element, and Housing - Residential Density. This last item has several ramifications of type and location, required public service systems, rehabilitation and code enforcement, etc. The City Planner commented there are frequent questions of how much of this General Plan work can be accomplished in the next three months. He stated that the Open Space and Conservation Elements which are to be presented to the Planning Commission on March 26, 1973, are realistic objectives, and nothing else. He told the Commission that on March 13 the State Division of Highways will present a program of what they will do to describe noise along State Highways. This program will be at no cost to the City, and the city of Burlingame and Healdsburg are the first cities to be - 7 - considered in this program. Their study will include El Camino, Bayshore Freeway, and Route 280. There was discussion. 7. CIRCULATION SYSTEM - PLANNING PROCESS The City Planner informed the Commission that Circulation Element Concerns had been transmitted to the City Manager on March 5, too late to be put on the City Council agenda. The basic concern in this city is that of traffic access. Access to and from the freeway is the key problem. He stated our freeway interchanges need to be improved to reduce congestion and loss of time. Regarding new development in the industrial area, there is a lag between the time a building is approved and the time people occupy it and increase traffic congestion. Buildings recently approved will be occupied within the year; and the Division of Highways takes a long, long time to improve freeway access. There was discussion and several suggestions for improving access roads. The City Engineer mentioned that we would not have had the Broadway overpass if the City had not made a contribution to the State, and he suggested that possibly this was the only way to get adequate access. The City Planner stated one alternative to the access problem would be to slow down development on the east side of the freeway. The City Planner commented about public reactions on feedback forms distributed to citizens after presentation of the Spangle reports. Very few advocated highrises. One philosophical voter submitted, "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth forever." There was some discussion of the inevitability of changes. 8. SIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES The City Planner discussed sign review procedures which had been presented at previous meetings and also distributed for Commission review a several page excerpt from "Signs, Legal Rights and Aesthetic Considerations," concerning "Guidelines -for Design Review." He emphasized the need for a review of the - sign ordinance, pointing out that the City of San Mateo had updated theirs 3 years ago,- and listed cities which do have a sign review procedure. He brought up the problem of the 32 square feet limitation on the emergency ordinance and suggested it either be increased to 100 square feet or be dropped. There was a question of the effect of rezoning on the size of signs - different sizes for different zones. The City Planner explained that the sign ordinance is separate from zoning. It relates only by reference. There was a discussion of the existing signs in the industrial area. The City Engineer commented that since his department must charge $100.00 for a sign EIR, probably most sign applicants will wait until after April when the new EIR procedures are in effect. There was further discussion by the Commission (but no decision and no directive for action.) CITY PLANNER REPORT: The City Planner informed the Commission that the annual Commissioner's Dinner would be held on April 5 at Bob's on Broadway. Also he noted MI-M the League of California Cities workshop on March 15 at the Royal Coach Inn. He stated that a landscape plan had been prepared for the Bayshore Office Center, Hinckley Road and Old Bayshore. The minutes would be checked to see if the Commission had wished to review this. The City Planner reported that plans are in progress for another office building near Trousdale and California Drive. This will be five stories with a parking deck. He also commented that an automobile laundry in the Standard Station at California Drive and Howard Avenue would come before the Commission in April. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas C. Taylor Secretary Pro-Tem