Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.12.30THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION December 30, 1974 CO?•'MISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindici City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:35 P.M. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of November 25, 1974 were approved and adopted. The minutes of the addendum to the minutes of November 11, 1974 were approved and adopted. Minutes of December_ 9, 1974: Commissioner_ Sine requested sentence on Pace 2, Paragraph 1, "These followed discussion of undergrounding district committee and priorities," be expanded to include the fac' that the undergrounding committee as appointed by -the City Council made a determination of undergrounding priorities :Eor a ten year period and the only residential area included was Occidental. Commissioner Sine also requested that the item in City Planner's report regarding abatement of Coca Cola sign be changed to note that this company has not yet moved. With these corrections, the minutes of the December- 9, 1974 study meeting were approved and adopted. 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 52 ASSESSORS MAP B16 CITY OF BURLINGAME (APN 026-123-060) 1348-68 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY BILL FITCH OF JONES-TILLSON & ASSOCIATES FOR NILS AND ASTRID WIK. Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing and requested report from City Engineer Davidson. City Engineer Davidson reminded the Commission that at the conclusion of the December 9 application discussion the applicant had been requested - 2 - to submit before this he?rina_ a parking layout with striped parking, some type of access from the parking lot through 'the rear wall of the building fronting on Marsten, and plans for reduction in driveway width. He stated he had heard nothing further from Mr. Fitch on this. However, he had discussed the matter with the owner, Mr. Wik, who did not approve of the map as proposed. After remarking that the owner may wish to speak to this, the City Engineer offered Commission alternatives as continuation, rejection, or withdrawal at the owner's request. Mr. Wik indicated his disappointment at the Commission's disapproval of his prior plan, stressing the expense of application preparation. He felt adequate parking was being provided and dial not wish to cut through the rear wall of the building on Marsten. He requested application be withdrawn and submitted drawings be returned. Chairman Mink stated this application was withdrawn at the request of the property owner. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF' LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 32, LYON & HOAG SUBDIVISION (APN 029-274-230) BEING VACANT PROPERTY AT CLARENDON ROAD AND HOWARD AVENUE ZONED R-1 BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR DOMINIC AND MIMI CASAZZA. At the request of the Chairman, City Engineer Davidson reported that this parcel map divides two existing lots fronting on Clarendon into three lots fronting on Howard, on the east corner of the inter- section. He stated that he would recommend its approval as a tentative map, with the comment that when the final map is submitted, water and sewer must be,shown as provided to Parcels B and C. He stated that in recent conversations both owner and engineer had indicated they wished this map considered as both tentative and final, but no map with certifications had been received, so he would recommend this only as a tentative map. Mr. Casazza informed the Commission he had with him a copy of ,he final map. However, the Chairman ruled that since staff had not had time to inspect this map, only the tentative map could be considered at this meeting. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing. was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig reauested verification of exact lot size. The City Engineer noted this as: Parcel A, 58' x 105';r Parcel r3, SO' x 105'; and Parcel C, 50' x 105', and added that minimum lot size is 50' x 100'. Commissioner Sine wanted confirmation of utili_y adequacy and property useage. The City Engineer stated that utilities would be adequate for the proposed useage of single family residences. Commissioner Sine moved that this tentative map be approved_ Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. - 3 - 3. VARIANCE FOR EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTU2E AT 2200 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD AND HAZEL GOETZE. Chairman Mink announced this application for Planning Commission consideration. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed background of` this application. He stated that this house had been constructed in 1929, had a garage at the rear, and a new carport between the house and the garage which is attached to both structures. This carport was constructed without a building permit, and replaced a previous carport. which also had been built without benefit of building permit. The Assistant City Planner quoted code section which specifies that when a non -conforming structure is rebuilt, the new structure must conform to the present codes. The structure does not comply with present. regulations which specify 4' distance between an accessory building and any other building on the lot, Code Section 25.28.05. He quoted memo from City Fire Inspector Howard Pearson recommending adherence to the 4' space for more effective fire fighting operations. The Assistant City Planner considered that the four qualifications for granting of a variance must be met. In his opinion, the condition that its denial would deprive the property owner of enjoyment of his own property was not met. Mrs. Goetze then addressed the Commission, stating that no building permit was obtained because it was thought none would be necessary for reconstruction of an existing building. She stated that over $400 worth of materials had already gone into the new carport. She understood the reason for the 4' distance between buildings, but questioned if that should apply to single story buildings. Her house is only 15' high, and there is only 6' between the top of the carport and the roof, which she felt would be an advantage in fighting a fire. She commented she had been issued a permit to build a 6' high gate across the driveway, and she thought this was more of a barrier than the carport. She added they had lived in the house for 39 years and were very conscious of fire hazards. She requested further explanation as to why variance was necessary. Chairman Mink explained that in event of non -conformity, the property holder has the right to apply for a variance from the code. He stated that the four conditions for a variance must be met, the most important being in her case the deprivation of enjoyment of :her property, and that she must have evidence of hardship. Mrs. Goetze stated she had submitted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Naylor, 2110 Poppy Drive; and Mr. and Mrs. ;!kngelo Guerra, 2127 Poppy Drive, all of whom stated they had no objection to the carport. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. Mrs. Lucie Guerra, 2127 Poppy Drive, spoke in favor of the variance, stating the carport was necessary to protect Mr. Goetze's car, and the neighborhood did not think it was detrimental in any way. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner- Sine commented that regardless of present attitudes - 4 - in the neighborhood, Commission decision must be made for the future in accordance with the rules. He stated his inspection of the structure had convinced him no variance was necessary and it could be changed to conform to code. Chairman Mink suggested this could be accomplished by removing a small portion of the carport. Commissioner Jacobs suggested a contractor's bid be obtained for a conforming structure. Mrs. Goetze volunteered that removal of the steps which connect house and carport would allow 38"of space between the two. She questioned if this would meet requirements. Chairman Mink stated properly drawn plans should be submitted to the Building Department. Some further discussion followed. Commissioner Taylor moved this application for variance be denied. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Mink informed the applicants they had the right of appeal to the City Council. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN AN M -i DISTRICT AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD (APN 026-111-120) BY DALE MILLER FOR AZTEC RENT -A -CAR Chairman Mink announced receipt of a wire this date from the applicant requesting continuation of the application to the next hearing date in January, 1975. The Chairman stated this application would be on the regular meeting agenda for January. 5. SHERATON HOTEL SIGNS: (1) 155 SF POLE SIGN 20 FEET HIGH; (2) 68 SF WALL SIGN NEAR ENTRANCE; (3) 171 SF POLE SIGN 35 FEET HIGH; (4) AND (5) TWO 480 SF ROOF SIGNS; BY PHILIP WASSERSTROM FOR SAN F'ZANCISCO SHERATON AIRPORT CORPORATION. Chairman Mink announced consideration of this application, and accorded the privilege of the floor -'_o Mr. Philip Wasserstrom. Mr. Wasserstrom reviewed Planning Commission suggestions at the study meeting of December 9, and stated revised plans had been mailed to individual commissioners incorporating these recommendations. He listed these changes as: 1. Reduction in size of por_te cochere sign from 80 SF to 68 SF 2. 3. 4. (Sign #2) Height of 171 SF sign reduced from 35' to 20' (Now Sign 3A) Colors and material listed for reverse of free standing sign 155 SF (Sign #1) Shields for the lettering, on the roof signs (Signs #4 and #5) The mail -out also reviewed comparisons between signs originally approved for the Howard Johnson building, larger signs using red lettering, and the Sheraton proposal using blue letters. Alternate to roof signs, 4A and 5A, were included as wall signs 140 SF at upper right hand corner of the building. Mr. Wasserstrom urcently requested that the amended proposal with original .roof signs #4 ane #5 be adopted as identification for this hotel. - 5 - City Planner Swan presented a detailed study of the effects of color and size of letters at various distances on a person with normal or 20/20 vision. The human eye can distinguish a letter contained within five minutes of arc. His conclusions with regard to the Sheraton signage were that the 8' letters on the roof sign could be read by a person with 20/20 vision just after leaving the Millbrae intersection, a distance of 6,800 feet away. Chairman Mink added that the City Planner's exhibit also showed that the 8' letters could be seen from the Lindahl Homes at Anza Airport Park on the south; 5' letters would be visible from the flagpole at the Anza Airport parking lot; 4' letters visible from midway between Hinckley and Mahler Roads; while 2' letters are visible from within the interchange in any direction. The City Planner remarked on the unusual circumstance of there being two pending code amendments which would prohibit :roof signs. Ordinance #p1023 amends the sign code. It prohibits roof signs and becomes effective January 2, 1975. Ordinance ##1025, effective January 16, 1975, amends the zoning code. It prohibits roof signs in'C-1 and M-1 districts. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. Mr. Arnold Rodman of 905 Morrell, responded. He commended the Planning Commission for drafting and adopting a sign ordinance to prohibit roof signs, stating this will enhance the aesthetics of the city. Mr.. Rodman thought it would be a step backward to grant a roof sign right after establishing an ordinance to prevent it. There were no further comments, and the public hearing_ was declared closed. Commissioner Sine suggested the signs be considered singly for vote. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the applicant could apply for an alternate sign after being denied the original sign. The reply was in the affirmative. For the benefit of the Commission, Chairman Mink reviewed size, location, and description of each sign. City Planner Swan discussed alternates to roof signs, Siqns 4A and 5A, which he described as 1-+einr: 4' high, 35' long located at the upper right hand corner of the building_. Since this is an illuminated sign, it would be considered as part of the total signage program. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the total area of the signage program. This is 1,525 SF. On a question from the Chairman, Mr. Wasse_rstrom indicated he wished a vote on roof signs 4 and 5, rather than alternates 4A and 5A. Commissioner Taylor requested verification of ..he incorporation in the signage program of the changes suggested at the study meeting. Ue then commented on '--he fact that the City Council had adopted the roof si r_.,n ordinance without incorporating an amortization schedule, stati nc this disturbed him in view of the fact-: that there are „any other huge signs such as the Ramada Inn and the Hyratt House which are ' eirg allowed --o remain, while this si c n is comparatively modest. He added that identity is important_ to a ^otel. T:het-e will ?:-:e - 6 - financial benefits to the City, and he felt he could approve this sign, especially if the letters were reduced to 51. Commissioner Jacobs commented that prohibition of roof signs had to start at some point, and added she thought the roof sign ordinance would be beneficial to Burlingame. Chairman Mink again reviewed the area of visibility of the letters 8' and 5' in height. Commissioner Kindig stated he agreed with Commissioner Taylor's general remarks on amortization and its effect on this hotel. However, he felt that 4' letters on a wall sign would give sufficient identity. Commissioner Taylor stated he thought the roof sign preferable from the standpoint of aesthetics, but agreed there would be adequate identification with the wall sign. Chairman Mink requested motion on this application. Commissioner Sine moved Sign #1, 155 SF pole sign, be approved. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. Commissioner Sine moved Sign #2, 68 SF porte coche-re sign, be approved. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. Commissioner Sine moved Sian #3A, 171 SF pole sign, 20' high, be approved. Commissioner_ Kindia seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. Commissioner Sine then moved that roof signs #4 and #5 be approved with the understanding he would vote against his motion. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. At this point, Mr. Wasserstrom questioned recourse if this sign was denied. The City Attorney assured him the action can be appealed, and the denial does not preclude submission of another sign. Mr. Wasserstrom emphasized the need for identity and the length of time the project had been in process. Fie suggested that positive action be taken by consideration of size modification. Commissioner_ Sine indicated he would not withdraw his motion since time had been given for alternatives. Commissioner Kindic- stated he would not withdraw his second since he felt any roof sign would not be considered favorably. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: CO_MMISSIOt'ERS: FRANCARD,NORRERG,TAYLOR NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,SINE, MINK Commissioner Jacobs then moved that the Planning Commission commend the City Council for adopting Ordinance No. 1023 defining and prohibiting- roof signs and recommend for Council reconsideration the code amendment adding Chapter 22.64 Enforcement so that abatement of exis-'.ing roof signs will commence immediately. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. 6. SIGN PERmiT- FOR 216 SF WALL SIGN FOR ETROADWAY ]EXECUTIVF. CENTER AT 1128-36 BROADWAY BY PROPER'T'Y MANAGER DAVID BE-ILING. Commissioner Mink announced this application for hearing. Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission the applicant wished to pain's a 12' x 18' sign on the side of this }-wilding to replace an older_ siar_. This sign will occupy 8.9% of `.:he side wall area, wni.ch is within the limit specified by code. The building has recently been modified, and has seven smaller signs on its Burlingame Avenue frontage. - 7 - Representative David Behling told the Commission the intent was to replace the old sign with.a more attractive one incorporating a -enants' roster. There was no response to the Chairman's rectuest for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig established from the applicant: that the signage on the front was existing signage which would remain with the exception of change of tenants' names. Commissioner Jacobs, on questioning the applicant, brought out the fact that the tenants' roster on the side wall would be complete, but some names would be duplicated on the front signage. Commissioner Sine considered that tenants' identification could be served by an interior plaque or directory, on the inside of the building. He considered the exterior sign bla.tant advertising. Mr. Behling objected that the tenants deserved advertising, and the names in front existed before the building was remodeled. Chairman Mink suggested that since names and the address will be carried in the phone book, a sign nearer to 32 SF stating simply "Broadway Executive Center" would be more appropriate. Commissioner Sine agreed, suggesting that such a sign be on the front of the building. Commissioner Jacobs also considered a smaller version would be better, and moved that the Commission approve the 216 Sr wall sign with thew understandinc_x, she would vote against her motion. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion with the same stipulation. The motion failed on unanimous roll call vote. 7. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 6-9" HIGH GROUND SIGN HAVING 32 SF, OF FACE AREA AT 1000 BROADWAY FOR ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BY B.B.HOWELL Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing. It was established there was no representative of the applicant present. Assistant City Planner Yost described this application as being for a sign variance for 32SF addition to the present signage and an addition to the existing brick planter. The new sign would advertise car washes, with a readerboard with letters that could be taken out and rearranged. The variance is necessary because of code requirement that there be 2' of open space between the base of the sign and the ground level. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the total signage area and was informed that 72 SF of signage had already been approved. Commissioner Sine disapproved this signage addition especially in view of the fact that the company did not even send a representative to the meeting. He moved that the sign variance be approved with the understanding he would vote against his motion. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion with the same stipulation as to voting. The motion was denied by voice vote. S. SIGN PERMITS FOR 5 WALL SIGNS, 48 SF EACH AT 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE FOR WESTERN FE DE RAL SAVINGS BY CARL F. LUX. Following the Chairman's announcement of this application, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the signage requested. This consists of five signs of 48 SF each. One illuminated sign will he on the front of the building; one illuminated sicn and 48 SF loco on the Park ?oad side, and another illuminated sign and 48 SF logo on the alley side of the building. He commented that one sign was already in place on the front of the building. Carl Lux, applicant's representative, established that the sign on the building front is a temporary sign for which a temporary permit had been obtained. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. There followed some discussion of the validity of the temporary permit. Commissioner Jacobs noted applicant's previous statement that the logos did not have to be lit, and questioned if they could be made smaller. Mr. Lux stated they could be brought down in size, but were necessary. Mr. Henry Duque, executive vice president of Western Federal, addressed the Commission. He made the point that identity is necessary for business in their new location. He stated the present temporary sign on Burlingame Avenue, which he felt was in scale with the building, would be replaced with a permanent sign of the same size. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the logo could be reduced in size and put at eye level and if the sign could be removed from the alley. Mr. Duque replied the alley sign was necessary for identification 'ut the logo could be brought to eye level and reduced to 6 SF. City Planner Swan commented that these logos should still be included in the total signage program. Chairman Mink noted reducing the logos to 6 SF would reduce signage program from 240 SF to about 156 SF, and questioned if the applicant would agree that the logos remain unlit. The answer was affiYna'14ve. Assistant City Planner Yost commented that any sign over 4 SF requi-es a clearance of not, less than 10' from the sidewalk,. The applicant agreed to 4 SF for the logos. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission grant this application for three 48 SF wall sig=ns attached richt below `he roof, the Park Road and alley logo to '-e 4 SF, unit, and placed according to code, with the understanding this is ':he total signage program. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call voe. 9. PERMIT TO BUILD DETACHED GARAGE IN FRONT OF PROPOSED HOUSE ON LOT 23C KEN -MAR TERRACE, BEING 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1, BY JOSEPH A.HUTNICK. Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing and requested report from the City Planner. City Planner Swan quoted Code Section 25.2-8.0-50 which states no detached accessory building shall be placed in from_ of a mein building; but provides that pe -1 -mit may be issued for. garage vrhe.--e condi'-ions of er-�ain make it necessary. - 9 - He cited Mr. Hutnick's difficulty in locating his garage because of the sloped terrain and the easements crossing his property. This involved at least one relocation of the house itself to avoid an easement. Mr. Hutnick had spent several months in this effort. The City Planner referenced final plans sent to Commissioners which explained this application. He went on to state another aspect of the same application had been referred to the Commission by the City Council. Children from the surrounding areas have for some time been using the "Hoover Trail," part of which crosses Mr. Hutnick's property, as a path to Hoover School. Mr. Hutnick had posted his recently acquired property with "No Trespassing" signs, and a petition signed by 1.15 persons had been received by the City Council requesting that some means of access be provided for children over this Hoover Trail. The! City Planner distributed copies of recent article in the Millbrae Leader which he stated contained full coverage of this petition action. He stated he and the City Attorney had visited the property, and he displayed photographs taken on that visit. Mr. Nick Damer, attorney for Mr. Hutnick, addressed the Commission. He stated he had copies of correspondence from the previous owner of the lot which indicates there has been an effort to accommodate both the school and the patrons of the school for some time prior to the transfer of this property. He stated Hoover school had never_ exhibited an interest in acquiring an easement over this land, and the children were using the trail with the permission of the former owner. In his opinion, this precludes prescriptive right over this property. He suggested the possibility of some residents of the area attempting to deny Mr. Hutnick entry to his home, through delaying action or harassment. He concluded that the topographical conditions of the lot justify the erection of a separate garage, and that was the only issue actually before the Commission. Chairman Mink noted that the position of the proposed driveway was an old roadbed. He questioned if there was evidence that this was any type of recorded easement. City Attorney Coleman replied that there are other easements, public utility easements, but the .road itself is not a fire road and not an easement. Chairman Mink, repeating that the purpose of phis heari.nq is to determine if there should be a detached c,arage in the front of the property, requested audience comment. Mr. Bruce Adams, 13 Kenmar dday, addressed the Commission. I�?e stated this is a sector of Burlingame that has no access to other City streets or sidewalks. Kenmar Way has keen used as part of `he Hoover Trail. If '.hi s trail is not allowed, -,he --e is no way chile -2 -en can walk or ride bikes to :school since Canyon Zoad and Summit are very dangerous. Tie notee, school buses. do run 'nut children, must walk if they attend a school function. either 'before or after school. Also ?'. is possible the ',chool District Vials ^onT.J_dE-_ stcpp3__nc' t`'e schor%?- c,uses. .'_e adr3ed the -e is no pa -1 of an, 1 i_i'_�: �n tr7'• � a. e,a. T?omrri.- Scho l o ground^ aYe �`iwcd h_,., _._ii 1. --en fc,r `_:n_ . purpasP. 'e _ ta:.td he could provide affidavits from people who have -used this trail for 25 years; that it had had a chain across the road, and stumps of trees were left on it. Considering these facts, he thought there was a good case for a prescriptive easement. Chairman Mink .reminded Mr. Adams the purpose of the hearing was to .rule on the garage. Mr. Adams requested that this application be put over for study of possible alternatives. He wanted the principal of Hoover School to be present at this &udy meeting, and suggested that the garage permit be issued with a condition that the prescriptive easement be allowed as it is now used, or that some conditional variances be granted that would allow the passage of children through the property. Chairman Mink questioned the City Attorney if the Commission could condition this permit. The City Attorney was uncertain that this could be done, and doubtful of City enforcement and the type of easement, Mr. George Heckert, 15 Kenma.r Way, stated the citizens want help from the Council in assuring children's safety. Chairman Mink quoted abstract of City Council minutes of December 1, 1952 prepared by City Planner, which states with regard to approval of Kenmar Terrace Subdivision: "Prior to voting on the adoption of Ordinance 532, Councilman Simonds questioned the City Attorney relative to the installation of sidewalks, streets, sewers, trees, and electroliers, to which question the City Attorney advised that if such improvements are requested by the owners of the property it would necessitate forming an Assessment District." (The .Assessment District option is still available to the residents to install improvements.) This last the City Planner's notation. On question from the Chair, City Attorney Coleman confirmed the assessment district option was still available. He added that public utilities easement has a right of ino,ress and egress to the property even though -the road itself is not an easement. There was no further comment and the public hearing_ was declared closed. City Engineer Davidson reported that a damaged private fire hydrant on the property has been repaired but not tested, 2ind the Fire Department requests building permit not be issued until hydrant is in service. He confirmed that the terrain of the lo'C_ is unusual, and that Mr. Hutnick had made many efforts to locate both structures logically. Commissioner Francard was concerned with the location of the private fire hydrant and its possible damage by vehicles. Commissioner_ Sine r,,uestioned the future of this landlocked lot, and suggested the possibility of easement agreement by Council and property owners, so that some type of stairway could be built. Commissioner Taylor moved that the permit to build a detached garage be approved. Commissioner Kir_dig seconded the motion. At Chairman Mink's request the condition was added that the approval was contingent upon the testing and maintenance of the fire hydrant. Forthe benefit of the audience, Commissioner. Sine pointed out this was the only time the matter had been before the Planning Commission except for the original subdivision. Chairman Mink questioned if the granting of this permit would make it more difficult for other property holders to negotiate with Mr. Hutnick. In the opinion of the City Attorney it legally would not. The motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBE RG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK NAYS S: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS Commissioner Kindig remarked that the Planning Commission was sympathetic to the plight of the people, but there was no logical basis for rejecting the permit for the garage. RECESS There was a brief recess at 10:10 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened. 10. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL: PARKING LAYOUT FOR OFFICE BUILDING AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that the City Council had approved the special permit for this office building subject to Planning Commission approval of parking and approval of landscaping by the Park Director. He directed their attention to revised plans which eliminate compact car parking spaces, and show 98 full size parking spaces. He added that landscaping plan has been changed. Mr. Albert Hoover was present in the audience. He! stated he was available for questions. Plans were inspected and there was little discussion. Commissioner Jacobs moved the Planning Commission approve the special permit for the Millsdale Office Building in accordance with revised plans. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 11. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS AND ZONING MAP Pd ENDMENTS Before initiating discussion on this item, Chairman Mink questioned the City Planner if any action was necessary on Item 12, "City Planner Report." The City Planner commented that the tentative fee schedule was in the hands of the Council. There was opinion that appeals should not require additional fees, and this schedule could be considered and acted upon in Janua--y. Chairman mink requested that ComMissione-s rear? Planner's report on ^ ow�_h Mana•r ement Ideas" and i'e prepared to develop ideas a_ the Janua -v st dy meeti__ e . _e then requested City Plann--- to p ro-ee(' Item I1. 12 - C .tv Planner Swan distributed cutline with charts of "Residential Density Study." Attached was memo, "Regulations for Low -Medium Density Transition Areas between R-3 and R-1 Districts." He stressed the need for Commission direction at this meetinr_; so that staff and Commission could complete within 90 days the report requested by Council on amending the General Plan in R-1 and R-2 Districts. The City Planner listed as objectives for resolution at this meeting: 1. Dividing General Plan medium density into medium density and medium low density. 2. Reconsideration of R -2A district. 3. Zone boundary lines in Burlingame Park area. 150' from E1 Camino for R-3; and a transition area for R -3A beyond that. 4. Review of same Hype of transition area in East Burlingame. 5. Extent of area to be studied for Broadway transition zones. Assistant City Planner Yost pointed out areas of concern on map charts, and referenced exhibit comparing present zoning densities with General Plan densities. Noting that this difference in density presents the real pro'rlem, he went on to state that each area, R-1, R-2, and R-3 had been sampled for representative densities. On his exhibit he included P: -2A and R -3A projected densities. In terms of dwelling units per acre, R-1 with 7 conforms to the General Plan Low density of "up to 8." R-2, with 9 shows almost no observable difference. He pointed out that the great area of difference is in the R-3 areas where zoning shows a density of 34 and the General. Plan shows 21 to 50. The General Plan shows medium as 9 - 20. This points up the need for ,low -medium density transition areas between R-3 and R-2. This could be accomplished by R -2A with a projected density of 12 and R -3A with a density of 18. Thus there could be a medium high and a medium low. He went on to explain the balance of the exhibit which projects the number of square feet per person, the number of persons per acre, and the number of persons per dwelling unit for each of these zoning classifications. The City Planner remarked this was the detailed backup that could become part of the EIR covering a change in the zoning map and the General Plan. He detailed the effect of such chances on the holding capacity, using as an example the Burlingame Park Rrea. His figures demonst-:-ated that the impact would be minor, resulting in a minimal increase in population, which would occur gradually over a period of time. Part of this effect is because there are now more than single family houses on lots in the R-1 area, and very few duplexes in the R-2 zone. There followed discussion of whether or not the R-2 zone should be eliminated. City Planner Swan then directed Commission attention to exhibit dealing with proposed R -2A regulations. He suggested that this classification with a minimum lot area of 9,000 SF for maximum of 4 dwellino units might be used for the lower portion of medium density. He presented three alternatives for the use of this district: 1. Allow by special permit in transition areas of ?-1 and R-2. 2. Add a -2A to code for an overlay district in these areas with the use of a special permit. 3. Amend zoning code and zoning map to designate this district. Commissioner Taylor_ questioned the application and the wordage of special permit versus variance. The City Planner suggested R -2A be used as a further holding area beyond R -3A for a medium low density transition area. He illustrated on the map R-3 area, medium high density, along E1 Camino, 150' deep; R -3A medium density area; and then a proposed zone of R -2A for medium low density. He noted that in the proposed R -2A area there are already many multi -family uses. There was concern voiced that this additional district would prolong the problem and possible abatement might be preferable. The City Planner stated the substance of planning was to try to draw a line beyond which there would be no change, and this was a professional recommendation to change the medium density line to conform very closely with zoning, encompassing uses which have already existed for a long time by use of a lower type of density. He suggested a block by block approach for implementation. Commissioner_ Jacobs protested that the people in Burlingame Park had stated they wanted the General Plan changed back to R-1, and she illegal uses abated. She questioned if this would be rejection of the proper.yholder_s' wishes. The City Planner explained that the _R -2A relationship of density presently exists, but it would not be necessary to rezone beyond R -3A. The use of an R -2A district could be subject to study and implementation for a period of possibly 10 years. Assistant City Planner Yost illustrated by chart -s how the "medium density" of the general plan could be divided into R-3, R -3A, and R -2A. Chairman Mink considered the concept of R -2A logical if we find _hat =he square footage per person and units per acre are not significantly- affected. ignificantlyaffected. Commissioner Jacobs remarked this would put some present R-1 uses into R -2A and questioned if this could be construed as an attempt to tell the people of Burlingame Park area what is best for them. Chairman Mink commented that the function of the Planning Commission is to plan what is good for the City, and added that R -2A could reflect open space more than manyt-1 lots do now; also,R-2A lots of 9,000 SF would not be quickly developed. Commissioner Kindig approved the concept of R -2A from a planning standpoint, especially if i_ did not involve rezoning_; but did not !-hink it practical at the present time. He approved the R -3A ? offer zone. Commissioner Sine thought that abatement should be of prime conside-�-at-Jon in Che Burlingame Park area.. Ch8i-man "link-e`•7iewed alternatives r;_-esent-cd for -,-21 and cr-'j--ter" - 14 - Commission recommendation. There followed discussion during which City Attorney Coleman remarked he was not comfort --able with the legality of having_ guidelines as a_zoning criteria which are not in the code. Chairman Mink remarked that R -2A handles the problem of medium lag density in the difference between the code and General Plan. He approved getting the R -2A regulations esta_lished f-ut did not think .he map should be changed at the present. Commissioner Sine had .reservations about R-2butthought R -2A might be helpful on the density problem. Commissioner Taylor approved the addition of R -2A reculations to the code as a present solution. Following_ further discussion, Chairman Mink summarized the decision of the Commission as directing staff to go forward with documentation of R -2A for development of an FIR and to proceed with study of` R-3 and R -3A zones in other transition areas in the City. Commissioner Taylor moved the Commission adopt the recommendation summarized by the Chairman. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS IN 1975 This schedule had been mailed to Commissioners prior to the meeting. Commissioner Kindig moved the Commission adopt the. schedule as outlined as well as schedule of application closing dates. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. The City Planner's memo regarding three joint meeting dates with the City Council met with Commission approval. He was requested by the Chairman to approach the City Manager and Council for confirmation of at least two of these dates. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary