Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.12.09f TI1E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT F.rancard Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER December 9, 1974 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT None City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Engineer Davidson City Attorney Coleman The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. on the above date. Chairman Mink presiding. ROLL CALL The above members were present. 1. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 110 AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. City Planner Swan reviewed this ongoing process of amendment of the General Plan. He reported the Planning Commission's decision at their meeting of November 25 to divide the residential districts into areas in which: 1. The General Plan shall conform to the zoning. 2. The zoning shall conform to the General Plan. 3. Further study should be made. He regarded this as an opportunity for the Planning Commission to draw the line where R-3 should be, particularly along E1 Camino, and especially in the Burlingame Park area. He suggested the need for a transition zone between R-3 and R-1 that could encompass already existing variances. The City Planner pointed out the line which defines the R-3 zone. He then noted there are some buildings located on lots which are part- R-1 and part R-3 because of past variances approved in order to get a reasonably sired lot with frontage on El Camino Real for an apartment building. He suggested the R-3 district boundary be moved to include all of the apartment lots. This would have the effect of preserving developments which have already been approved. He suggested a maximum depth of three lots from E1 Camino which would include these non -conforming lots with the exception of two on Newlands. There was Commission discussion and suggestion that 150' from E1 Camino could be considered the R-3 boundary, and a strip 1.00' wide from that boundary be considered R -3A which would allow for a buffer zone between R-3 and R-1. This would preclude any effort to further expand the R-3 zone into R-1. It was noted that one exception Lo - 2 - this would be two lots at Carol and El Camino which are presently developed with single family houses. There was further discussion and a Commission comment it would be best to have a clean line for these zones and not have it negotiable. There was also suggestion that since many areas such as Burlingame Park have underground utilities too old and inefficient for increased useage, in any upgraded areas developers should pay for the increased utilities rather than have City assessments. Chairman Mink suggested that at the same time underground utilities are to be improved undergrounding of power lines should be done. There followed discussion of undergrounding district committee and priorities. Chairman Mink questioned if the Commission was in agreement with the general concept of straightening out the R-3 line„ There was apparent general agreement with several suggestions. One was that if medium density is to be changed to R-1, the people of Burlingame Park should be notified and asked for input. Another was for specification of non -conforming lots in the R-1 areas. Discussion followed, comparing amortization of roof signs to phasing out of non -conforming properties. On the Chairman's request for opinions on the buffer zone, tentative approval was indicated. The City Planner was asked if he could prepare a map differentiating between non -conforming and illegal properties. He indicated this would be a difficult determination. There was discussion of uses which were nonconforming because of variance and those which were because of age. The City Planner stated he would prepare revised map for discussion in January, which would take into consideration concerns voiced at this meeting. 2. A SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF EIR-28P BY BIGELOW-GRAIN ASSOCIATES: NEW INPUT FOR COMMISSION REPORT ON ANZA MASTED: PLAN PROJECT. Chairman Mink announced receipt of the final report dated November 26 from Bio_,elow-Crain. City Planner Swan noted that the City Council had also received copies. He commented that interest in this project had been shown by graduate students at Stanford, and he had communicated to them some questions raised by Bigelow. He thought their project might generate some new ideas. He quoted briefly from Bigelow's report, and suggested that the Commission sub -committee on the Anza project might wish to include it in their documentation. Chairman Mink stated this sub -committee would be meeting after the first of the year with a draft to follow subsequently. 3. TENTATIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS. City Planner Swan explained that the code amendments which Council is presently considering include a section which gives Council the .right to establish fees. However, that same amendment negates existing fees. He reviewed the proposed fee schedule and there was Commission discussion. The City Planner stated that the rationale for the greater subdivision_ fees was the development of commercial enterprises which often take considerable time. However, he thought R-1 and R-2 properties should not be expected to pay this amount. He stated the rezoning fee change from $40.00 to $100.00 fell in the same category because it was a service. There was further discussion - 3 - of the fees with a comment from the City Planner that the Council would be able to change any or all fees by a resolution at any meeting. There was question of the item of "Miscellaneous Petitions." The City Planner stated this would include such items as ambiguity hearings; appeal to the ruling_ of the building inspector; etc. The Chairman suggested language on this item be changed so that examples are given, such as "This includes but is not limited to the following:" (list of types of petitions.) The fee schedule will be studied further by the Commission. 4. PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING MINOR PERMITS. This agenda item was scheduled for discussion later pending the return of City Attorney Coleman from another meeting. 5. 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 AND ASSOCIATES FOR NILS AND ASTRID WIK. Mr. Bill Fitch distributed copies of revised parcel map which shows only two parcels instead of the three previously discussed. City Engineer Davidson specified boundaries of these two parcels and noted his concerns with the map. The garage on Parcel 2 which shared a common wall with a structure on Parcel 1 will have installed a new concrete wall affording proper fire protection and two separate walls for the separate structures. He detailed the parking on Parcel 2 which consists of 4 stalls along Marsten Road, 2 in the afore- mentioned garage, 5 stalls in the lot, and 2 stalls inside the large building. Eleven parking spaces satisfy the requirement for the building. However, the spaces inside the building are accessible only from the Marsten Road side and not accessible? from the lot. He questioned the advisability of parking inside the building, and further thought a door should be provided in the warehouse wall so there would be access to the building from the parking spaces in the lot. In addition, he noted exceptions would be needed for the width of the four driveways - one on Marsten and three on Rollins Road which exceed 25% of street frontage. There was Commission question as to why there were only two parcels now proposed. Mr. Fitch stated the building_ on Marsten Road covers so much of the frontage it would not be possible to give it enough parking spaces and still have another parcel. After Commission question, it was established that this building dues not meet M-1 District regulations. On a question from the Chair City Engineer Davidson stated this map satisfied subdivision and public works requirements. Only problems are driveway widths and access through rear wall into the large building. City Planner Swan cautioned that if Parcel 2 were sub- divided in the future, it would create a substandard lot because of the parking. There was Commission suggestion that a door for car entry as well as pedestrian entry be made in the rear wall. Mr.. Fitch thought truck circulation would not be good enough if driveways were cut to 25%. City Engineer Davidson stated he had authority to allow up to 70% if proper offstreet parking is provided. In response to a question on landscaping, Mr. Fitch stated there is 5�' of planting on Marsten which consists of two planters. There is no landscaping on Rollins Road. After some further Commission discussion, Chairman Mink suggested that the Commission would go along with any curb cuts that would make sense for the property, but there must be at least: pedestrian access to the rear of the large building, and there must be 11 exterior striped parking spaces. He questioned the advisability of the two interior parking stalls.. The Chairman set this map for the next regular meeting. 4. PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING MINOR PERMITS. With the .return of City Attorney Coleman to the meeting_,, this item was taken into consideration. Chairman Mink reviewed City Planner's proposal that minor permits such as sign permits; sign exceptions; fence exceptions and other petitions be reviewed and acted upon at both regular meetings and study meetings. Previously they were studied and then heard as with regular permits. City Attorney Coleman gave his opinion that they could be handled at study meetings also, since there are actually two regular meetings per month. The policy has been that no action is taken at a study meeting but there is no reason why it could not be. He considered that noticing could be taken care of in the same manner as the regular meeting. City Planner Swan quoted sign code Section 22.60.03 which states applications for sign variances must be noticed only to owners or occupants of properties immediately adjoining the properties, and no time limit is set. for noticing. There was some Commission comment that more complicated applications such as Sheraton would not be given proper attention by this method, and not enough publicity would be given if they were heard at study meetings. The City Planner remarked on how few people respond with opinions at sign hearings. He agreed that both study meeting and public hearing is needed in some cases, but in many cases it is a waste of the applicant's time. There was other Commission comment that this method would work well in cases where full documentation is brought in. City Attorney Coleman added that it could be a staff responsibility to see that information is complete ahead of time. The Chairman stated he would also like some chance in the language in the code with reference to sign exceptions and sign permits, with the possibility of a time limit for noticing. He requested that staff prepare such procedure with change in language for Commission consideration. G. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 16, 17 AND 18, BLOCK 25, TOWN OF BURLINGAME RSM B/20 (APN 02()-292-200/210/220), 16-18-24 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR PHIL G. SOFOS. City Engineer Davidson reported that this map was submitted since he was required to present it to the Planning Commission within 30 days of receipt; however, he recommended it he continued to the - 5 - study meeting since information was not satisfactory. Mr. Sofos then addressed the Commission, and stated he had decided not to subdivide. Chairman Mink announced this item would be withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 6A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 12 AND 13, BLACK 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.. City Engineer_ Davidson distributed copies of this map. Commenting that it was well-prepared, he stated it was for the resubdivision of two lots on the corner of Clarendon and Howard. 71he building on the site has been demolished. Two new water services and two new sewer laterals will be required. The map meets all code requirements and he recommended it be set for hearing. No plans have been received for this development. Chairman Mink set this map for hearing at the next. regular meeting. 7. VARIANCES FOR EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 1360 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY ANITA M. MEIADY. Assistant City Planner Yost reported that a small studio apartment had been located above the garage at this location. Building files showed that a permit had been obtained in 1938 for a rumpus room, and later a kitchen and bath had apparently been added to this unit. On October 17, 1974, a fire had badly damaged this apartment. The apartment is non -conforming, since it is an R-2 use, and the code today does not allow a rumpus room over a garage. Also, the garage does not meet side and rear yard requirements, since it is two- story. The Assistant City Planner quoted Code Section 25.50.060 which states that any non -conforming building which is damaged to 200% or more of its assessed value can be rebuilt only in accordance with the regulations of its zoning district. He stated estimates had been received for repair in the approximate amounts of $6,000 and $9,000. Assessed value of this unit is approximately $600 - $700. Therefore repair costs far exceed assessed value. The applicant had been advised that a demolition permit could be issued for the purpose of returning garage to a one-story structure. Mrs. Melody addressed the Commission. She protested the insurance company's estimates as being far out of line; and;pleaded hardbip in that this property was bought for her retirement, and there would be loss of resale value. She stated she would rebuild the unit only as a recreation room, not as an apartment. However, she wanted the bathroom fixtures to remain. Bids. for .reconstruction were distributed for Commission inspection. The Assistant City Planner referenced memo from Fire Inspector Howard Pearson pointing out the problems of non-conformance and building code requirements with respect to a damaged building as well as the fact that if the structure was repaired, the Fire Department would require the proper wiring and an occupancy separation between garage and living quarters. - 6 - Considerable Commission discussion followed of alternatives open to Mrs. Melody. One suggestion was rebuilding it as an accessory building to the house which would require a setback variance and a variance from required one story structure. Mrs. Melody stated she would never have another tenant in the structure, but there was Commission opinion that the plumbing should be removed. Mrs. Melody stated this structure was metered to the front house. Mrs. Melody was cautioned that if she applied for variance she must satisfy the four requirements for this action, one of which is hardship or proof of economic loss. The Chairman noted that this course of action must be fully documented. Chairman Mink advised Mrs. Melody to talk to an attorney and to staff to determine further course of action. He stated this application would be continued for thirty days. This would allow ample time for accurate estimates of repairs and for decision on appropriate action. Mrs. Melody indicated she would consult an attorney. B. VARIANCE FOR EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 2200 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 BY EDWARD AND HAZEL GOETZE . Assistant City Planner Yost explained this variance application was necessary because of the attempted reconstruction of a carport which was attached to the front of the garage and the rear of the house. Code states there must be a distance of 4' between structures. This carport is non -conforming and no building permit has been issued. He referenced report on this property from Fire Inspector Howard Pearson, which approved the 4' requirement for effective firefighting and rescue operations. Discussion followed of possible methods of getting this separation between the structures. None would give the required distance; and Mr. Goetze pointed out that the lot narrows from front to back and the carport was open on all sides. It was established that the existing garage does not meet present codes. It was built in 1929 and is too small for present day requirements. This application was set for hearing at the next regular meetinc. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD (APN 026-111-120) BY DALE MILLER FOR AZTEC RENT -A -CAR. The Assistant City Planner reported this application is for a car rental agency which would use 180 SF of an existing, office building. There would be two employees. It is estimated there would be ten customers a day for a period of two years. Included in the lease agreement are 15 spaces for parking. In addition, a copy of the lease states that an additional 10 parking spaces could be leased. Any or all of these spaces could he marked for exclusive use of this agency. City Planner Swan thouu.ht the property owner should present a resurvey of the total parking on the property with an allocation - 7 - of who gets what space. This survey should include the concrete apron. He was also concerned because Burlway is a dead end road and there will be access over to Mahler Road. Circulation should be considered -as well as parking. The applicant pointed out several parking areas that are not now being used. There was some discussion. Chairman Mink set this application for hearing after confirming that the City Planner should receive a report on parking, and circulation. 10. SHERATON HOTEL SIGNS: (1) 171 SF POLE SIGN 35 FEET HIGH; (2) 155 SF POLE SIGN 22 FEET HIGH; (3) TWO 480 SF ROOF SIGNS; BY OSBORNE STEWART FOR SAN FRANCISCO SHERATON AIRPORT CO. City Planner Swan introduced Mr. Phillip Wasserstrom, representing ownership of the hotel; Mr. Rudy Rausch, representing management; and Mr. Zach Stewart, coordinator of. the project. Chairman Mink acknowledged receipt of photo copy of signage program and indicated presentation by applicant was in order. Mr. Wasserstrom told the Commission he wished to add to this signage program one additional sign, approximately 80 SF and located at the porte cochere. At his request Mr. Stewart gave a slide presentation as a perspective of the history of the project. These slides included view of hotel from the hills; drawing of roof signs indicating they face north and south, not toward the City; drawing of approved proposed Howard Johnsons building with its signing facing north and south; photo of the present building. Mr. Stewart stated the Howard Johnson building had been redesigned, keeping the same facility but taking 30' height off the building. He showed slide of roof structure covering vents, elevator shaft, etc. which would be used for the sign. Another slide was a view of the area signing at night. He noted the Sheraton sign would not be obvious from the hills at night because of its north -south location and the fact it is blue rather than a brighter color. Chairman Mink questioned if there could be a shield on the sign so that the illumination would not be seen sideways. Mr. Wasserstrom stated thi-s could be done if it was feasible from the sign manufacturer's standpoint. There followed discussion of these roof signs in relation to the pending ordinance prohibiting roof signs. It was noted the City Council has given this ordinance its first reading and it is not yet law. There was Commission comment that there should be an alternative to this roof sign. Mr. Wasserstrom replied he appreciated the situation of the city with regard to the new ordinance, but the project had been allowed to proceed on the basis of the permit from the City and a$10,000,000 investment made on the assumption that the hotel would have identity. He stated the Sheraton has lived up to its agreement in constructing the building and they are asking for the right to merchandise a service for which they have contracted with the City. He stressed the contemplated opening date of January 1, 1975 and emphasized willina_,ness to work out signage program acceptable to the City. The Chairman stated he was not supporting any particular applicant but wished to point out this project had been under construction for a long period of time, and had commenced when the sign regulations were not in the process of change. There was Commission comment that signage programs were usually presented upon the completion of a project. One commissioner noted the proposed amortization of signs and questioned the applicant's reaction if the sign eventually must come down. Mr. Wasserstrom stated the Sheraton would be part of the community and must comply with what other businesses did. One Commissioner questioned that since the sign base was a box around the utilities, would the sign actually be a part of the building? In the opinion of the City Attorney, architecturally it could be considered either way. Another Commissioner commented that the utility shield was not on the original set of plans that were approved and he thought no building permit had been issued for it. Mr. Wasserstrom stated he had received and paid for a supplementary permit for this shield in April of 1974. The Chairman received confirmation from the City Attorney that if this sign were considered part of the building it would be a variance under Title 25. As a variance under the zoning code it would require satisfactory showing by the applicant of such requirements as hardship and economic loss. On Commission question as to the effect of the roof sign ordinance on this application, the City Attorney reported that a public agency can act in anticipation of an ordinance that is in process. Discussion moved to the consideration of the 171 SF pole sign 35' high for the Aquarium Restaurant. Mr. Stewart pointed out this sign was designed to be visible from the freeway going north, and while its height would reach to about the 3rd floor, it would not he too visible from the City because of he freeway interchange. The other restaurant sign is 22' high, 155 SF. This sign would be visible to motorists on the access road. Discussion of these two signs followed with the applicant stressing the fact they wish to have different identities for the hotel and for the restaurant to avoid having a "hotel -restaurant" image for the "Aquarium." He stated the restaurant sign is visible from the freeway only beyond the last grove of eucalyptus. He further indicated his basic need is identification for the building and he might be willing to compromise on signs for .he restaurant. Both restaurant signs will be in planters with foliage; poles are of anodized aluminum; larger sign is double faced and smaller restaurant sign is single faced with a 4' x 8' readerboard. The readerboard will not have catwalks or mechanical changing devices. Discussion moved to the additional sign requested, which will be a lobby entrance sign at the Porte cochere. This is approximately 80 SF and is for the purpose of guiding people past the restaurant entrance into the hotel entrance. On a commission comment that it seemed overdone, Mr. Stewart indicated it could be reduced. The question of an alternative to the roof 'Cop sign was raised. Mr. Wasserstrom stated that after considering manv alternatives the concept of a parapet sign had been reached. He showed drawing of - 9 - a 4' identification sign on the parapet area. He noted, however, that the roof top sign is 8' high, but that all of the competition have signs at least 8' high, and a 4' sign could not be read from the freeway. Chairman Mink requested staff to bring back report on effects of size of signs and distance range on normal vision; also .the effect of color on visibility. Such data would make it possible to judge visibility and potential traffic hazard on the freeway. There was Commission comment that such a large identification sign for the hotel was unnecessary since 50/ of the business would be by reservation. The applicant did not agree and thought a prominent sign was necessary for initial survival. One Commissioner wanted the large pole sign reduced to 22' and reduction of the wording over the porte cochere. The applicant was questioned what would be done about the elevator cover if the sign went on the parapet. The answer was that it would still stand. City Planner Swan cautioned he hoped the Commission would give the matter of this roof top sign very careful consideration in view of the new ordinance. One Commissioner asked the applicant what he would have done if the roof sign ordinance had been in existence at time of construction. The applicant replied he would have gone to the Howard Johnson size of building and had a large sign on the wall. Chairman Mink set this application for hearing at the next regular meeting. 11. SIGN PERMIT FOR 216 SF WALL SIGN FOR BROADWAY EXECUTIVE CENTER at 1128-36 BROP.DWAY, BY DAVID BEHLING (PROPERTY MANAGER.) An illustration of this wall sign was posted for Commission information. In describing it, the applicant stated he wishes to remove the present large Coca Cola sign on this building and replace with a tenants' roster. Tenants' names were specified. The sign is to be approximately the same size as the present one. The width is 10' with 8" letters. The front of the building was remodeled recently. r He stated there is no sales office for Coca Cola presently in the building. This sign was set for hearing at the next public hearing. 12. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 6'9" HIGH GROUND SIGN HAVING 32 SF OF FACE AREA AT 1000 BROADWAY FOR ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BY B.B.HOWE LL. Assistant City Planner Yost described this sign as being basically an extension of a present sign. This additional sign has a reader board which advertises car washes. An illustration of the sign was reviewed and the Assistant City Planner noted that the total signage program for this establishment is 102 SF. Chairman Mink set this variance for hearing at the next public meeting. 13. SIGN PERMITS FOR 5 WALL SIGNS, 48 SF EACH AT 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE FOR WESTERN FEDERAL SAVINGS BY CARL F. LUX. Assistant City Planner Yost explained this building is now being renovated and the signs are part of its new image. He noted location - 10 - of the signs on the building and displayed a colored illustration of the project. i The applicant explained the colors of the signs and the fact they will have neon lights. There followed considerable discussion on why they had to be lighted in the evening for this business, and how long they had to be on. It was established that the only other signs on the building would be the emblems and decals required for banking businesses. There was objection to the large "W's" on the building. The applicant stated they would be willing to delete these letters. This application was set for hearing at the next public meeting. CITY PLANNER REPORT: City Planner Swan commented there were two Monday 'holidays which fall on meeting dates in the next year. For purpose of establishing a meeting calendar, he questioned Commission preference as to days they should be held. After discussion it was decided that Tuesdays would be best. He stated a joint study meeting with the City Council would be scheduled for March 31. Chairman Mink announced ABAG meeting to be held December 12 in San Jose. There was discussion of abatement of existing Coca Cola pole sign. It was established that this company has moved to ]Belmont and will take down this sign. Question was raised about the flashing lights on the signage on the "Snappy Photo Shop." It was noted they did not appeal Planning Commission denial of their signage to Council. Chairman Mink announced "A Short Course for Planning Commissioners" to be held January 31 and February 1, 1975, reservations through U.C., Irvine. After discussion December public hearing date was changed from December 23 to December 30. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary