Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.08.12AUGUST 12, 1974 THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Norberg City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Attorney Karmel Mink City Engineer Davidson Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order at 7:35 P.M. on the above date, Chairman Mink presiding. ROLL CALL The above members were present. POLICY PLANNING Assistant City Planner Yost explained report on this subject previously mailed to Commissioners. He noted that data submitted applied specifically to Waterfront restaurants in the C-4 zone. Main points of his presentation covered the present parking requirements for food establishments which are one space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area; the fact that most of these restaurants have voluntarily provided on site parking of twice the City requirements and still have weekend parking difficulties; and a suggested code amendment for alleviation of the problem. This code amendment provides one space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area; employee parking at the rate of one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; and 10% of parking to be allocated to compact cars. The Assistant City Planner stated that most restaurant managers seemed to be in favor of mandatory reservations of space for staff. He explored alternative standards for staff parking based on 1 space for each 100 square feet: 1. 10% of on site parking for employees. 2. An additiona110% employee parking to be added to the 1 per 100 ratio. 3. Space reservation for one out of every two employees on peak shift. These employee parking standards translate into total parking as follows: Standard 1 - One space per 100 square feet Standard 2 - One space per 91 square feet Standard 3 - One space per 83 square feet (The City of San Mateo has one space per 85 square feet.) -2 - Commission discussion followed. It was established this amount was not proposed to be retroactive. Some divergent opinions were: This ratio would pose difficulties for developers on this expensive land; weekend parking in -the area seemed to be available; compact spaces might need policing; restaurant parking has long been deficient. Most of the Commission thought that employee parking should be provided on site and that large parking garages were to be discouraged. There was suggestion that a large parking structure be erected at each end of C-4 area with shuttle bus service to the cooperating restaurants. There was general agreement that Standard #2 was acceptable as a limited method of solving the parking problem. There was some question of parking in restaurants in other sections of Burlingame, but it was noted they are mostly within the Parking District. The Commission agreed that the Planning Department should present this report to the Parking Commission for their suggestions. 2. HEARING SCHEDULE FOR ANZA MASTER PLAN EIR-28P. At the invitation of the Chair, City Planner Swan reported on the dates scheduled at the July 29 meeting - Land use and circulation in August; appearance review in September; and community impact, mainly in terms of socio-economic influences, in October. With respect to traffic, he emphasized that this will cause the most public impact, not only on the City.but on the commuters on Bayshore and surrounding areas. He stressed that the type of land use over a certain period of time necessarily determines the amount of traffic that will be generated. There must be a balance between land use and the circulation system. Chairman Mink questioned if it would be reasonable to proceed with the land use as it pertains to traffic dependent upon receipt of Mr. Bigelow's report by the August 26 meeting. The City Planner affirmed this report is scheduled to be received on August 21 and will be mailed to Commissioners prior to the meeting. There was Commission question if the developer could deviate from his planned methods of development once the EIR was approved. It was established that the EIR was binding as a general document; that this was not a project but a planned development; and each individual project would come before the City for review. It was noted that the Anza traffic consultant had discussed the scope of the traffic study with the City Engineer. City Engineer Davidson confirmed there had been agreement on general terms; that areas of impact would extend from the Millbrae inter- change to Third Avenue in San Mateo on the south; Broadway and Peninsula Avenue interchanges; and extend from Bayshore to E1 Camino. He stated the Anza traffic engineer came up with cost estimate considerably more than the developer had anticipated. He felt there was a probability that Anza would approach the City Council to share financing. The Anza engineer will be present at the meeting August 26 but would only be able to discuss traffic impact work done to date. Chairman Mink requested his comment on Anza's letter of August 1 - 3 - to Council and Planning Commission. The City Engineer noted that one statement was erroneous which reported that the Traffic Engineer would also consider traffic generators from the Airport outside the Anza Master plan. The City Engineer thought the developer should not be responsible for traffic generation outside his project. Chairman Mink commented there would be public impact as all meetings would be properly noticed. 3. PROGRAM FOR PLANNING SHORELINE PATHWAYS. City Planner Swan reminded the Commission that Charles Eley of Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee had originally developed the Shoreline Program which the Commission had approved and forwarded to Council. With the development of local transportation he considered it timely to again consider the shoreline, and also consider in conjunction whether bicycle commuting could be established in the area. He stated a draft Agreement for consulting services to work with the Burlingame Staff had been prepared, and a meeting would be held with Mr. Eley on August 13. Planning studies will be made with a tentative completion date this December. 4. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION `.CO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Chairman Mink stated he thought all the Commission could do at this point would be to direct staff to prepare a study of how specifically the general plan and the zoning code were in disagreement, and then consider solutions to the problem. Commissioner Sine questioned City Planner Swan if he had in his professional experience known of a city where the general plan ever coincided with the zoning. City Planner Swan replied only for new towns where the general plan is established first.. Then the zoning ordinance is adopted to implement the plan. He illustrated areas of difference on maps colored to show where zoning in Burlingame does not coincide with the general plan. The City Planner went on to say the City has a general plan, which, adopted by resolution, shows a set of densities for different areas of the city. Prior to that the City had adopted as part of the municipal code, a zoning ordinance. The ordinance code is a law; the general plan is a written and graphic communication of policy, primarily for guidance. Without the general plan, the city would only have a static zoning ordinance. There was Commission comment that if there were changes in density in some areas, underground utilities must be upgraded. There was a negative view of downzoning, and the unfairness of downzoning some R-3 and R-4 areas. Another comment was that in an older town the general plan is never going to coincide with the zoning. There was discussion of the specific intent of the Council request, and a reluctance to the useage of the word "identical" since any rezoning would involve the cumbersome mechanics of changing the General Plan. The Chairman suggested that if the meaning of the Council is that the zoning map and the general plan should be identical, the Commission should recommend to the Council that it pursue illegal uses with all effective methods of abatement. There will necessarily be many illegal uses if the two documents are made to conform absolutely. City Attorney Karmel had no comment other than that the statutory requirement is "consistency" which is different from "identical." He thought an absolute identity was not intended in this request. Chairman Mink suggested that staff present to.the Commission a report on current useages both legal and illegal in R-1 and R-2 so the Commission could visualize the problem. City Planner Swan agreed, but requested this information be compiled after the current census data is obtained in about a month. The Chairman requested him to direct a letter to Council or City Manager to this effect. 5. AMBIGUITY OF EXCEPTIONS TO LOT COVERAGE, SECTION 25.66.020, SWIMMING POOL COVERS At the request of the Chair, City Planner Swan reviewed the matter of the swimming pool cover at 1667 Escalante. He stated the City Council had discussed this at their last meeting and wished the Planning Commission to devote attention to this matter. He added that if a code amendment is necessary, a study should be made. The Chairman voiced the opinion that the reason a swimming pool was not considered as lot coverage was that the structure was not visible above ground and could be considered open space. If structures such as swimming pool covers encroach on open space, then possibly a redefinition of the code is in order. Commission discussion followed with some idea expressed that definitions of greenhouses, lath houses, etc. are being abused, as in this particular case, and that possibly anything that shows above the surface should be considered as coverage. There was general consensus that these sections of the code which deal with exceptions to lot coverage should be reviewed with possible :redefinitions. The Chair requested review from staff at a future meeting. MAPS AND ZONING ADMINISTRATION 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL PARK OFF EDWARDS COURT, ZONED M-1, BY WM. B. WRIGHT FOR FRANK EDWARDS CO. (APN 026-102-090) City Engineer Davidson reported that this map had been before the Commission last month when it developed there were some difficulties in the wording of the agreement because of the private ingress - egress easement. However, the developer had now conferred with the City Attorney and names and all information are now ready to submit to the Commission for hearing. He recommended that this map, which combines tentative and final procedures, be set for hearing. Chairman Mink set this map for hearing ori August 26. - 5 - 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MILLS ESTATE NO. 1 (APN 025-161-010) PROPERTY AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, BY FRANK R. KROHN FOR PACIFIC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY City Engineer Davidson distributed copies of this map to Commission members. He questioned that the parking was adequate for this resub and noted the storm drain between Parcel A and B is dead -ended. He stated the engineer had assured him that this will be changed so that the drainage is taken care of on Parcel A. He also questioned where the 10" drain on Parcel A goes. The applicant stated that seven parking spaces had been added, making a total of 76. He restated his problems with the building which has much waste space in it, and said he desired to have a slight variance on the parking because of this. When asked how the non-use of space could be verified, he stated his willingness to show the building to a staff member. He repeated there has been interest from buyers in acquiring either the building or the land, but not together. Chairman Mink questioned how the Commission could be sure the storage space would remain storage space and not be occupied. The applicant cited his 5 -year lease with a 5 -year option. Chairman Mink questioned the City Attorney if the City would have a right to enforce a condition of this type. The City Attorney thought the City could do so. There was much further discussion with a report from the City Planner that the property would require a parking variance for the building to subdivide as proposed because a minimum of 88 parking spaces would be required. Up to 116 parking spaces could be justified from gross floor area calculations. Chairman Mink gave the applicant the option of setting the map for hearing as presently proposed, or bringing it back with redesign. The applicant opted to redesign, with an effort at meeting zoning code requirements and present again to the Commission. 8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, RESUBDIVISION INTO ONE :LOT OF A PORTION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 7, MAP NO. 2, BURLINGAME LAND CO., BEING 619-623 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY ROBERT BERRYMAN. After distributing copies of this map, City Engineer Davidson stated it met all requirements of the code with two exceptions: area of parcel as proposed does not show on map, nor do the lot and block numbers of the subdivision. The representative stated he would meet these requirements by the hearing date,. Chairman Mink set this application for hearing August 26, 1974. 9. AMENDED PARCEL MAP, PARK PLAZA TOWERS, A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 110 PARK ROAD BY FRAHM.EDLER.CANNIS FOR PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS The City Engineer distributed copies of this map, and remarked that the Commission would find this procedure typical of future condominium developments. The developer gets condominium map approved, then builds building, with and an amended map is changes in the map as possible changes. It is then resurveyed, submitted to correct differences. He enumerated follows: Sheet 1 - All signatures removed Sheet 2 - Acknowledgments of owner removed Sheet 3 - Air space elevation changes in part. Sheet 4 - Unit 106 deleted and is now a common area Sheet 5 - Unit 106 on 2nd floor is now Unit 207 and a single family unit Sheets 8 and 9 - Units 502 and 506 were originally two-story. They have been redesigned to be two parallel units. City Engineer Davidson considered the City Council would have to review these changes also. Mr. Robert Church told the Commission the physical changes in the building had not created any more bedrooms; in fact, had eliminated one. City Attorney Karmel confirmed that the developer must also gain the approval of the Council, since the height variance for the condominium had been finalized by an agreement which specifically identified plans by sheet number and date. The building was to be constructed according to those sheets. Therefore, a change in the agreement must be processed with Council. The City Engineer considered this map generally in conformance with the code when considered with the agreement. In reply to a question from the Chairman, he stated he was not certain whether this amended map would be a tentative or a final map, but would research. Chairman Mink set this amended map for hearing on August 26, 1974. 9A. PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE PROPERTY FOR PROJECT AT 545 ALMER ROAD, LOT 12 AND PORTION OF LATS 11 AND 13, BLOCK 8, MAP NO. 2, BURLINGAME LAND CO., ZONED R-3, BY PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS. City Engineer Davidson recommended that this final map be set for hearing, since it meets code requirements. He commented he had not heard from neighbors who were to confer with him, and assumed they were satisfied. This map was set for hearing by the Chairman for August 26, 1974. 10., VARIANCE FROM REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 2989 DOLORES WAY, ZONED R-1, BY JONATHAN B. HOROW:ITZ. City Planner Swan told the Commission Mr. Horowitz' representative, Mr. Mindell, was present. The City Planner distributed and explained plans. Briefly, the variance is necessitated by -the addition of a room at the rear of the dwelling which is within the 15' rear setback. He noted there was considerable space to substitute for the encroachment, and the total building would be within the 40% lot coverage. He recommended it be set for hearing. The Chair set this item for hearing on August 26, 1974. - 7 - 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITIES IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, BY PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER Assistant City Planner Yost distributed plans and explained the applicant's proposal is to add a new indoor handball court and four new tennis courts in the P.G.E. easement strip. He suggested points the Commission should consider were: Is there an agreement for the use of the easement strip? Does the public have the right to cross over the S.P. spur line to connect with the tennis courts? Offstreet parking should be scrutinized. There are 36 parking spaces at present. He stated that he had discussed with the applicant four parking spaces per court. The five new courts would require 20 spaces. The applicant had stated that half of their present parking, or 18 spaces was not being used. This would come close to the additional 20 required, and some curb parking would be available. He noted the code is not specific in parking for this type of use. The applicant answered questions from the Commission to the effect that courts would not be lighted; that peak hours would be on weekends when businesses on Rollins Road are closed; that the additional area would be as carefully landscaped as the present facility; and that there would be no retail sales. The applicant stated they would have documentation concerning the option to the land, P.G.E. permission, and all other information necessary by the time of the meeting. Chairman Mink set this application for hearing on August 26. 12. VARIANCE FROM USE REGULATIONS FOR HAPPINESS IS, A NURSERY SCHOOL, IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1560 HOWARD AVENUE BY STEVEN COURTHEYN. Mr. Steven Courtheyn was present. Assistant City Planner Yost explained the application is for a nursery school in conjunction with a dwelling in an R-1 zone. The building has up to the present functioned as a combination dwelling and business operation. He stated Mr. Courtheyn had previously requested a school for 40 children, but had reduced this to 20 a day, or perhaps ten children per session. Mr. Cortheyn addressed the Commission, and read in full his original letter of application. He added that it is not economically feasible for him to buy land and build a school, so he wishes to combine dwelling and business. He stated he has a Master's degree in education and is currently getting the school accredited by the County. He stated there would be no boarding of children; no parking problems since children are dropped off by parentis; and only some minor modifications such as additional toilets are necessary for the structure. He had discussed the building with the Fire Inspector. City Planner Swan stated a plot plan of the building and lot would be necessary. �:M There was Commission consensus that he should have all document evidence of permission to operate the school from the County and the school district available for the hearing. Chairman Mink considered it would be best to delay action pending receipt of all permissions, and requested Mr. Courtheyn to report his progress to the Commission at their next study meeting. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW SEE -M -SEE INC., AN ESTABLISHMENT FOR SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES AT RETAIL, IN M-1 DISTRICT, AT 1616 ROLLINS ROAD, BY MIKE H.T.CHU, APPLICANT: ELIZABETH C. KUHN, OWNER. APN 025-262-170 City Planner Swan reported that several months ago Mr. Chu had applied for a business license for an export-import business at this location. However, on July 22 the Planning Department received a report that Mr..Chu was selling carpets at retail. This fact was established, and a special permit application for retail sales obtained. The City Planner pointed out Mr. Chu rents from a tenant on the property, and a prerequisite for this application would be the consent of the property owner. Mr. Julian Basin then addressed the Commission on behalf of Mr. Chu. He stated Mr. Chu had no intention of operating anything other than an import-export business. The decline of a market in Asia left Mr. Chu with a large supply of carpeting which he had hoped to export to Taiwan. The Taiwan market is momentarily expected to reopen, but until that time financial pressures have been forcing him to sell some of the supply retail. He stated Mr. Chu wishes permission to engage in these retail sales for a short period of time, say 6 months. There were Commission questions concerning the physical aspects of the site and of the rental. The Commission considered that a 90 -day period for retail sales should be enough for this one - operation project. Mr. Basin indicated this would be adequate. City Planner Swan repeated it would be necessary to get approval from the actual property owner. Mr. Basin said Mr. Chu would get in touch with her. Chairman Mink set this application for hearing on August 26. (Ed. We are trying to obtain a sign permit application for the existing sign which advertises retail carpet sales.) 14. SIGN PERMIT FOR 135 SF WALL SIGN FOR IONG'S DRUG STORE AT 1671 EL CAMINO REAL, BY FEDERAL SIGN AND SIGNAL CORPORATION. Mr. Geo. Killiam was present as representative of Long's Drugs. The City Planner displayed an illustration of the sign and wall posters. Mr. Killiam told the Commission this 4' x 40' sign of white back- ground and red letters would be illuminated by the letters only. There would be no other signage on the building. Hours of illumination would be until approximately 9:30 P.M. After Commission discussion and questions, it was the consensus - 9 - this sign could be set for hearing. Commissioner Mink scheduled this application for August 26. 15. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 42 SF GROUND SIGN IN FRONT SETBACK AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FOR BURLINGAME OFFICE CENTER BY KANE WOOD SIGNS LTD. City Planner Swan stated a variance was necessary for this sign because of its location within the 15' front setback. He displayed an illustration of this wood sign. Mr. Ross, representing.Kane Signs, told the Commission he thought the design of the sign was in keeping with the building, and it combines sign for the restaurant which is now in the building. The sign could not be placed farther back than 10' because of the parking area. Letters will be either gold- or aluminum -leaf, and the 7' high sign will be illuminated with spots at ground level. There was some discussion. This sign application was set for hearing on August 26. 16. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 44 FT. HIGH POLE SIGN HAVING 250 SF OF FACE AREA AND SIGN PERMIT FOR 108 SF WALL SIGN AT 925 BAYSWATER FOR PUTNAM DODGE BY COAST/QRS SIGNS. City Planner Swan distributed sign plans and explained their detail. He pointed out the great height of this sign as opposed to the recently granted variance for a 31' high sign for Arata Pontiac. Mr. Geo. Britt of Coast/QRS signs was present at the meeting. There was considerable discussion, mostly of the height of the sign; and Mr. Britt was informed it would be unacceptable for this reason. He stated he had not known of the City preference not to have signs which are higher than the electroliers. He was agreeable to the idea of reworking the sign application and cutting down the height. The Chairman requested he work with staff for resubmission of this application. 17. SIGN PERMIT FOR 102 SF WALL SIGN AT 1701 ROLLINS ROAD BY MC CREERY D. SIGN CO. FOR R&K DISTRIBUTORS. Plans were distributed for this sign. The applicant told the Commission this would be a quality redwood sign on an aggregate building surface. Lettering on the sign would be black and there would be no interior lighting. There would be ground lighting. There was little discussion. This sign application was set for hearing August 26, 1974. 18. SIGN VARIANCE FOR AWNING ADVERTISING AND SIGN PERMIT FOR 54 SF WALL SIGN ON REAR WALL OF 1390 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY MATTHEW A. OLIVER FOR CHARLES OFFICE SUPPLIES AND STATIONERY. Assistant City Planner Yost explained these signs, in particular - 10 - the canopy which he stated needed a variance because the lettering is 9" high, and the code stipulates not over 811. Mr. Oliver stated the reason for the signs was to obtain more identity for Charles', and noted the large painted wall sign is at the rear of the building near the Crocker Bank. He went into sign details. This sign application was set for hearing August 26. OTHER Commissioner Francard raised a question about the special permit granted in the spring to Paul's Camper Sales. One of the conditions ,had been that the front of the property should be landscaped. Commissioner Francard stated no landscaping as such had been done, and requested that the Commission have the applicant show cause why conditions of the permit had not been carried out. Chairman Mink requested the City Planner to contact the applicant with report back to the Commission. Commissioner Jacobs requested action be taken on sign on Broadway for Pro Ski and Sports The Commission had approved this sign with the condition the side fins be painted out. To the best of her knowledge, this had not yet been done. City Planner Swan told the Commission a letter had already been written to this establishment and the situation was being watched. Chairman Mink commended staff for quick action in disposing of a large paper sign which Beardsley's had placed in their restaurant window. City Planner Swan told the Commission Condominium Ordinance No. 1015 had been given second reading by the City Council and would become effective September 5. This would require a permit from the Planning Commission for condominium development. He noted the Beautification Commission's interest: in parking for recreational vehicles and their desire to limit in front setbacks and public streets. The City Planner then reported that Commission recommendations on roof signs and zoning code amendments would be considered at the August 27 study meeting of the City Council. He noted a pending development.of BCDC, which is that any draft EIR on a project with which BCDC permit is required must be circulated through a State clearing house. He circulated Code Section 25.16.40 which specified time span for which a special permit is valid. He noted letter from Fire Inspector to Anza Pacific listing violations in their operation of their private gasoline service station. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary