HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.07.08THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
July 8, 1974
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
CALL TO ORDER
Taylor (Excused)
City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner Yost
City Engineer Davidson
City Attorney Karmel
An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
-HEARINGS
1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FIELD ENGINEERING TRAINING FACILITY IN M-1
DISTRICT AT 1525 ROLLINS ROAD BY HOLVICK, DE REGT & KOERING
(ND -40P POSTED 6/13/74)
Chairman Mink reviewed file on this application. Documents include:
Latter of application dated 5/15/74 to establish sales and service
training facility in this area from Holvig deRegt and Koering,
with legal description of property and details of use implementation
Environmental assessment dated 6/13/74 showing proposed use as
economic asset
Letter of 6/21/74 from Tevis Martin of Cooley,Martin,Anderson
and Pardini stating his client did not receive notice of this hearing,
and requesting continuation for clarification of easement rights
and parking program.
Letter of July 1, 1974 from Joseph Todd, Lees Carpets, objecting
that egress and ingress to the property would be over easement
to be used only by Lees Carpeting and Rapid Mounting and Finishing,
and there was non-conformance with parking regulations.
Letter of 7/3/74 from Tevis Martin presented three premises and
their arguments:
1. Classification of most of building as "warehouse" for parking
purposes is unrealistic when it is used as laboratories
for high density of trainees.
2. Use cannot be classified as "office" because of its transient
population and possibilities of individual. transportation.
It would necessitate more than the 50 spaces required for
office.
3. Added offstreet parking facilities nearby should be a condition.
- 2 -
Alternatives not practical because of difficulty of enforcement.
The Chairman noted this hearing was delayed until this date in order
to give principals a chance to confer regarding easement rights.
Mr. H. R. Fielden of Holvick, deRegt, & Koering, addressed the
Commission. He reported that his firm, Mr. Martin, and Rapid Mounting
and Finishing had held a meeting and understood each other's position.
He stated his company had furnished copies of updated preliminary
title report and forwarding grant deeds with revisions and easements
to the City Attorney for his review.
City Attorney Karmel confirmed that the title report submitted shows
that Holvick deRegt and Koering are the owners in fee of Parcel A
and they have two easements over Parcel B. He illustrated the location
of the easements -by diagram. Mr. Martin commented that a meeting
was,held with Mr. Fielden for informational purposes and documentation
showed that a cross -easement was granted to Burlington Industries
prior to subdivision. He stated he personally thought there was no
doubt there was an easement but would reserve judgment until title
company's report was received. He indicated easement arrangements
could be worked out.
Chairman Mink asked for comment on parking.
Mr. Fielden reported the industry leasing the property would be
the Burroughs Corporation. He introduced Mr. Robert Butts of Burrough.
He went on to say he had just learned that the facility would have
classes scheduled on two shifts. This would lessen the parking
impact especially since the trainees will be transported in leased
cars. He stated two additional parking stalls could be placed near
an overhead truck door, and considered the total parking would be close
to 1009E compliance even if it were an all -office use. He said
Burroughs will be leasing for fifteen years with options to renew.
Mr. Joseph Todd of Lee's Carpeting questioned if the loading zone
would be wide enough to accommodate the two extra spaces and mentioned
the street is already congested with parking from the Cohen Company
nearby.
Mr. Martin agreed there were 42 parking spaces, but quoted Zoning
Code 25.70.01 and .04 which indicate that more parking can be requested
when there is a change in use or intensified use, and that need for
offstreet parking can be adjusted. He added this evening was his
first information that the lessee would be Burroughs Company; and
stated in his opinion this was a special use that would intensify
parking. He disagreed with the description of "warehouse or storage
facility" for a space that housed computers and employees. He commented
he would be happy to work with Burroughs, but thought the situation
would be a policing problem. He considered this use should be
classified as a school in an M-1 district and questioned if the
easement was for this type of use and traffic count.
The Chair questioned Mr. Fielden as to the total occupancy of the
building. He replied actual figures would be ten instructors and 65
trainees. He commented on the intensity of the training program which
- 3 -
would allow little time for the trainees sightseeing in their own
cars. He did not consider trainees' cars would be a problem.
Mr. Martin commented there was no guarantee from Burroughs that these
trainees would not be on the premises without being bused, and
stated his lessee and neighboring companies did not want the necessity
of policing their awn parking lots.
The Chair asked Mr. Fielden to comment on alternatives.. Mr. Fielden
stated they would fully mark their parking stalls and there would be
no customers on the property. He noted that Lee's Carpets is sharing
an easement across the rear of his property.
Mr. Martin emphasized the difficulty of identifying transient cars
in neighboring parking lots and suggested an agreement with the lessee
that the tenant will police and check the cars.
Mr. Fielden repeated that the 75 people on the facility would be
divided into two shifts - not 75 per shift. He stated the Burroughs
Company is concerned with their image and would make every effort to
regulate parking.
Commissioner Sine questioned the number of instructors on each shift
and if they were local. Mr. Butts informed him there would be five
on each shift. These instructors are now teaching in the S.F. facility
of Burroughs. This new training facility would service Burroughs'
S.F. district which extends from Anchorage over several Western
states. He stated the company pays expenses for these trainees and
the likelihood of their bringing their own autos would be small.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned the extent of occupancy growth for
a term of ten years. Mr. Butts replied it would :reach a maximum of
90 in two years and the facility could not accommodate more than
that. Then other schools would be established. Commissioner Sine
thought the space at the truck door would provide two parking
spaces within its 18' width. The City Planner concurred.
Commissioner Francard questioned the percentage of students to be
housed in hotels and subject to busing. Mr. Butts indicated this
would be about 90%.
Commissioner Sine noted that with 35 trainees and five instructors
per shift, 40 spaces would be enough parking even if all drove their
own cars. Commissioner Kindig agreed that parking seemed sufficient.
Commissioner Sine suggested a condition that parking be reviewed
in one year. Mr. Fielden agreed. Mr. Martin still thought it
improbable that this facility so near metropolitan San Francisco
would have 90,6 of its trainees from outside the Bay area, and thought
the intensity of use was being underplayed.
Chairman Mink remarked -he had had dealings with another similar
corporation and was cognizant of the control they have over their
employees. He suggested that guest parking be marked at the facility,
and thought with proper procedures the parking might be workable.
Commissioner Sine suggested delaying action until next public hearing
for Mr. Martin's further investigation and satisfaction, but both
- 4 -
Mr. Fielden and Mr. Butts stated that time was important to their
company in starting this project.
Mr. Martin suggested a permit condition be that Burroughs allocate
parking spaces for this site from their other two facilities in the
area. There was Commission remark they had no assurance of extra
parking at these sites either.
Mr. Todd remarked that figures presented on this project seem to
change progressively. He did not feel he would have strenuous
objections in view of the split shift, but warned he felt strongly
about the traffic problem in the area, particularly on Rollins Road.
There was no response to request for audience comments. The public
hearing was declared closed.
Chairman Mink reported that the environmental assessment which had
been posted and was a public document stated there would be maximum
parking of 40 at any one time. Commissioner Sine questioned the timing
of the shifts. Mr. Butts stated one shift ended at 4:00 P.M. and
the other shift ending at midnight would have an empty lot to come on.
Commissioner Jacobs moved this special permit be granted subject to
the review of parking in one year; existing parking spaces to be
clearly painted and identified, and tenant parking be limited to
these spaces only. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it
carried on unanimous roll call vote. The applicant was informed the
special permit would be effective one week from date, if not appealed
to the City Council. City Attorney Karmel questioned if these
conditions met with the consent of the applicant. Mr. Butts replied
they did.
2. RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 22 SIGNS.
a. DEFINITION SEC. 22.04.080 ROOF SIGN
b. SEC. 22.20.010 PROHIBITED SIGNS DESIGNATED
c. CHAPTER 22.64 ENFORCEMENT
Chairman Mink reported the Commission had received the proposed amend-
ments to the sign code for review. City Planner Swan read the revised
definition of a roof sign as, ". . .any sign on or extending over
the roof or parapet wall of a building, including the roof of any
porch, walkway covering, or similar covering structure. A wall
sign attached to a principal wall over or above a minor roof shall
not be considered a roof sign." He noted Commission suggestions
had been incorporated in the revised draft of amendments.
Chairman Mink questioned if the revised amendments met with the
Commission's approval. It was the consensus that they did. He
requested audience comment on the sign definition. There was none.
Commissioner Sine moved that these amendments to Title 22 be
forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Commissioner
Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
Chairman Mink declared the adjourned meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
and the study meeting in session.
- 5 -
3. OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ALL
BUILDINGS WHICH EXCEED THIRTY-FIVE FEET (358) IN HEIGHT.
Add as conditional uses requiring a special permit:
a. Under Section 25.36.030 Any structure that is more than
thirty-five feet (35') in height. (C-1 District Regulations)
b. Under Section 25.32.030 Any structure that is more than
thirty-five feet (351) in height. (R-3 District Regulations)
c. Under Section 25.42.030 Any use with a structure that is
more than thirty-five feet (35') in height, and, any use
with a building that covers more than sixty percent (60%)of
the lot area. (M-1 District Regulations)
Chairman Mink explained that these amendments require Commission
review of projects applicable.
City Planner Swan reported these amendments will continue provisions
of Emergency Ordinance No. 1000 which will expire in February and
cannot be renewed. This will provide consistency throughout the city
with exception of the Waterfront Commercial District (C-4) where a
50' height is permitted with a building permit. He added these
amendments are not for the purpose of limitations but for review
purposes.
There followed Commission discussion, after which the City Planner
was directed to add provisions for the R-4 district. These amendments
were set for hearing July 22, 1974.
4. TENTATIVE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - ANZA MASTER PLAN EIR28P
Chairman Mink announced consideration of procedures for review of
this EIR, and requested the City Planner's comments on the retaining
of a consultant. City Planner Swan introduced Mr. Charles Bigelow
of the firm of Bigelow and Associates, prospective consultant for
this EIR. He stated Mr. Bigelow's contract would be presented to
the City Council July 15 for their consideration.
Mr. David Keyston reviewed the scope of five supplemental reports
prepared by his consultants and contained in his supplement No. 1
to EIR for Anza Master Plan. These reports include research on
utility systems by Howard Hickey; studies on impact on housing and
business development by Ribera & Sue; street tree planting program
by Peter Callander= Oak Grove overpass information by JHK Associates;
studies of visual impact by Robert Blunk. He requested a meeting be
arranged so that these consultants could make a presentation on these
subjects. He noted he would be out of the city during most of
August and part of September, but stated Mr. George Keyston would be
present at these meetings concerning Anza.
Mr. Keyston introduced Mr. Herbert A. Maricle, Land Agent with the
State Lands Commission of the State of California. Mr. Maricle
reported his interest in the proceedings lay in the fact that the land
around the inner lagoon of the Anza development is State-owned land.
He verified he would be available for meetings.
- 6 -
After considerable Commission discussion it was determined a special
meeting would be held on Monday, July 29, 1974 at 8;00 P.M. for the
purpose of consultants' presentation. The City Council would be
invited to this meeting.
Anza would be on the agenda for the Planning Commission study meeting
August 12 with the possibility of a public hearing on a portion
of the EIR on August 26. Subsequent meetings would be scheduled
with completion in October for the Council hearing in November.
Mr. Big*low indicated this would fit in with his work schedule for
this project. Mr. Maricle was informed his presence would be necessary
for the Council action meeting and he would be informed of the date
at the termination of the planning hearings. He indicated this would
be satisfactory.
5. SCOPE OF WORK TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE EIR 28-P
City Planner Swan reviewed the four tasks as proposed by Mr. Bigelow:
1. Review and evaluation of Tentative Draft EIR-28P
2. Identification of legal and technical adequacy of the EIR
3. Identification of additional work required to develop adequate
understanding of project implications
4. Preparation of plan for removing deficiencies (This task if necessary)
He suggested that Task 1 should be available at the first public
meeting; Task 2 to be scheduled subsequently should take into account
public reaction, and Task 3 should be scheduled shortly thereafter.
There was some discussion, and Mr. Bigelow and the Commission tentatively
scheduled Task 1 to be completed by the public hearing of August 26.
RECONVENE
After a short recess at 9:30, the meeting reconvened.
6. 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
Secretary Jacobs read letter of 7/2/74 from Mr. Krohn which stated
that Alpha Land Company had terminated their efforts at condominium
development of this property on 6/25/74. Consequently, Pacific
Standard wished to reactivate consideration of this site for other
purposes.
Tentative parcel map was distributed to Commission members.
City Planner Swan explained the map divides this :Lot into two
parcels, one to include the existing building and parking, and the
other to be unimproved land. Mr. Krohn confirmed that each property
would be for sale, and final parcel map would not be filed until sale
of either the entire lot as one parcel, or the sale of a portion.
- 7 -
A suggestion was made that the property be divided into three parcels,
one to be designated for joint use with a parking structure.
It was established that this non -conforming building with 69 parking
spaces does not satisfy present parking regulations.
City Engineer Davidson wanted some method shown for preventing the
drainage from Parcel A from going onto Parcel B; and the location
of the private utilities should be shown so that if some utilities
cross Parcel B, easements can be written or relocations proposed.
Chairman Mink stated he did not wish to set this application for
hearing until it satisfied staff requirements. He directed the.
applicant to work with the City Engineer to resolve plan details and
also to confer with the City Planner in an.attempt to meet City
requirements for parking.
7. 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
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSOLIDATED AIR FREIGHT FORWARDING
TERMINAL IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 75 EDWARDS COURT
The Commission agreed to consider these two related agenda items
together for clarity.
Tentative parcel maps and site plans were distributed.
Chairman Mink requested presentation from Mr. Wa. B. Wright, represen-
tative of the applicant. Mr. Wright introduced Roger Lowther: -of
Consolidated Air Freight and Maurice Kolos, prospective owner of
Parcel 3 to be occupied by O'Connor Rug Cleaning Firm.
Mr. Wright told the Commission two buildings are proposed for this
vacant site. One on Parcel 2A will be combination office and ware-
house for Consolidated Air Freight Forwarding Terminal. Purchaser
of Parcel 3 plans to build'a warehouse for the rug cleaning firm.
City Engineer Davidson stated the map did not give any indication
of how Parcel 3 was to be drained. He was also concerned with the
sewer on this parcel, stating it was close to the surface and the
developer had stated Parcel 3 would be filled. Mr. Wright informed
him the mechanics of drainage presented no problem and the designing
engineer had plans for reshaping the grade on site and of access
so that the sewer remains underground and stable.. The City Engineer
added the Fire Chief had reviewed the plans, was satisfied with the
35' access easement and understood that both buildings would be
sprinklered. However, the Fire Department did not know of the gasoline
storage tank.
The City Planner noted that the truck traffic over the entrance
from Edwards Court would make this a two-way industrial street on
private property, with an estimated 92 trips per day, projected to
229 per day in ten years. Mr. Wright stated these total trips would
be for a three shift operation, and the same would be true of the
parking requirements. The Commission questioned the concrete aprons
around the building, the size of the trucks, and why the entrance
was so far from Edwards Court. Mr. Lowther replied these aprons
were for stability since -trucks would be constantly around the area,
but none would be over 201. He added the only vehicles inside the
building would be small Econoline vans and forklifts.
Mr. Loather was questioned if he would get an opinion from the Fire
Department on the gasoline pump, since it should be located for
quick access for emergency vehicles. He replied this could be
worked out with the Fire Department, and it could be relocated if
necessary.
He was further questioned if there would be future expansion on
the site, since it comprises 85,000 square feet and buildings
proposed are only 15,000 square feet. Mr. Lowther said there would
be no expansion, since a 1401 strip of the property is a public
utilities easement and cannot be developed.
The City Engineer noted the map should show the fire hydrant to be
installed by the developer. He added the developer should finalize
all details of the map in time for the Council meeting three weeks
hence, since they wish to take care of both tentative and final maps
at the same time. He acknowledged receipt of documentation for
ingress -egress easement, but specified there must be an agreement to
perform public improvements, The City Attorney cautioned that bond
is required for performance of this work before agreement can be made
and this documentation is necessary for action of the City Council.
Chairman Mink set both the parcel map and special permit for hearing
on July 22, 1974.
8. FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR PROPERTY AT 1469 EL CAMINO REAL, BEING A
SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3,4, AND A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 50, EASTON
ADDITION TO BURLINGAME NO. 4, ZONED R-3, BY FRAHM, EDLER, CANNIS
FOR TUGGIE PROPERTIES, INC.
Mr. Robert Church was present as owneies representative.
City Engineer Davidson distributed copies of this final map, stating
it was in conformance with the tentative map and satisfied all of the
requirements of the subdivision code. He stated requirements that
curb and gutter be extended through the entire property and the
public sidewalk must be improved throughout the frontage. He questioned
the developer's proposed use of 4" of pea gravel on this 5' wide
sidewalk, and his concern about its permanency. He preferred an
asphalt coating with imbedded aggregate.
The City Engineer read memo of 7/5/74 from John Hoffman, Director
of Parks. The Park Director objected to the gravel sidewalk; specified
there must be no paving or covering of soil around the trees;
recommended installation of concrete sidewalk to city standards,
leaving minimum of 1' clear behind the two eucalyptus trees and 2'
clearance behind the three elms; and further specified all excavations
be done to City standards, which include requirement for approval by
Park Director for cutting of any roots over 2" in diameter.
There followed Commission discussion of best type of sidewalk. It
It was remarked that concrete would suffer from root damage from the
trees. The City Engineer specified there should be no impervious
material between the curb and the sidewalk. It was decided Mr.
Church would confer with staff on type of sidewalk and width.
Mr. Church questioned if special arrangement could be made so that
the City could maintain the parkway between gutter and sidewalk
since damage by the eucalyptus trees was inevitable. He was informed
the Commission could recommend consideration of the problem by the
City Council.
This map was set for hearing July 22, 1974.
9A. TENTATIVE RESUBDIVISION MAP, LOT 12 AND PORTION OF LOTS 11 AND
13, BURLINGAME LAND CO., BEING 537, 541, 541A ALMER ROAD AND
&R OINING �1513�AND 1515 FLORIMUIM, BY PAgIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS.
City Engineer Davidson distributed copies of this tentative map, which
he noted as being basically in conformance with City code. This map
is merely for the purpose of eliminating two lot lines to make this
site into one parcel.
Mr. Robert Church told the Commission the total area of the site
was 34,000 square feet, which would allow a structure housing 59
units. However, the concrete and steel building planned would
contain only 32 units.
There was little discussion. This map was set for hearing on
July 22, 1974.
10. SIGN VARIANCE FOR SIGN PROGRAM FOR AVENUE ARCADE AT 1110
BURLINGAME AVENUE BY AD -ART SIGN CO., INC.
Jonathan Horowitz was present at this meeting. City Planner Swan
distributed sign plans to the Commission, remarking he would prefer
the signage program be referred to the Beautification Commission for
their review and suggestions, since the proposed signs did not reflect
the Carmel image the City wishes to project.
Plans for proposed signs were inspected and considerable discussion
ensued, particularly with respect to the large amount of sign area
on Burlingame Avenue. Mr. Horowitz explained that a tenant would buy
a certain type of sign, and it would be set in a certain space with
copy to identify his shop. Sign 1 types included small chain -suspended
signs and small wall signs.
There was Commission criticism that not enough detail was shown;
no color palette submitted; drawings were not to scale; illumination
not specifically shown and type of material. Mr. Horowitz stated
this information would be available for the public hearing. However,
the Commission thought it best for Mr. Horowitz to submit designs to
the Beautification Commission for their opinion. Mr. Horowitz
protested the building was partially rented now and rental should
be complete by the middle of August. At length, the Commission
decided to hold over this application for one month for return
at the next study meeting.
=tf_
11. SIGN PERMIT FOR 135SF WALL SIGN FOR LONG' S DRUG STORE AT 1871
EL CAMINO REAL BY FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORPORATION
No representative was present. Application was continued to
August study meeting.
OTHERS
City Planner Swan noted forthcoming sign permit application from
Charles Stationers.
He read in part his letter of 7/5/74 to Mr. Wade McClure of Ad -Art
reviewing Commission decision on Safeway Stores sign.
The City Planner noted receipt of letter from David Keyston
reporting that screens on drive-in theatre had.been lowered more
than specified.
He also reported that Robert Church indicated plans had been drawn
for a 4 -story over parking building in R-3 District.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned. at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary