Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.06.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF STUDY MEETING - JUNE 10, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER Norberg City Planner Swan City Attorney Karmel City Engineer Davidson 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. illness. POLICY PLANNING Commissioner Norberg was absent due to 1. CODE AMENDMENTS TO PROHIBIT ROOF SIGNS It was first established that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for all code amendments to Title 25 Zoning. City Planner Swan advised that this would be prepared and posted by Friday, June 14 (one EIR covering all the amendments). There was considerable discussion regarding abatement of nonconforming signs and the amortization schedule proposed. The City Planner indicated that the draft for the proposed enforcement section came from the Palo Alto Sign Code which used a time period of two to seven years for amortizing different types of signs. It was the concensus of the Commission that 10 years was too long, but that eight years would be acceptable to them. It was agreed also that abatement could take place immediately and the word "forthwith" or "immediately" be added. The discussion of sign code amendments concluded with Chairman Mink's announcement of the following recommended amendments to City Council: Title 25 Zoning - the statement that roof signs are prohibited uses in M-1 and C-1 Districts; Title 22 Signs - add to 22.20.010 paragraphs h and i to prohibit roof signs and amend 22.04.080 covering the definition of a roof sign. The addition of Chapter 22.64 Enforcement will also become a recommendation to Council with the addition of the word "immediately." -2- 2. CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD SEC. 25.74.025 LAPSE OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR NONUSE OF GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Following a brief discussion, this code amendment met with the approval of the Commission and was set for hearing June 24. 3. AMENDMENTS TO C-4, WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS. City Planner Swan explained that the proposed amendments had been revised from previously discussed regulations by putting the definition of floor area ratio in the front of the code under "Definitions" and by adding the stipulation under Sec. 25.41.025 (1) "or area that is also within jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)." The 35 feet in height is consistent with other zoning code regulations; 50 feet in height essentially permits a four story building without a special permit. The planner commented that a variance would be required to exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0. In the definition, twelve feet of verticle height was used for one story to get a relatively equivalent bulk. Chairman Mink commented that there seemed to be very little opposition to these code amendments as presented and set Sections 25.41.025, 25.41.090 and 25.08.265 for hearing June 24. 4(a) FEES SHALL BE FIXED BY COUNCIL This amendment was approved by the Commission and set for hearing June 24. 4(b) REDUCE FLOOR AREA RATIO TO 3.0 IN C-1 DISTRICT The proposed reduction of permitted floor area ratio to FAR = 3.0 met with approval and was also set for hearing June 24. 4(c) CLARIFY HOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS 4(d) PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST CLASS RESTAURANTS In discussion of the proposed code amendment to exclude hotel meeting rooms, etc. from parking requirements, the Commission wished to insert the word "banquet" and meeting rooms. More information about existing restaurants was also requested. A change was suggested for parking located offsite but within 600 feet. The need for more information and more study of these items was recognized; Chairman Mink asked that the minutes show the Commission appreciated the Parking Commission sharing their May 22 minutes with the Planning Commission and their concerns regarding parking regulations. He requested City Planner Swan carry items 4(c) and 4(d) back to the Parking Commission for their study and recommendations. There was no objection from the Commission to continuing these two items. 4(e) REQUIRE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR STRUCTURES MORE THAN 35 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FOR BUILDINGS THAT COVER MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE LOT AREA City Planner Swan advised that the Emergency Ordinance will expire next March and that it seemed reasonable to continue the regulations of the -3 - Emergency Ordinance, bring projects that exceed 35 feet in height before the Planning Commission for a special permit under the procedures of Chapter 25.16. There was discussion regarding lot coverage in general. The staff was requested to give.more thought to this item and considera- tion was deferred until the July study meeting. 5. QUESTIONS FOR SPECIAL CENSUS BY HUMANE SOCIETY Copies of correspondence, the manner of collecting information by census tract, and draft questions were explained to the Commission. Mr. Swan reported that the City Council had approved this special census by the Peninsula Humane Society. 6. OBJECTIVES FOR CONSULTANT TO REVIEW ANZA MASTER PLAN EIR-28P Chairman Mink requested that Commissioner Taylor attend the City Council study meeting at which time the proposals from consultants will be evaluated. A draft of the mailout to solicit bids from consultants was presented. The mailout included this objective of the Planning Commission: professional assistance to help review and evaluate the impacts of the Tentative Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR-28P) for the Anza Master Plan upon the entire Burlingame community, particularly the aesthetic, demographic and economic impacts on the City. The scope of work to be done by a consultant was questioned by Mr. David Keyston and the Commissioners. There was general accord and the planner would review the final document with Mr. Keyston. MAPS AND ZONING ADMINISTRATION 7. THE BURLINGAME, A CONDOMINIUM, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b AND 3d, BLOCK 3 OF SUPPLEMENTARY MAP NO. 1 TO SUPPLEMENTARY MAP TO MAP NO. 1 OF TOWN OF BURLINGAME BY R. M. GALLOWAY & ASSOCIATES FOR BURLINGAME CONDO. ASSOCIATES. City Engineer Davidson advised that there were no significant changes from the previous map and it should be possible to complete a final map that is clean at the hearing. City Planner Swan announced that the matter of a portico had come up with the project architects the Friday before. This would require a variance as it projects into the setback area. It was determined that the applicant would be prepared if this item were put on the agenda. Both the map and variance were set for hearing on June 24. Commissioner Taylor was excused from the meeting at 9:30 P.M. 8. FLORIBUNDA VILLAS, A CONDOMINIUM, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOTS 11 AND 12 IN BLOCK 9, AS SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED MAP NO. 2 OF THE PROPERTY OF THE BURLINGAME LAND CO. BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR LAUDER BROS., PARTNERSHIP -OWNERS City Engineer Davidson commented that there were no significant changes in this map, it is a subdivision map needed under the Map Act, basically he was satisfied and would recommend it be set for hearing. Chairman Mink set this item for hearing June 24. QC 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP FILED IN VOLUME 10 AT,PAGE 1 EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL BY WM. WRIGHT FOR FRANK EDWARDS CO. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSOLIDATED AIR FREIGHT FORWARDING TERMINAL IN M-1 DISTRICT ON PROPOSED PARCEL 2A OFF EDWARDS COURT The City Engineer expressed concern over the creation of a flag lot via an easement to Edwards Court. A fire hydrant would be a public improve- ment and he recommended that the City be given easement rights. Before final approval of the parcel map there, would be need for an Agreement with the City Council to accept public improvements and the easements, if the Commission recommended approval of the parcel map. City Planner Swan told the Commission that the application for special permit was incomplete; it had not been signed and no plot plan had been submitted. It was the concensus of the Commission that the map and special permit application should be continued to the July study meeting. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FIELD ENGINEERING TRAINING :FACILITY IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1525 ROLLINS ROAD BY HOLVICK deREGT & KOERING Considerable information was presented by the applicant concerning the proposed one tenant occupant. Computers. would be set up in laboratories and the main laboratory work would be debugging of these computers. Shuttle bus transportation is planned to transport trainees from motels near the airport to the training facility. This item was set for hearing June 24 with the additional request that five sets of plans be available at that time. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1047 BROADWAY BY DOUGLAS BRASS, OWNER DON TATEOSIAN Discussion brought out that this is a nonconforming building. The Fire Inspector had indicated that a 4 -hour wall would be needed along the back of the building. Other remodeling will also be required. The applicant indicated that the estimates for remodeling would determine a decision as to proceeding with the project. The City Planner cautioned the Commission about the two story office building :fronting on Broadway because it might be subleased even though there was no parking. There ensued considerable discussion regarding the parking problems and previous experience with an automotive business operating on this street. Chairman Mink set the application for hearing on June 24. MINOR PERMITS 13. SIGN PERMIT FOR SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR BELL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION AT 1841 EL CAMINO REAL BY AD -ART INC. There was discussion regarding the type and number of signs and the Commission expressed a desire that the revolving pole sign be removed. The City Planner said in his opinion the sign on the easement was not necessary. Chairman Mink then set this item for hearing June 24. -5- 14. SIGN PERMIT FOR LOW PROFILE SIGN FOR SAFEWAY STORES, INC. AT 1450 HOWARD AVENUE BY.AD-ART INC. The applicant had previously asked for a continuation of this item and presented a sign at this time which was down from 20 feet to approximately 13 feet. The Commission questioned whether a 13 ft. high sign is a low profile sign. (Ed. A ground sign may be 12 ft. in height, so this becomes a pole sign if it is 13 ft. tall.) Safeway feels that because of vans the sign must be this high. A hassle approaches because of the new illuminated sign "Liquor." This item was set for hearing June 24. 15. SIGN PERMIT FOR 135 SF WALL SIGN FOR LONG'S DRUG STORE AT 1871 EL CAMINO REAL BY FEDERAL SIGN& SIGNAL CORP. The color and copy for the sign for Long's Drug Store was discussed. A realistic elevation drawn to scale and in color was requested of the applicant. As there appeared to be no urgency, the Commission deferred this item until the July study meeting. 16. SIGN PERMIT FOR NEW COPY ON 40 FOOT HIGH, 275 SF POLE SIGN AT 895 STANTON ROAD FOR GENERAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS This item actually is a sign variance for an existing pole sign, involving new copy on the existing sign. The applicant explained it is merely to identify their business, and would be blue and white. No change was proposed other than the blue and white copy. Chairman Mink scheduled this for hearing June 24. 17. SIGN VARIANCE FOR SIGN PROGRAM FOR AVENUE ARCADE AT 1110 BURLINGAME AVENUE BY AD -ART SIGN CO. INC. The sign program for the Avenue Arcade was considered and scheduled for further study in July. The applicant had proposed three banners that would project more than four feet over Burlingame Avenue property line and a large logo painted on the west wall of the Odd Fellows Building. There was no Commission support for the canvas banners, and Commissioner Sine urged the west wall be left as is, feeling that the project will advertise itself. During discussion the applicant asked the Commission for guidance and it seemed to be the general concensus to let the building advertise itself (without benefit of signs). The Commission requested the designer go back to the drawing board. OTHER City Planner Swan advised that the appeal of Commission denial for Colonial Twelve has been set for hearing by City Council on July 1. He had discussed this with Mayor Crosby and given him the following reasons for denial of the subdivision map: (1) less than legal lot size, and (2) the map developed landlocked lots. A letter had been received from Mrs. H. Fambrini regarding Burlingame signs and this will be typed and sent to Commissioners in their next mailout. m: The City Planner asked direction as to how to respond to the Regional Planning Committee request.for comments on revision of BCDC plan as, basically, Burlingame has not yet made decisions regarding: (1) Anza Master Plan, (2) bicycle path, (3) improvement of Bayside Park. Following a short discussion of this matter, it was decided to inform them of the current progress on these matters with comment that we have nothing definitive at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary