Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.05.13THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION May 13, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs City Attorney Karmel Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink Building Inspector Calwell Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO O RDE R 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 1. CODE AMENDMENTS TO PROHIBIT ROOF SIGNS City Planner Swan referenced the Planning Commission's direction to investigate methods of prohibiting roof signs and reported it had been necessary to get background material and related information which had been mailed to the Commission. Discussion centered around this mailing of several documents which included staff report of 5/13/74; preliminary draft of Title 22 Amendment, Chapter 22.64; summary of signs requiring discretionary approval; draft ordinance on roof signs 22.56; draft ordinance on variances to sign title; Keyston letter of 4/10/74 re roof signs. The suggestion in the Planner's report that the code section dealing with prohibited signs include as prohibited "Signs that project above the roof line or cornice of the building except when in the opinion of the . . commission the sign is an acceptable architectural part . . of the building" was explored. The City Planner noted this prohibition is part of C-4 regulations in Title 25. There was considerable discussion of what constitutes an "architectural part." Examples were the Lucky and Safeway towers. There followed a consensus that all roof top signs, "Signs that project above the roof line or cornice of a building," should be prohibited with no exceptions. City Attorney Karmel cautioned that if roof top signs are to be prohibited, there must be a plain definition of terms, especially of what constitutes a "roof." He also commented that if variances are allowed, the factor of whim or caprice enteres the picture; further, if roof signs are to be prohibited, a solid legal reason must be established such as safety; rather than the purpose of aesthetics. City Planner Swan read definition of roof sign from sign code,". . any sign erected or constructed upon or over the roof of any building with the principal support on the roof structure." There was further discussion on definition of "roof" as opposed to "part of a building." - 2 - Building Inspector Calwell pointed out that a mansard roof must be specifically defined, since when a mansard roof is at an angle of less than,450 it is considered part of the wall. He also stated that 95% of commercial buildings have parapets, and questioned if the sign would be judged on where it sits above the wall or above the parapet. The Commission at length agreed that definition of roof signs be specifically as "Signs that project above roof line or cornice of building;" that an ordinance be drawn up prohibiting roof signs both in Title 25 and Title 22. This includes C-1, C-4, and M-1. The City Planner was requested to prepare such ordinance with resolution and findings of fact for possible consideration at the next study meeting. Discussion then centered on the amortization of existing roof signs with the relation of value to time of phase-out. The City Attorney stated that in his opinion a schedule must be worked out that is reasonably related to a person's investment in his sign. It was agreed that the City Attorney and City Planner would develop an amortization schedule for future study. Building Inspector Calwell requested an exact definition of the 32 square foot limitation on signs. He questioned, does it refer to sign and border; only to one sign; to all signs combined on a property? Commission remarks following indicated a seeming preference for a 32 square foot limitation on a total signage program for a project. Staff was then requested to work up a recommendation for future presentation to the Commission. 2. CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.74.030 - LAPSE OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR NON-USE OF GASOLINE SERVICE STATION City Planner Swan reminded the Commission this amendment had been previously approved but was awaiting preparation of other code amendments so that all could be published together. There was a request to change the time of lapse to six months rather than a year. It was pointed out that at any rate safety regulations of the Fire Department require that empty gas tanks be filled with inert material after a period of 90 days of non-use. 3. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO C-4 WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS City Planner Swan reviewed draft amendments for the Commission. Section 25.41.025 provides the following uses must have a special permit: buildings exceeding 35' in height when located within 100 feet of S.F. Bay; all buildings exceeding 50' in -,height; buildings having a FAR of more than one. Section 25.41.09 provides that no building shall have a FAR of more than 2.0 and makes provisions for the measurement of FAR. The latter part of this section with particular relation to calculation of FAR for unoccupied structures occupied most of Commission discussion. City Planner Swan illustrated methods of computation for unoccupied structures. He suggested a height of 14' for each story; FAR would be computed on stories and fractions thereof above the curb line. With U - 3 - relation to unenclosed parking structures which start below the curb line, the suggested the 14 -foot story be counted as starting at the lowest finished floor. In the discussion following, the Commission felt the 14' height was too generous. A height of 12 feet was suggested. Also questioned was the reason for computing stories below curb line. The City Planner explained that these unenclosed parking structures represent bulk when viewed from neighboring lots. Mr. George Keyston thought "average curb line" should be defined. He cited 433 Airport Boulevard where the curb line fluctuates because of drainage. He also raised the question of Council direction that open parking structures be decked over and landscaped. This area would be above the curb line which raises another problem of definition. City Planner Swan suggested average grade as being established by curb line grade at the lot lines. Based on Commission discussion and suggestions, it was requested the ordinance be redrafted for further study. 4. TENTATIVE DRAFT EIR-28P ON ANZA MASTER PLAN City Planner Swan referenced Anza Pacific's letter of May 6, 1974 which extended Anza's appreciation for the cooperation of City Council and Planning Commission at the study meeting of May 3. The letter went on to list seven supplementals which Anza wishes to prepare and add to the EIR. These additions are based on comments and suggestions from the study meeting. Mr. George Keyston requested commission direction on these points. During the following discussion Commission approval was implied for these additions but major attention was centered on the question of contracting with a consultant to help the City evaluate this EIR. City Attorney Karmel reminded the Commission that by a recent ruling the City can accept the EIR prepared by developer's consultants if there is a thorough evaluation of it. With reference to Item 6 of Anza letter, Oak Grove access to Bayshore Freeway, the City Planner stressed the importance of a way of connecting the Anza project to the rest of the City. He spoke of the influx of people to this area and the importance of moving them, and their impact on the community. He noted the need of getting the assistance of a traffic consulting firm; and stated it is impossible to do an updated General Plan without a circulation system. Mr. Keyston remarked that a lot of money was spent on considering Oak Grove overpass several years ago, and Anza had the impression it was unacceptable, and they should study realignment of Bayshore without Oak Grove. There was further discussion on the problems and methods of moving people, and a comment that the EIR and the impact of Anza on the City was the present issue. EIR progress report and Commission request to Council to obtain - 4 - consultant services will be put on regular meeting agenda. 5. PROGRESS REPORT ON REGULATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS Planner reported a list of cities which had been contacted which also face this problem. Most had replied, some sending their ordinances or draft ordinances. This material is being reviewed by staff. 6. PRESENTATION OF ALPHA LAND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES John L. Griffin, vice president of Alpha Land Company, made a presentation of alternatives which included commission suggestions. He distributed a data sheet, and produced a model to scale of this project and surrounding areas. Mr. Griffin told the Commission density had been reduced to 180-188 units; height would be from 95 feet to 115 feet; land coverage has been reduced to 25% or less; one tennis court had been eliminated; there will be lh parking spaces for each of these two-bedroom two -bath units. There will be two levels of parking in a separate structure, with one below grade. Mr. Griffin stated their experience has been that 1' parking spaces is ample for this type of building near transportation, but offered to negotiate with surrounding property owners for night time parking if necessary. Amenities include community rooms, recreation building, and appropriate security precautions. There will be a 24-hour doorman. Commission suggestions included a traffic study. Mr. Griffin stated this would be in the EIR. In response to the question of parking under the buildings, he said the water table prevents. On other questions, he stated FAR would be approximately 2 to 1; noise pollution profiles had not yet been discussed with the airport; density is greater in this C-1 district than the allowable 50 per acre in R-3; recreational vehicles would not pose parking problems because the Association would allot spaces. Rental,. storage space could be found for boats, etc. More discussion followed. Mr. Griffin stated he was prepared to file a formal application. Chairman Mink thought the Commission was satisfied enough with the general concept to suggest that an EIR be prepared. However, he noted there were several issues discussed which must be dealt with in this EIR, such as traffic impact; pedestrian traffic; treatment of project along California Drive; checking of CNEL from airport. He suggested Commission members contact Mr. Griffin if they had additional ideas. 7. PARCEL MAP, BEING RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 B, 2 C, 3A, 3 B AND 3D, BLOCK 3, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, FOR BURLINGAME CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATES Copies of this map were distributed to the Commission. No representative of the applicant was present. City Engineer Davidson reported that this is basically a resubdivision map for the purpose of deleting lot lines. He saw no problems with the map, with the exception of a few technical items which he wished added. This map was set for hearing on May 29. - 5 - 8. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, COLONIAL TWELVE,BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 28 AND 29, BLOCK NO. 1, MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 4 OF BURLINGAME_ PARK,_ BY TRANSWESTERN BUILDERS. 13. VARIANCE FROM LOT DIMENSIONS AND LOT REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-3 DISTRICT AT 735 EL CAMINO REAL BY TRANSWE STERN BUILDERS, INC These two related applications were considered together by the Commission. City Engineer Davidson reported on a staff conference with Mr. Karp which concluded that a variance.would be necessary for the lots created of less than 5,000 SF and another variance for the lot widths of less than 50'. City Planner Swan stated that the application for these variances had been received as well as a completed environmental assessment form. He added that construction plans for the proposed project must be submitted now that the variances are being considered; they become part of the record. The"general notes" on the subdivision map were discussed, in particular, #3 which seems to indicate the actual property lines become as constructed or as it settles rather than the metes and bounds description. Mr. Karp said this complies with the Condominium Code and provides for the possibility of the buildings being constructed 1" - 2" off the plans. City Attorney Karmel stated these general notes should not be included on the map, but he thought the map could be approved without approving the language. Mr. Karp was questioned on the landscaping of the front area; he replied it would be under the Home Owners' Association. City Engineer Davidson reported on project utilities. He estimated a cost of $2,663 to install two 1" service laterals from the main on the far side of the Peninsula Conservatory of Music. He proposed this amount be received by the City as a contribution to a proposed 8" main down E1 Camino rather than in- stalling the small lines. He stated waste disposal would be no problem. There could be some difficulty getting a storm drain across the front sidewalk since any trench within 20' of trees must be hand -dug. The City Attorney cautioned that this tentative map goes to Council for final approval, if it is approved by them the final map is actually approved in substance, and radical differences may not be imposed by the City. He noted the necessary bonding of the applicant to perform service work. Both the tentative map and variance application were set for hearing May 29. 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, LOTS 3,4, AND A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLACK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME NO. 4 (EL CAMINO REAL NEAR ADELINE DRIVE) BY ROBERT E. CHURCH. This map was distributed to Commission members. Mr. Robert Church was present at the meeting. City Engineer Davidson reported this tentative map is merely for the purpose of deleting an existing lot line. He stated he had requested - 6 - some type of pedestrian access and improvements to curb and gutter across the front of the property, but these had been resolved. One item had been the relocation of the driveway. He felt the map was in appropriate condition to be approved. Mr. Church stated the development would be an apartment house. On a question of saving existing trees, he thought the 30" pine would be left standing. After some discussion, this map was set for hearing on May 29. 9A. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP, 1477 FLORIBUNDA, CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BUILDING City Engineer Davidson reported this map is the same as the tentative map. The building is entirely contained on one lot, Lot #8; there is no change in property lines. By the tenets of the Map Act condominiums shall be treated as subdivisions, so this project must be treated as a subdivision. City Attorney Karmel agreed. The map was set for hearing May 29. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MINIWAREHOUSING SERVICE IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1340 MARSTEN ROAD BY OSCAR F. PERSON Site plan with elevations was distributed for this project. Mr. Person and Mr. Ralph Button presented the project, which will be a mini -warehouse, one story, of masonry construction. It would contain small units to be rented for the storage of boats, cars, personal belongings, etc. Each unit would have its own door and be lighted. The units would be approximately 10' high. There would be a sliding gate at each end of the warehouse project which would be locked at night, and security police would patrol. The existing building on the property would be removed. There was discussion of the size and type of vehicles which could be stored here and the possibility of,owners using their spaces for repairing or cleaning their cars or boats. The Commission was concerned this would create a parking and waste disposal problem. Mr. Person stated the project was intended for storage; no work should be done there, and tenants would be reprimanded if they did. Mr. Button added that as a boat owner he knew that people wash their boats immediately after removal from water at the dockside. I£ boats are allowed to dry, they are too difficult to clean. The City Engineer stated that a waste trap must be installed in any event. There was also Commission concern about the storage of small trailers with the possibility of living quarters, but Mr. Person insisted there would not be room for these vehicles. There was criticism of the lack of architectural treatment and question as to landscaping. Mr. Person stated he would landscape the area fronting on Rollins Road. Since the plans indicate completion of this project in two phases, - 7 - Mr. Person was requested to enclose the entire area and install gates before rental of any units completed in the first stage. He agreed to do this. City Engineer Davidson was dissatisfied with the two driveways on Rollins Road. As a safety precaution he suggested there be only one on Rollins Road or that both enter and exit on Marsten Road. City Planner Swan agreed with the recommendation that both entrance and exit be on Marsten Road. He suggested 20' width for a two way drive between buildings and 18' width for a one way drive. This application was set for hearing on May 29. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING IN M-1 DISTRICT ON ADRIAN COURT BY ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR SEQUOIA PACIFIC Plot plans for this project were distributed. Mr. Walter Bearden of Associated Construction was present. City Planner Swan explained this application was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council because it exceeds 30% of the lot coverage. Mr. Bearden explained the project, which will be a one-story office and warehouse building with 23,000 square feet of floor area. There will be 80 parking spaces. The building will be constructed in two portions. The finished portion is space for the Southern Pacific Communication Company and the balance of the space will be for lease. This latter part will have movable partitions to suit the needs of the tenants. Eventually, the entire building will be taken over by the S.P. Communications Company. Sequoia Pacific will be the owner of the building. There was discussion as to whether the washroom facilities met the State code, and the fact that there will be an 80' microwave transmission tower at the building corner. City Planner Swan reported that the parking will meet code requirements but questioned if signs would be presented, suggesting that a signing program should be considered as a condition of the permit. He considered this is a good project for this location, and said information had been received that this would be a three -shift operation, so the total number of employees would not be present at one time. Mr. Bearden commented that no large signs were anticipated - only a couple of small ground level signs. This application was set for hearing May 29, 1974. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TRUCKING TERMINAL AT 1344 MARSTEN ROAD BY WM. E. MANNING The applicant was not present. City Planner Swan reported he had not received plot plans, but this business was already operating at this location. He had inspected the exterior and it seemed neat. However, he noted some car washing going on, and noted there was no wash rack in that location. 8 - This application was set for hearing May 29, with the request that the City Planner inform the applicant of the necessity for his appearance. 14. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT UNTIL AUGUST 7, 1975 FOR THE BUBBLE MACHINE AND FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SIGN PERMIT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5, 1975. The City Planner told the Commission that letter of request for these extensions had been received from the Bubble Machine. With the consent of the Commission, hearing was set for May 29, 1974. 14A. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW REBUILDING A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND A NEW CONVEYOR CAR WASH AT 1000 BROADWAY BY ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY City Planner Swan reported that request had also been received from Arco for extension of their permit. The Commission consented to hear this request and it was set for hearing May 29, 1974. 15. REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Mr. Woodruff said that plans had been submitted and criticized, and he gathered the Commission meant for him to plant trees and reduce the back-up room in the two areas in question. Or the trees could be eliminated and low ground cover planted. He stated the paving is in exactly according to plan with the exception of the 4 x 30 strips of landscaping in the parking area in front. In order to do this, the cars would overhang the planting area 21. He thought he could put the trees in the center between the cars and put a parking bumper opposite the trees. He said that 95% of the landscaping was already in and spoke of the problem of space in the back area, stating there would be less than 64' parking there unless the cars overhang the planting. He noted that over 50% of cars parked so far have been compacts, and suggested the back parking spaces be all for compacts. This would solve the planting problem. Commissioner Francard said he had not had an opportunity to consider the planting plans in detail. Mr. Woodruff produced the plans and explained his interpretation to the Commissioner. There was little definitive discussion, and this item was set for hearing May 29, 1974. 16. PETITION TO AMEND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RAMADA INN EXPANSION AT 1250 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD FOR A HOTEL OPERATED LAUNDRY FACILITY Mr. Robert Reddish of Radco Construction Company and Mr. Doug Shipp, general manager of Ramada Inn appeared before the Commission. They distributed plot plans to the Commission and stated they wished to construct an inhouse laundry facility for the handling of hotel linens. This would not involve a dry cleaning unit, and would be built on the - 9 - NE corner of the property. The area involved would be 825 square feet and would connect to the existing hotel, bringing together the housekeeping unit and the laundry. After plan inspection, City Engineer Davidson stated there would be no problems with water or sewer service. City Planner Swan thought it was a very minor improvement and could be handled administratively. The hotel is now a conforming use in a C-4 district, but the previous special permit had been for use in an M-1 district, and this could be considered an amendment to a special permit. He questioned the parking at the hotel and was informed that there were 1.3 parking spaces for each room which had been found ample. There was little discussion. The Commission agreed this could be handled as an administrative matter. 17. SIGN PERMIT FOR TWO WALL SIGNS, 80SF AND 70SF WITH INTERIOR ILLUMINATION AT 1841 EL CAMINO REAL FOR BELL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION No representative of Bell Savings & Loan was present. City Planner Swan posted a large drawing of these two signs located near Petrini's Market. This application was set for hearing on May 29, with the request that the applicant be specifically requested to be present. 18. SIGN FOR LONG'S DRUG City Planner Swan showed an elevation of this sign which had come in too late for consideration. It will be placed on the next study meeting agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION COURSE Commissioner Taylor reported on the short course on planning commissions to be presented by the University of California at the Hyatt House in San Francisco May 31 - June 1. There were several items on the agenda which he thought the commission would be interested in: condominium conversions, planned community developments, and the use of consultants to assist planning commissioners in EIR evaluations. City Planner Swan thought this was an educational opportunity for the Commission, and urged attendance of commissioners if possible. Two would be covered by the planning budget. It was agreed that two commission members would attend. Commissioner Taylor indicated he would be able to go. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary