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