Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.05.12THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Assistant Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1975 were approved and adopted. 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 7 AND 8, BLACK 18, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 1021 AND 1029 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-164-070/080) ZONED R-3, BY RICHARD EISELT FOR MAX AND JEANNE E I SE LT . At the request of Chairman Sine, City Engineer Davidson reported on this application. He stated that the applicant was to have submitted detailed information. When this was not forthcoming, the City Engineer made inquiry, and found that Mr. Eiselt was incapacitated because of an accident. He therefore recommended that this be continued to the June study meeting. Chairman Sine announced this application would be continued to the meeting of June 9, 1975. In answer to an inquiry by Commissioner Taylor as to why this could not be taken off the agenda until the applicant was able to proceed, the City Engineer stated the Subdivision Map Act stipulates that the City must take action on wuch maps within a certain period of time. 2. SIGN PERMIT FOR 38 SF ILLUMINATED POLE SIGN AND 30 SF PAINTED WALL SIGN AT 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY NATIONAL NEON PRODUCTS FOR AJAX RENT -A -CAR. Chairman Sine requested report on this application from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner distributed sign plans to the Commission, and told them that National Neon Products proposes to change the copy on an existing pole sign with a sign area of about 60 SF. The new illuminated sign would be 5'1 x 71, reducing the area to 38 SF. The maximum height would be 20' which conforms to code. The body of the sign projects 2'1 over the front property line, which is also permitted by code. Thus no exception is required. - 2 - The Assistant City Planner then distributed drawings of an existing painted wall sign on the front of the building, about 22 SF in area. It was proposed to replace this with a 30 SF illuminated wall sign. He introduced Mr. Joseph E. Landers of National Neon Products. Mr. Landers commented that the lighting:on these signs would be indirect, interior lighting. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the sign in the front setback, and asked if the business had a new owner. Assistant City Planner Yost remarked that ground signs are prohibited in front setbacks, but pole signs are not prohibited. Mr. Landers informed the Commission that the business owner, Mr. E. Boughman, was changing franchises. Commissioner Kindig considered it was not necessary to have the wall sign lighted. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the applicant would be agreeable to having the pole sign lit and the wall sign unlit. Mr. Landers stated that the business owner, now out of town, had given him permission to comply with any requirements of the Commission. Commissioner Taylor moved that the application for sign permit for 38 SF pole sign be approved subject to removal of the existing painted wall sign. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. Commissioner Jacobs requested the motion be amended to permit a painted wall sign, unlighted. Mr. Landers agreed to go along with a painted unlit wall sign, but stressed that some means of identification on the wall was important. Commissioner Taylor restated his motion, and moved that the sign appli- cation for the 38 SF illuminated pole sign and the 30 SF unlighted wall sign be approved in accordance with drawings submitted. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. City Planner Swan cautioned that according to the drawings the wall sign projects beyond the building 100, and the code stipulates it shall not extend more than 9". Mr. Landers affirmed he would agree to cutting this wall sign projection down to 4", and stated this could be easily done, since it is not going to be illuminated. 3. DRAFT SEISMIC SAFETY ELEWNT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, City Planner Swan told Commissioners that the Seismic Safety Element prepared by the Planning Department is one of four General Plan Elements which must be approved before September 20. He suggested that this is a preliminary element - an information pigce to help define objectives for the City. If approved by the Commission, this element would go on to the City Council. Assistant City Planner Yost outlined the general content of the element. He pointed out that this is a local element to be used in conjunction with the final comprehensive element being prepared by the County. The element summarizes certain problems in the City that are seismically oriented, and suggests for many of them that trained professionals be consulted if there is community concern. He then listed the element's four objectives, which are I. Identification of city areas of potential hazard. 2. Identification of measures to reduce unavoidable risk. - 3 - 3. Improved community capacity for prompt, effective earthquake response. 4. Increased public understanding of seismic safety. The Assistant City Planner reviewed the Summary of Findings and Major Policy Recommendations; the Commission briefly discussed these points. City Planner Swan drew attention to paragraph in the draft Element, "Since Seismic Safety is a new element of the Burlingame General Plan, it should be looked upon as a first phase in a continuing process of research, refinement and implementation." The draft element was set for hearing May 27, 1975. 4. AMENDED FORMS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS. City Planner Swan distributed draft revised forms for special permit and variance application. He explained the purpose of revision as two -folds 1. Fees have been changed, and 2. A concise checklist of data pertinent to the application is desired. This latter would facilitate determination of whether or not there was sufficient information to warrant study meeting presentation, and also would give ready information for Commission mailout. The City Planner reviewed details of both forms, stressing that the applicant is made responsible for the application and must indicate the approval of the property owner. The special permit form requires proof of ownership, applicable to major projects such as condominiums. After Commission discussion,it was decided this could consist of either title report or tax receipt. No proof of ownership would be required for minor projects. Commissioners approved the variance form which requires answers to the legal requirements for a variance. It was suggested a statement be included to the effect that the City cannot legally grant a use variance. (Revised Chapter 25.54 Variances will be attached to application form.) There was discussion of the requirement for site plan drawn to scale for both applications, and a suggestion that the scale be specified on the drawing and that it be a common and acceptable scale. Commissioners approved the concept of the forms, indicating they could be used and amended if necessary. 5. HEIGHT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES Chairman Sine opened this subject for discussion, stating he personally would like to see incorporated specific height to plate line and specific height to ridge requirements. He suggested this task of working out requirements be referred to the Public Works Department for their recommendation of workable solutions. The Chairman proposed this agenda item be continued for one month pending report from Public Works. City Engineer Davidson indicated this would give enough time to - 4 - make a requirement study. He considered the basic thrust was to eliminate possible occupancy of accessory buildings, but questioned what details the Commission desired. There was some Commission discussion. The Chairman suggested eliminating plumbing, sewer and three-way wiring for accessory buildings, and not permitting an elevated loft, with storage space of possibly no more than 21. He suggested an 8' ceiling height to the plate line and a 101 ridge line for a single family garage, with adjusted measure- ments for a double garage. Commissioner Mink commented that allowances should be made to retain an architectural conformity between the garage and the house, and suggested the establishment of a maximum roof pitch. City Engineer Davidson agreed to research the subject and present recommendations to the Commission at a later date. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1017-25 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-240-300/310) BY ALFRED G. MOLAKIDIS FOR NEUFELD PORSCHE -AUDI INC. City Planner Swan introduced the several principals who would be involved in the presentation of this application. They included Mr. Alfred G. Molakidis; Mr. Hugh Connally, attorney-at-law; and Mr. Dave Neufeld. Mr. Connally told the Commission that this application could be one of the landmarks in Burlingame development. He cited the success of Rector Cadillac, in its site removed from Automobile Row, as the inspiration for the proposed development. Site plans were distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Connally explained that development on these two lots would entail only one addition to existing structures which would be the new automobile showroom. Other structures would be remodeled. He pointed out details of the plan, including parking for autos serviced, employees, and car sale customers. He explained egress and ingress drives and landscaping planned. In particular, the front of the building would be well landscaped, and the side of the site along the Teevan property to screen that development. He pointed out new car storage area, noting that half of this building would not be used at present and would be leased for storage purposes. Mr. Connally then introduced Mr. Dave Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld displayed a colored rendering of the front elevation of the building. In response to Commission questions he stated that the landscaping would approximate 1096; that the existing 50' Coca Cola sign would be taken down. He displayed drawing for a new sign which would be 35' in height and 200 SF in area, as opposed to the Coca Cola sign area of 600 SF. He commented that a large sign is of critical importance in this area away from automobile row, since customers must be directed to the establishment. Chairman Sine reminded him that separate application and hearing must be held on the sign program. City Planner Swan questioned specific uses of parking and circulation system. He remarked he thought the site plan should be made - 5 -- consistent with the detailed floor plans of the project. Mr. Neufeld explained the different areas of parking for different uses, and the anticipated flow of traffic which would be different at different times of the day. He emphasized that all service parking and employee parking would be inside the project, and that there would be 8-10 spaces for customer parking. He considered this would be ample. Commissioner Mink was concerned with the sublease of the new car storage building, and cautioned against a sign for the tenant. Mr. Neufeld explained a potential tenant wanted new car storage space only, and that it is planned to have a future body shop in that portion of the building. He said no sign would be allowed if it were leased. Commissioner Francard wanted more detail on the landscaping. The developers promised to submit such a detailed plan. City Planner Swan asked that a complete sign program be submitted including possible wall signs. Chairman Sine scheduled this special permit application for hearing May 27, 1975, as well as the hearing for the sign program. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCKING ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 189 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 2, RSM 65/27,28) BY GLEN R. HUBBARD OF GLENCO TRUCK LINES; L. IZIMIRIANOWNER City Planner Swan told the Commission this application was not complete because there has been no site plan submitted to show parking layout for trucks and trailers. He introduced Mr. Glen Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard reported he has a fleet of 400 rigss seven refrigerator trailers and five tractors. These are used in his San Francisco -based produce business to haul produce from ranches and markets in Salinas, Fresno, and other areas. The Burlingame operation is a dispatch yard rather than a storage yard. Fuel is available from Anza Pacific. Because of the nature of this business, only 2-3 rigs would be in the yard at any one time, and rarely for a period of 24 hours. His business employees 23 people and he has his own warehouse and yard. _ Mr. Hubbard told the Commission he had contacted Anza Pacific who had given him written permission to park his rigs on the five acres between Kee Joons and the canal. There was Commission protest that Anza Pacific does not have a permit to park trucks in this area. There was discussion of prohibition of parking on Airport Boulevard. Mr. Hubbard indicated he had some parking on his own site and more at the San Francisco base. However, they do not have fuel facilities in San Francisco. Chairman Sine pointed out that in the event of a strike, all of Mr. Hubbard'.s rigs could be in the yard at one time; and emphasized that Mr. Hubbard must bring in a plot plan showing proposed parking before the application could be heard. Mr. Hubbard stated he would do this, and the application was set for hearing May 27, 1975. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY DON YARBOROUGH, BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA FOR KATHLEEN M. DORE ET AL, OWNER, AND LESSEE, RICHARD GEORGE OF R&R AUTO REPAIR SERVICE. In reviewing this application at the Chair's request, the City Planner stated there had been much correspondence directed to the property owner in the past in an effort to gain recognition of City codes. In his opinion the property needed to be subdivided and a proper access easement provided instead of the present difficult arrangement. He stated the Bank of America had started the process of a tentative map months ago but had not followed up on it. The City Planner said the Fire Department was dissatisfied with Rollins Road addresses there because they are too hard to locate. He noted the applicant's site is located between two non -conforming uses, and one of the tenants is involved in a lawsuit with the City. He considered this situation to be unftir to the applicant but it should be cleared up. Mr. George told the Commission he is principally interested in restoring old cars, but does other repair work. He would be renting part of the warehouse in which Covey Trucking is located. He thought he would have enough parking for his business. There was considerable Commission discussion of difficulty of access and the junkyard appearance of this area near the freeway. It was the Commission consensus that before this application is processed the Bank of America should be contacted in an effort to get them to honor their previous commitments, especially with regard to the subdivision. It was agreed this action was without prejudice to Mr. George. Chairman Sine requested City Attorney Coleman to contact Mr. Yarborough, Bank of America, trustee of this property, in an attempt to get the situation resolved. The Chairman continued this application for one month. 9. VARIANCE FROM REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 1220 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026-094-190) BY DAN AND RITA CROWLEY - Assistant City Planner Yost distributed plans for this project. He told the Commission Mr. Crowley proposes to build a four -unit apartment on his property. Plans had been drafted prior to the City's passage of its Heritage Tree Ordinance. When he had submitted his plans to get a building permit he was informed they were unsatisfactory because they would entail removal of a large redwood tree on the site. Park Director Hoffman filed a report recommending that both this redwood tree and a lemon tree on the property be saved and the building re- designed. Plans were subsequently changed to protect the redwood tree by moving a portion of the building to the rear. This portion of the building encroached on the rear yard 3'' and necessitated a variance. The Assistant City Planner directed attention to a circle of 10' radius on the plans around the redwood tree. This indicates Park Department standard for area necessary for protection of the root system of the tree. Foundation work within this area would damage the secondary roots. He noted the circle extends into the building even - 7 - on the revised plans. The Assistant City Planner suggested that a bedroom and bath could be removed on the first and second floors to compensate. He added that lot coverage conforms to code as well as other setbacks and balcony overhang. Commission discussion followed, during which it was established that foundations would be 2' deep and would be placed approximately 4' from the tree. There was a suggestion that the foundation be set back from the tree and the floor cantilevered over it. There were other suggestions for rearranging the area desired. However, the Commission felt the developer should have his designer and architect work out a feasible plan in collaboration with the Planning Department and the Park Director. City Attorney Coleman noted the plan must meet with the approval of the Beautification Commission before it is resubmitted to the Planning Commission. Chairman Sine announced this application would be continued, and advised the applicant to work closely with the City Departments. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan reviewed Code Section 13.32.08 which deals with permits for overnight parking on the City Streets. He noted that fees for parking permits are $4.00 per year or $2.00 for six months. He noted that rented rooms and apartments in R-1 districts frequently have no on-site parking for their tenants. Commissioner Mink suggested that commercial vehicles and public utility not be exempted from the provisions of this section. There was some Commission discussion, with a comment that parking on the streets at night impedes street sweeping. Commissioner Sine felt that consideration should be given to increase the parking permit fee to $10.00 per year. City Attorney Coleman suggested that any such action would properly be the province of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, and it was decided to refer this matter to them. City Planner Swan and Commissioner Taylor reported on their attendance at the Environmental Quality Coordinating Council Conference on May 10. Commissioner Taylor stated that the session he attended dealt with how to develop citizen input and offered a proposal to include a citizen input element as part of a City's General Plan. Rationale was that citizens of various communities are being hampered by their inability to ascertain what is happening in their local governments. Commissioner Taylor considered the session an interesting experience, but felt the discussion was redundant, and he had given his opinion as not being in favor of this element. There was some Commission discussion of Burlingame's efforts to encourage public participation in meetings, and the lack of attendance at the recent "State of the City" conclave. Chairman Sine introduced the subject of the developing trend toward office condominiums. He told the Commission this type of development started in Texas and is spreading westward. He noted Burlingame has nothing in its code dealing with this type of structure, nor with conversions of existing office buildings to office condominiums. He urged that staff research and propose legislation to deal with this anticipated problem. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary