Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.09.08THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst.City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. Commissioner Francard informed Chairman Sine he would not be able to be present at the meeting of 9/22/75. CALL TO O RDE R A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P. M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of August 25, 1975 were approved as written. 1. DRAFT NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (ND-GP6 POSTED AUGUST 15, 1975) AND RESOLUTION NO. 14-75 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 25, 1975) Chairman Sine introduced this agenda item for hearing. At his request, City Planner Swan reviewed events subsequent to meeting of August 25, 1975. The City Planner reported that Commission review suggestions of August 25 together with staff suggestions to improve readability of the element had been transmitted to Earth Metrics on August 27, 1975. Earth Metrics had responded 9/3/75 with an addendum incorporating these changes.. A letter of transmittal accompanying the addendum made two specific recommendations to the City: 1. The adoption of Section 4, Planning Criteria and Noise Emission Standards, as Burlingame's official noise guideline. 2. Administrative Review Process Implementation Program, Section 6, be adopted simultaneously with the Noise Element itself to provide immediate noise influence in the areas of new construction and substantial remodeling projects. At this point City Planner Swan referred Commissioners to copies previously distributed of SB 860. This bill, passed by the Senate and now going to the Assembly could be signed by the Governor and become effective in January, 1076. It amends section of Health - 2 - Code relating to Noise Control. It establishes an Office of Noise Control and sets forth new regulations for the Noise Element of the General Plan. Noise Elements adopted by cities before the first of January, 1976 would have to be updated to comply. If a city does not choose to enact regulations specified by the State, it must show reason. The City Planner explained that present sources.of noise to be included in the element are specified as: 1. Highways and freeways 2. Ground rapid transit systems 3. Ground facilities associated with all airports operating under a permit from the State Department of Aeronautics. Noise sources to be included in the proposed new regulations are: 1. Highways and freeways 2. Primary arterials and major local streets 3. Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems. 4. Commercial,general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. 5. Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards. 6. Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. He added that new methods of weighting noise specified in SB 860 had already been used by Earth Metrics in preparation of this city's element. Therefore, he recommended that Noise Sources 1 through 6 as listed above be included in Addendum, Section 1 "Introduction and Summary" (page 3) first paragraph, instead of Sources 1 through 3 as presently indicated. With this change he believed that the Noise Element as prepared would comply with SB 860 if passed, and would not require immediate updating. Commissioner Taylor, speaking as a member of the community, stated that he felt the commission is responding to a legislative mandate, but that he wearied of enacting elements to the General Plan which merely sat on the shelf and added nothing to the quality of life in the community. With specific regard to the Noise Element, he questioned its effectiveness in controlling what he considered to be the three main sources of noise: highways and freeways, the railroad, and the airport. He suggested that solutions to other noise producers seem only to involve the expenditure of money by the citizens, and the major noise producers are not affected. Chairman Sine commented the Commission had no choice but to obey State mandates. Commissioner Jacobs observed preparation of these elements is costly, and while the State mandates them, it does not give the cities money to implement them. She questioned approval of this element when certain areas of it may change with time. City Planner Swan suggested that with reference to aircraft noise, it would be helpful to measure present and future levels, so that a comparison could be made. If, for example, the City had measured airport noise and found over a period of three years that it was increasing, pressure could be brought on the FAA. Commissioner Francard suggested that noise control might better start with manufacturers of equipment and engines, preventing noise at its source. Commissioner Taylor remarked he would be satisfied to monitor airport noise if it led to the reasonable conclusion of legal abatements but with no such guarantee, he thought it would be an exercise in semantics. Commissioner Kindig, however, thought noise measurements should be taken in order to determine if noise levels are getting worse. He considered there are some noise sources which could be controlled: construction noises, vehicle noises, etc. He thought the adoption of the element would be worthwhile, and would also give the city some control over constructing noise barriers. Commissioner Norberg had no comment. Commissioner Mink questioned if the Office of Noise Control would be a control agency or a monitoring agency. The City Planner considered this office would be actually a guidance agency. Commissioner Mink then stated he was disturbed by the concept of the City monitoring noise and keeping data for an agency over which it had no control. Noting that this is like "counting raindrops - interesting, but not much good," he did concede it might be worthwhile if the FAA could be pressured. There was a possibility of some benefit. He initiated discussion of Section 5-1, Administrative Review Process, and questioned its effect on multi-family dwellings. The City Attorney noted its establishment of standards for noise insulation, and the City Planner suggested its requirements might apply most particularly to convalescent homes, hospitals, etc. Commissioner Mink suggested a change in the second sentence in 5.1, "There are several existing administrative processes which can be used to abate noise:" He thought "can should be changed to "may", thus allowing greater latitude in generating code sections. This would emphasize that these are procedures which the City might or might not wish to use. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned with the first sentence in Section 6.2, "The City of Burlingame declares a policy of excluding and prohibiting all annoying, excessive and unnecessary noises from all sources subject to its regulatory, administrative and police powers." She questioned how this would be interpreted, and if there was a way to be more specific. Commissioner Mink suggested that the only way would be through code. Commissioner Kindig's interpretation was control where the city was able to, where it has the regulatory and police powers. Commissioner Taylor suggested the change ". . . all annoying, excessive and unnecessary noises from all sources which are subject to ." City Attorney Coleman suggested this policy statement involved a measurable range of noise which probably could not be defined at this time. Commissioner Mink summed up Commission discussion. His understanding was that by a slight modification on Page 3 of the Addendum, substituting the language of SB 860, the City could retain this document for a longer period of time. He recommended this modification. - 4 - Chairman Sine requested audience comment on this element. There was no response and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink moved that the Planning Commission adopt and recommend to Council the General Plan Noise Element prepared for the City, in two documents, one dated August 25 and an addendum dated September 3, 1975. This is with one modification of the language on Page 3 of the Addendum, substituting wording of SB 860 for the first paragraph. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Sine suggested that staff come in with suggestions on acoustical regulations on remodeling. Commissioner Mink stated for the record that the Commission encourages the Council to pursue the modification or development of code sections which would tend to implement this plan in the areas where the City does have jurisdiction. Chairman Sine remarked he disapproved of the limited time mandated for these elements, which did not allow enough research. City Planner Swan told Commissioners of a resolution prepared by the League to oppose legislation requiring any additional mandatory elements for the General Plan unless the State is prepared to underwrite the cost of preparation of any new element. Commissioner Mink moved the adoption of Resolution 14-75 approving the Noise Element. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. ACKNOWLEDGMENT At this point, Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence in the audience of Councilman Harrison. Councilman Harrison commended the Commission for its work on the Noise Element and other elements of the General Plan. Commissioner Kindig was excused from the meeting at 8:20 P. M. because of illness. 5. VARIANCE FROM AVERAGE WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF R-1 IAT AT 1348 DESOTO AVENUE BY JOHN AND NOREEN DEVINE. 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF IAT 40 AND NWLY 1/2 OF LOT 39 AND SELY 1/2 OF IAT 41, BLOCK 58,'EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 AT 1348 DESOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD W. BACCA FOR JOHN AND NOREEN DEVINE (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 25, 1975) At this time Mr. John Devine was accorded permission by the Chairman to address the Commission. He stated that for personal reasons he wished continuance on these applications for one month. With the concurrence of the Commission Chairman Sine announced these applications would be heard Tuesday, October 14, 1975. 2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP OF 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (RSM VOL. 70/33) ZONED C-4, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORP. (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 25, 197 5) Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing, requesting report from City Engineer Davidson. - 5 - The City Engineer told Commissioners the purpose of the map was to eliminate interior lot lines for the site known as Kee Joons, 433 Airport Boulevard. He noted approval is requested for both tentative and final maps and listed conditions which should apply: 1. City Clerk's certification on the map before it can be.accepted by Council. 2. All deeds of trust with notary certificates should appear on the final map. He stated that this last requirement applies under the current Subdivision Map Act, and reported the applicant's engineer does not feel this is necessary because of the tentative subdivision map approved in January, 1973 prior to these regulations. The City Engineer stated, however, that the 18 month period for filing a final map had elapsed, and a new process of tentative and final map must begin. He considered this map not ready for consideration as a final map because of this omission and recommended that it be approved only as a tentative map, with future consideration of the final. Mr. David Keyston protested that Anza was not asked to prepare the map until the 18 months were past. The City Attorney reminded him that 18 months is specified in the code and the obligation is on the property owner. There followed discussion of approving tentative and final map but withholding signatures until the certificates of trust, etc. were attached. Both the City Engineer and the City Attorney forsaw problems with this arrangement. Mr. David Keyston then remarked he had no objection to withholding approval of the final map at this time. Commissioner Mink moved this tentative map submitted for 433 Airport Boulevard, be accepted. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unaniipous roll call vote. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LANDS OF KATHLEEN DORE AT MARSTEN AND ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-134-100) ZONED M-1, BY WILSEY & HAM FOR BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA (TRUSTEE) AND KATHLEEN DORE (OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 25, 1975) This application was introduced for hearing by the Chairman and copies of revised map were distributed to Commissioners. City Engineer Davidson noted two changes from previous map: Parcel 4 is split into Parcels 4 and 5. Lot line between Parcels I and 2 has been changed with a jog to allow more necessary parking on Parcel 2. The City Engineer then listed conditions for approval of this map as follows: 1. Subject to the approval of the City Engineer for implementing of water main loop, hydrants, paving of remainder of ingress -egress easement and paving and striping of parking areas. 2. Subject to closure of all structural openings within 5' of the new property line. 3. Subject to locating all private utility service lines and providing easements wherever these lines cross lot lines. These easements should be subject to approval of the City Attorney. 4. Subject to satisfying all building codes and offstreet parking regulations and requirements. 5. Subject to 30' and 20' ingress -egress easements having provisions for towaway and no parking within the easement= the 30' easement to be approved by the City Attorney. 6. Subject to the above easements receiving a street name and the adjusting of some of the existing addresses, per request of the Fire Department. In response to question from Commissioner Francard, he stated this does not include the posting of the easements for no parking. With regard to code satisfaction, Commissioner Jacobs commented that buildings exist which do not have setbacks. The City Engineer replied there should be satisfaction of the building code itself, especially the skylight in the building on Parcel 3. Commissioner Francard questioned how sale of this property would be effected, and was informed by the City Attorney it would be by parcel rather than by building. The City Engineer commented that by virtue of having 5 parcels, this is now a subdivision map rather than a parcel map. Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission that no variance for off-street parking is required because of complete information about the areas of the buildings and changes in the map. Parking agreement for Parcel 3 has been revised, reducing space involved from 9 to 5. Commissioner Francard questioned if there were city requirements for easement lighting. He was informed there were none. City Planner Swan commented on the achievement of this parcel map and its value for fire protection. Chairman Sine requested comment from the applicants. Mr. Bill Wright, speaking as agent of the owner, stated all conditions met with their approval. Chairman Sine requested as another condition that redwood slats be used to screen the cyclone fence along the Bayshore entry. Mr. Wright agreed this could be done. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if they could plant some trees. Mr. Wright said they would if the Highway Department would give permission to plant outside the fence. He added they might have a landscape architect look at the property with a possi- bility of a better solution than redwood slats. Chairman Sine emphasized he still wanted the redwood slats on the fence. Commissioner Taylor moved that the tentative subdivision map be approved subject to the six conditions proposed by the City Engineer and with a further condition that the cyclone fence along the freeway be screened by redwood slats or other suitable screening. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Sine conq_ratulated the success of efforts which resolved this longstanding acreage problem. - 7 - 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-jIbISTRICT AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY DON YARBROUGH, BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA FOR KATHLEEN DORE, ET AL, OWNER: AND LESSEE, RICHARD GEORGE OF R&R AUTO REPAIR SERVICE (ND -59P POSTED JULY 18, 1975) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 25, 1975) At the request of Chairman Sine, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application. He told Commissioners the application was to operate an auto repair service on Parcel 4. The applicant will share the building with Covey Trucking who still have their office there. The reported lease site contains 4,800 SF. The availability of onsite parking is far in excess of code requirements. The code requirement is 7 spaces. 18 are provided. As his percentage of the building occupancy, Mr. George is entitled to 5 spaces, but could use up to 12. The number of spaces assigned to him is 6. Overall there seems to be an adequate area for this use on the parcel. There is presently one employee with a future possibility of 2 or 3. The Assistant City Planner commented that based on the facts submitted there is no apparent conflict with zoning regulations. On a Commission question, City Attorney Coleman suggested the permit should run with the tenant and that there be a time limit. Mr. George had nothing to add to the Assistant City Planner's comments. Commissioner Taylor indicated he had no objection to the use. Chairman Sine stated he was at the site this afternoon and it would not have been possible for an emergency vehicle to make the loop because of haphazard parking. He hoped when parking was in and marked there would be no dead storage. There was Commission agreement that the Planning Department's findings of fact were accepted as a basis for determination. Commissioner Jacobs moved that this.special permit for auto repair service be approved for one year, the permit to be nonassignable. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 7. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS AT 1208 DRAKE AVENUE (APN 026-171-180) ZONED R-1, BY PHILIP V., LYONS. Chairman Sine introduced this application and requested staff report. Plans for the proposed addition were distributed. Assistant City Planner Yost quoted second paragraph of Code Section 25.70.030 which stipulates that no existing dwelling or two or more bedrooms and less than 2 covered parking spaces shall be remodeled by adding one or more bedrooms unless two garage or carport spaces are provided. He reported that the applicant has two bedrooms, 1� baths and wishes to increase to 4 bedrooms, 2� baths. The single garage is 17' from the street and there is no place to put another covered parking space. The existing garage cannot be extended to the side because of the side yard requirement. If the garage were extended to the rear to make a tandem garage, it would be necessary to remove the 1/2 bath from the house. He stated ,there is no way Mr. Lyons can comply with the code except by the destruction of part of the house. MERM Assistant City Planner Yost then quoted Mr. Lyons' letter of application dated 8/25/75 in which he states he has one car and does not intend to get another. The Assistant City Planner commented that many people do not put their cars in their garages, and this raises a question as to when this code can be enforced. Mr. Lyons, in addressing the Commission, confirmed there was no possible way he could get another covered parking space. Chairman Sine reported he had this date driven from one end of Drake to the other and observed that roughly 40% of the dwellings on that street had single car garages. He suggested Mr. Lyons had room to park in the driveway. He agreed there is no way to force people to park in their garages, but that does not preclude the fact of the code requirement. Chairman Sine then opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. Henry Wilkinson, 1239 Bernal responded. He stated he did not see the logic of this ordinance when so many single family homes in Burlingame do not have a garage. He was informed by the City Attorney that these dwellings predated the ordinance. Mr. Wilkinson then stated he felt the variance should not be granted as other homes in Burlingame do not have a garage. Mrs. Paula Venturino, 1233 Drake, encouraged the Commission to grant thg variance, praising the Lyons family as an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Lyons submitted a petition to Secretary Jacobs signed by 12 neighbors who had no objections to the variance. Secretary Jacobs read this communication. In response to questions from Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Lyons stated he had owned the property since 1970 and had added the family room last year. At that time the Building Department had told him that this area could not count as a parking place. Commissioner Jacobs reported she had looked at the property and thought the proposed addition would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Francard noted that many people with single garages simply get an onstreet parking permit. Control is difficult. Chairman Sine questioned the hardship requirement for a variance. Mr. Lyons replied he had only one car, but there would be room to park another offstreet in the driveway. In reply to a question from Commissioner Mink Mr. Lyons reported he was close to the municipal bus route. The Commissioner commented he considered this an improvement to the housing in the community, and the availability of the bus system may detract from the need for additional autos in the city. Commissioner Taylor remarked the Commission was dealing with a public policy, and he was reluctant to have approval of this application in- dicate to the public that the ordinance is being ignored. Chairman Sine questioned the length of time the bus system will be financed, and was informed by the City Planner that it would be another 4h years. Commissioner Norberg thought the variance request reasonable since there was space for another car. Commissioner Francard specified there should be no parking on the landscaped area. Commissioner Jacobs moved the variance be granted. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 8. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS AT 75 LOMA VISTA DRIVE (APN 27-042-070) ZONED R-1, BY ROY AND LAVERNE POLKINGHORNE Chairman Sine introduced this application. Assistant City Planner Yost affirmed it concerns the same code section, since Mr. Polkinghorne is adding one bedroom and one bath to his two-bedroom home, and has only a single car garage. He is converting one of the existing bedrooms into an office, but the potential for three bedrooms exists. The single car garage could be extended to the rear. He displayed plans for the addition. These show a proposed laundry area where a garage extension could be. He quoted Mr. Polkinghorne's letter of application which states the family awns two cars, one of which is parked in the garage and the other on the driveway. The proposed improvements will not alter this arrangement. Because of certain circumstances, the size of the family will not increase, and the family is desirous of remaining in the neighborhood in the future. Chairman Sine stated he had visited the site, and the driveway seemed to be about 18' long. Commissioner Jacobs said she also had viewed the site and there was a possibility of parking another car in the driveway. Assistant City Planner Yost noted the setback line is approxi- mately where the garage door is. Commissioner Jacobs remarked the whole street appears to have houses right on the setback line. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Jacobs and Norberg indicated the request for variance seemed reasonable. Commissioner Mink remarked that tandem garages are rarely used for cars, but rather for storage. He questioned if it could be done another way. Commissioner Taylor considered that granting a variance of this type goes against the purpose of the ordinance. He suggested that if the ordinance were to be considered this casually, possibly it should be dropped. Chairman Sine commented he had observed that 40% of the houses on this street also had single family garages, and many were built before the two-car garage ordinance was in effect. Commissioner Francard questioned the width of the street and was informed by the City Engineer it was about 50'. Commissioner Jacobs remarked she thought the ordinance justified in the case of new construction, but that possibly variances should be considered for remodeling so that people may not be forced to purchase new homes which they cannot afford. Commissioner Taylor questioned if this application satisfied the hardship requirement for a variance. He considered that by changing the plans the applicant could meet the code. Mr. Polkinghorne replied that the area left for a tandem garage is only 9'6" wide. The code requires 10'. This would encroach on a setback. Also, the lot slopes toward the street and would require expensive excavating. Commissioner Jacobs moved this application for variance be granted. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the - 10 - following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG 9. SIGN PERMIT FOR 36 SF POLE SIGN AT 1010 CADILLAC WAY, BY AD -ART INC. FOR RECTOR CADILLAC. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. The Assistant City Planner reviewed the proposal which is to add a 36 SF sign advertising SAAB automobiles to the existing 80' pole sign. The new sign will have a total height of 28' above grade, which conforms to maximum height allowed in M-1. The present pole sign is non -conforming. He explained details of the illuminated two faced sign and added it would make a total of four signs for this building. In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Jack Carpentier, general manager of Rector, stated the lighting turn-off time was midnight at present. When she remarked that other signs must be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. Chairman Sine commented the Planning Commission had rejected the original sign, but it had been approved by the City Council. He noted it is within the province of the Commission to make the original sign conform to code as a condition of approval of this permit. The Assistant City Planner stated the total signage would be 268 SF. He remarked this is in very large proportion to the principal frontage on Cadillac Way. Mr. Carpentier protested this corner sign could not be considered as being just on Cadillac Way. In response to Chairman Sine's request for audience comment, Mr. Bob Ramsey of Ad -Art responded. He stated that the SAAB sign is mass produced and is identical across the nation. This application represents the best way conceived of incorporating it into the present signage and existing architecture. He distributed an alternate design for this sign which incorporates it into the pylon rather than placing it attached at the side. Mr. Harry Graham recommended the sign permit be granted. Mr. David 'Keyston also recommended this be approved since the Rector agency is much more attractive than other auto dealerships. In reply to a question from Commissioner Mink, the Assistant City Planner confirmed his signage figures were for one face only. All signs are double faced which means a total area of 536 SF. Commissioner Jacobs moved the sign permit be approved in accordance with drawing of alternate submitted 9/8/75, the sign to be 36 SF on two sides. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. It carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS,TAYLOR,SINE MINK,NORBERG KINDIG Commissioner Mink questioned if there would be a check of the structural changes brought -about on this pylon by the addition of this additional sign. He noted the pylon's failure several years ago in a severe storm. The City Engineer confirmed that checks would be made. At this point Chairman Sine announced Agenda Item #10 would be delayed in order to accommodate people waiting with new applications. He noted the presence of Chamber of Commerce Committee headed by Mr. David Keyston to give input on this subject. 11. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 18, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 1021 AND 1029 LL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-164-070/0E ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR MAX AND JEANNE EISELT City Engineer Davidson reported that this final map is basically identical to the tentative map approved by the Commission. He recommended this map be set for hearing with the following conditions: 1. Two new property corners should be set in the field. 2. Property should be landscaped in such a manner that parking would not be possible in the front setback and there must be some method of protecting the 48" eucalyptus tree in the driveway which is acceptable to the Park Department. The City Engineer noted that another condition had been that agreement for ingress -egress easement should be drawn up and recorded. His understanding was that the City Attorney now had that document. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing September 22. 12. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REGULATIONS AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 025-161-01) ZONED C-1, BY C. J. MC MILLAN FOR PACIFIC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 13. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MILLS ESTATE NO. 1 AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 025-161-010) ZONED C-1, BY JONES-TILLSON & ASSOCIATES FOR PACIFIC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Copies of tentative map were distributed to the Commission. City Planner Swan drew attention to the application letter for variance which states that staff had determined the gross floor area of the building to be 37,400 SF. He stated this was a typographical error and the correct calculation is 34,700 SF. He continued that because of the construction of the building, the adjusted gross floor area is calculated at 31,317 SF which would require 105 spaces. The proposed plan shows 100 spaces. However, an additional five spaces could be provided by eliminating some of the planting. He introduced Mr. Cyrus McMillan, representative of the applicant, who considered it would be possible to put 112 spaces on the plan, but the applicant thought the landscaping would be inadequate if this were done. The City Engineer stated he assumed that the dimensions along the south property line of Parcel B would be the ones on the parking map. He also noted that a portion of this property is within the flood hazard zone. Otherwise, the requirements for a tentative map are met. He - 12 - noted there are no present restrictions for a flood hazard zone. In response to Commission question, he indicated that the driveway on Parcel A is within code. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing September 22, 1975. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PUBLIC ICE SKATING RINK AND MINOR RETAIL SALES AT 1415 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-101-060) ZONED M-1 BY WM.AND ODETTE BAKER OF EL CAMINO SKATING CORPORATION. Assistant City Planner Yost reported to the Commission that the new owners of this business wish to comply with city regulations and bring the original special permit issued in 1960 up to date. The original permit was for club use and did not specify retail sales of sports equipment. For some time, this use has been open to the public and retail sales have been carried on. There are no changes contemplated in the use or building. This application was set for hearing 9/22/75. 10. "WHEN IS A SIGN PERMIT REQUIRED?" Chairman Sine introduced Mr. David Keyston, president of the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, and his sign committee consisting of Mr. Wm. Hauser and Mr. Harry Graham. Assistant City Planner Yost made a presentation to the Commission. He began by citing some of the difficulties with the present Title 22 and the fact that Ordinance 979 specifies only that a permit.is required when a sign eXceeds 32 SF on a single face. The Assistant City Planner considered this limitation acceptable to the Commission as well as that of 50 SF for two or more single faced signs. However, he suggested that a guideline of allowable sign area per frontage length should supplement these two standards. He presented as a guideline a graph which related sign areas to frontage by type of sign. Statistics for this graph had been gathered from approved sign permits over the past 18 months (Exhibit A) and the sign area per foot of building -or parcel frontage for each (Exhibit B) He explained how a median was taken for each of these three types of signs approved and its use in establishment of the graph line. He went over the use of the graph in detail in determining the necessity for permit for the 3 types of signs. Assistant City Planner Yost then directed Commission attention to Exhibit C which is a proposed ordinance prepared by the City Attorney and the Planning Department. This draft ordinance incorporates the above guidelines. He suggested that such an ordinance would aid greatly in staff determination of whether or not a sign permit is required. Considerable Commission discussion followed. There was suggestion that 32 SF be allowed everyone, but it was pointed out this might be out of proportion on some narrow frontages. An alternative suggested was that of rewriting the entire sign ordinance. Mr. David Keyston commented he thought more sign permits rather than less would be reviewed by use of the proposed system. He added that the pole sign line should not be more restrictive than the wall sign line. He also suggested flexibility in relating signs to the size of a project. - 13 - Some Commissioners thought the proposed guidelines would be workable and suggested hearing could -be set for recommending code amendment. City Planner Swan suggested such action be delayed until the Commission has heard the input of the Chamber of Commerce Committee. Mr. Harry Graham suggested that stores on Burlingame Avenue be allowed a 90 degree angle in their store signs because a flat wall sign is not noticed. There was Commission request that the Chamber of Commerce Committee make a report in writing for submittal to the Planning Commission. With Commission concurrence, Chairman Sine announced this discussion would be continued to the next study meeting at which time the written report of the committee would be considered. PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES City Attorney Coleman commented on report of the TSP Commission that the city allowed the use of these vehicles for temporary sleeping quarters. He noted that, to the contrary, Burlingame has an ordinance which prohibits this use. APPEAL PROCEDURES There was some discussion, with one commissioner commenting this was a concern for the Council since appeals would be directed to them. Chairman Sine again pointed out he resented people appealing Planning Commission decisions -to Council when they had not attended the Planning Commission meeting. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE - PROHIBITION OF THEATRE USES IN C-1 AND C-2. City Attorney Coleman noted the provision in this ordinance for Planning Commission study of theater uses in these zones before a permanent ordinance is enacted. After some discussion it was agreed this subject could be considered at the November study meeting. There was Commission discussion of temporary signs for garage sales which are posted indiscriminately and the responsibility for their removal. There was suggestion that the Police Department could remove them. CASA AMIGO City Attorney Coleman referred Commissioners to copy of his letter of 9/5/75 to Mr. Roy Johnson which stated that upon review of the zoning ordinance it had been determined that 4home for the ambulatory aged was not a permitted or conditional use in an R-3 zone. His letter suggested a code amendment to include this useage or an amendment to Mr. Johnson's plans to include kitchens in the living units. Commissioner Mink suggested that Chairman Sine direct staff to work on an amendment which would specifically include home for the active elderly in this zone. He considered that the Planning Commission and City Council had entered into this project and it was the City's obligation to proceed with such an amendment. Chairman Sine agreed. (Ciity Planner Swan commented he had made a determination over a year ago that this application came closest to being a "boarding house" which is - 14 - permitted in an R-3 zone. He questioned if an ordinance change were enacted, would a new hearing be necessary under the new ordinance. Commissioner Taylor remarked the City Attorney had made the determination and the Commission would have to abide by it. City Attorney Coleman read the definition of homes for ambulatory aged in the code, and noted a definition might have to be included in the code amendment. Commissioner Mink stated he was concerned about construction of convalescent homes in R-3, but thought an ambulatory home was appropriate. Chairman Sine suggested the City Attorney in Daly City be contacted since this city has a similar home for the ambulatory aged. OFFSTREET PARKING - REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, CODE SECTION 25.70.030. Commissioner Mink commented he would accept the parking of automobiles on site in this area and questioned the concept of variance necessity. However, he suggested a change in the wording of the ordinance which would limit such vehicular parking to private autos only for driveway parking, with vans and the like to be parked in garages. Commissioners indicated they approved. City Planner Swan announced League of California cities meeting in San Francisco October 19-22 and "California Tomorrow" meeting at DeAnza College. He reviewed agenda for the forthcoming Council study meeting. He commended the Commission for their diligent work on the four elements of the General Plan this year. With regard to civic expansion projects, the City Planner reported that the State code now requires that prior to the City purchasing property there shall be a finding by the Planning Commission that this is consistent with the General Plan. The City Planner distributed revised forms for special permit, variance, sign permit, and environmental assessment. Chairman Sine remarked that the seismic element to the General Plan, as well as the proposed Fire Code, are causing difficulties for lending agencies. City Planner Swan listed topics which require the attention of the Commission as: Temporary signs for garage sales Painted.signs Gas station mini -markets Design review criteria for condominiums Revisions to zoning code in the areas of boarding houses, theatres, and parking regulations for hotels. With regard to the General Plan, the City Planner reported there is a requirement that the General Plan be updated every two years. Also, it will be necessary to prepare a housing element for the General Plan. 15 - He noted that Burlingame was bypassed last year for $49,000 of HUD allocation because it chose -to defer a project. He suggested recommendation of a community development project for next year. He requested that the Planning Department be given priorities for future work assignments. He noted sanitary sewer study report will be forth- coming soon. Chairman Sine reported that a medical office building project has been started on San Mateo Drive, San Mateo that will be the first office condominium in that city. There was some discussion on the effects of Dutch Elm disease in the city. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:45 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary