Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.09.22THE CITY OF BU RLI NGAME P LANNI NG COMMISSION September 22, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Jacobs Francard (excused) City Planner Swan Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink (delayed at another meeting) 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 by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P. M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of September 8, 1975 were approved as written. Chairman Sine announced that consideration of Item 1, parcel map for Max and Jean Eiselt would be delayed since the applicant was coming from Napa and had not yet arrived. 2. 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 Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested comment from the City Planner. The City Planner reported that this property is now one lot with an existing office building constructed when the code required one parking space for each 400 SF. The code now requires one space for each 300 SF. With the division of this site into two lots, the office building is now nonconforming as to parking. However, the proposed parking of 100 spaces is close to code requirement of 105. He spoke of difficulty in calculating area of this building with its unusual interior construction and unuseable areas within the exterior building walls. His calculations arrived at 31,317 SF for the building, with the required parking of 105 spaces. He noted the large areas proposed for landscaping in the plans with possible use for future parking if necessary; and also that this building is on a corner lot with onstreet parking. Attorney Cyrus J. McMillan, representing the applicant, was given permission to address the Commission. Mr. McMillan drew attention to the fact that there are only 69 parking spaces at present. This will be increased to 100, and he considered that because of the unusual constructior of the building. this would be more than adequate. He confirmed that 105 spaces would be possible but landscaping would be lost if this were done. He introduced Mr. Clifford N. Gamble of Pacific Standard and Mr. William E. Fitch, civil engineer. - 2 - City Engineer Davidson had no comment on the variance. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the proposed use for Parcel B. Mr. McMillan reported the possibility of sale of -the parcel for use as a convalescent home, noting that such a use would have to come before the Commission. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if underground parking could be placed on Parcel B. Chairman Sine -commented this would be possible but very expensive because of the water table on that site. The Commissioner remarked she did not want the landscaping removed from E1 Camino or Trousdale. Mr. McMillan replied the owners of the building wanted to keep landscaping on both these streets, and had further said they might be willing to take down the pylon sign. There was no response to Chairman Sine's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Secretary Jacobs read letter of September 16, 1975 from C. M. Peletz Company, 1750 E1 Camino Real, requesting that Commissioners carefully review parking in this area. In the following Commission comment, Commissioner Kindig indicated he considered this the best arrangement of this site yet considered, but suggested that the extra area for Parcel A to be used for parking be outlined by a fence. Commissioner Jacobs questioned on -street parking and was informed Trousdale Drive could be used and the west side of California Drive. Commissioner Taylor agreed that a fence should be erected for the parking area on Parcel A. He agreed this was the best plan presented so far and thought it obvious that the granting of the variance for parking would not be detrimental. Chairman Sine agreed to the difficulty of calculating building area on this site, and considered this plan superior to others. He specified he did not want landscaping removed to install more parking and suggested review of parking in two years. Mr. McMillan indicated there were no objections to this. Commissioner Jacobs wished confirmation that the landscaping would not disappear in two years. Mr. McMillan assured her it would not on El Camino or Trousdale. Commissioner Taylor moved the application for variance from parking regulations be approved subject to review in two years, and further conditioned by the maintenance of the substantially existing landscaping and the removal of the sign. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Francard and Mink absent. 3. 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 At the request of the Chairman, City Engineer Davidson reported on the proposed parcel map. He stated that basically it does meet all require- ments of the Subdivision Code and of the Subdivision Map Act. Directing Commission attention to material just distributed, he discussed the traffic study recently completed by Nolte and Associates. one of their recommendations was a free right turn off Trousdale turning south on California Drive, with the City either acquiring the right of way or acquiring an easement of approximately 257 SF to increase the radius - 3 - of the existing property line from 20' to 40'. He recommended that pending approval of the City Council of this project the developer be questioned if he would be willing to -dedicate this portion of land. He suggested a limit of two years beyond the final map for the City to accept the dedication. Mr. McMillan indicated he preferred the alternative of sale of the 257 SF to the City and questioned if his was the only project where these suggestions applied. The City Engineer stated that there were recommendations for over 100 different projects, and Mr. McMillan stated his client would have no objections, under this circumstance. City Planner Swan commented that staff had already received indications from an architect working on a convalescent home for this property. He noted this would require a conditional use permit. There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, City Attorney Coleman confirmed that the parcel map could be conditioned as to the easement for increasing the radius. Commissioner Taylor remarked he would prefer that the City bought the land, since they want to use it. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the parcel map be approved subject to Council approval of the project within two years of final map approval and with the stipulation that the applicant dedicate the necessary land at the south corner of Trousdale Drive and California Drive to create a 40' radius at property line containing approximately 257.5 SF. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Francard and Mink absent. Mr. McMillan asked for assurance that the map if approved by Council would be signed now and would not be held up for two years. He stated the final map would come in immediately. The City Attorney stated that the map would not be delayed for this period. 1. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 7 AND 8, BLACK 18, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 1021 AND 1029 EL CAMINO REAL.(APN 026-164-070/08 ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR MAX AND JEAN EISELT. Since the applicant was now present, Chairman Sine announced consider- ation of this application. City Engineer Davidson reported that the final map and other information had not been received until this after- noon, and he did not wish to recommend it for action until he had had an opportunity to review it. The final map is identical to the tentative map already approved, but none of the conditions necessary for its approval have been met. These conditions include the recording of the 26' wide ingress -egress easement, provisions to protect the 48" eucalyptus tree, and to keep cars out of front setback. Also there are two monuments to be set in the field, and a few typographical errors to be corrected. Chairman Sine told the applicant he regretted the delay in processing this application, but the staff must have an opportunity to edit and review all documents. With Commission concurrence he continued this hearing to the meeting of October 14, 1975. Mr. Eiselt protested he thought he had complied with all conditions and that only typo errors needed correcting. He did not see how he could record an easement when he did not own both parcels of property. Regarding the protection of the eucalyptus tree, he stated a site plan was in preparation and he would prefer to leave that up to the architect, rather than to put in a barrier now and have it removed by a change in plans. The City Engineer suggested that the applicant show these protection devices on the building plan and that he enter into an agreement with the City, in writing that this will be done. He suggested Mr. Eiselt confer with the City Attorney on this point. The Chairman directed the applicant to confer with the City Engineer on meeting the conditions. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PUBLIC SKATING RINK AND MINOR RETAIL SALES AT 1415 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-101-060) ZONED M-1, BY WILLIAM AND ODETTE BAKER OF EL CAMINO SKATING CORPORATION Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. At his request City Planner Swan reviewed background. He stated the original special permit was issued 4/25/60 for an ice skating club to be operated on a membership basis, facilities to be available on a rental basis. Parking provided was 49 spaces. At that time it was agreed it would be a conventional industrial type building that could be converted to other uses. Over the years the property was used for ice skating but owner- ship had changed a number of times, and the sale of equipment was being carried on. The applicants are the new owners of this establishment desirous of complying with code. They want a special permit to continue with the use and with permission to sell equipment such as ice skates and skating clothing. Mr. William Baker, 3080 26th Avenue, San Francisco, was given permission to address the Commission. He stated they had made inquiries before purchasing the site, and since the business was licensed by the city, they assumed it was all right. He noted advantages of ice skating to the public as clean, wholesome recreation, and its benefit to children. He noted they had made a large investment in this purchase. Commissioner Kindig questioned specific items sold. Mr. Baker affirmed that equipment sold relates only to ice skating and covers such things as ice skates, skating clothing, tights, gloves, etc. Total revenue from these sales is less than 10% of the gross. Commissioner Jacobs received confirmation that previous owners had sold items such as this, and questioned regulation on retail sales in M-1. The City Planner replied that when the use is sales and service in M-1 that a special permit is required. However, this was not that type of establishment. Commissioner Taylor questioned other similar permits and the City Planner noted that when application for a tennis club was approved, it included approval for the sale of tennis equipment. Chairman Sine opened the meeting for public comment, and Mr. Edward J. O'Shea, 3032 Arguello, responded. He said his daughter had practiced regularly at this rink for years, sometimes spending 20 - 30 hours per week there. She had bought many skating clothes there. He noted these are not available in ordinary retail stores, although other rinks have them for sale. He urged the Commission to grant this special permit since the only other comparable rink is in Hayward. - 5 - A Mrs. Burns, who stated she lived in Millbrae, said she had been involved with the U.S. Figure Skating Association for 20 years, and had been with this rink at its inception. She thought it imperative that skaters be allowed to buy equipment at the rink, and cited the rink's advantages to the community, i.e., CSM, Skyline and Canada Colleges use this rink, giving credit to their students for skating instead of P.E. Burlingame High School has also contacted the rink, with consideration of substitution of skating for P.E. Commissioner Jacobs commented she wanted specific notation of what would be sold. Chairman Sine noted that Commissioners Norberg and Kindig had been on the Commission that approved the original permit. Commissioner Kindig moved this special permit be granted with the understanding that the retail sales of skating supplies and services be incidental and subsidiary to the operation of the rink. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it carried on unaniipous roll call vote, Commissioners Francard and Mink absent. Commissioner Kindig cautioned Mr. Baker that the permit would be issued in the name of William and Odette Baker, and if they sold the property the new owner must come in for a special permit. Mr. Baker commented that his daughter, Christine, is also one of the owners of the rink, and her name should be included. At this point, Commissioner Mink entered the meeting. 5. CODE AMENDMENT. GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY City Planner Swan referenced City Attorney Coleman's communication of September,17, 1975 to the Planning Commission on the subject of allowance of group residential facilities in R-3 zones. The City Attorney's opinion was that this use was not covered in the present code as a permitted or conditional use. He suggested the amendment of the section which relates to "boarding houses" or the addition of a code section which specifically describes such group facilities. The City Planner posed the question of how the Commission wished to solve the problem of including this use. He noted the Planning Department had previously interpreted the application for the Casa Amigo as coming under the provisions of a "boarding house", and agreed there was no explicit term in the code which covered the use. He added that other cities contacted also lacked a specific definition for this type of use. He pointed out the definition used by the Federal Government and HUD as "congregate living" -which covers elderly people taking all meals in a common dining area. He stated review had been made of three other cities' regulations for this use. Parking requirements varied but generally were found to be one space for four occupants. This is also the requirement used by the Federal Government during review for financing. The City Planner stated the City of Santa Clara had a residential facility for the elderly that has a kitchen in each dwelling unit. The criteria of one parking space per unit was used, but the result was a large parking lot., the most of which is normally vacant. Therefore, that city anticipates a request to enlarge the project with a variance from parking regulations. The City of Campbell processed a similar application as a "boarding house",with"the condition that if there were a future need for more parking, some landscaping could be removed. Casa Bonita in Daly City is located in a commercial district. They were required to provide one space per 4 occupants. The City Planner than presented alternative parking requirements for the following uses: 1. Boarding house. One garage for each rented room for the first four rooms plus one additional space for each additional two rooms. 2. Lodging houses. One parking space for each two lodging rooms plus one space for each two employees. 3. Group residential facilities for the elderly. One parking space for each three residential units with kitchens. If designed as lodging rooms, one parking space for each four lodgers plus one space for each two employees. In response to Commission question, he stated that puking for employees is based on the assumption that not every employee will drive. In the Commission discussion following, Commissioner Jacobs stated she would prefer to add another code section rather than change the code for boarding houses. Commissioner Kindig agreed, as did Commissioner Taylor who stated he saw the objective as adding a group residential facility for the active elderly as a conditional use in the R-3 zone. This would require Planning Commission review and hearing for any future projects of this kind. Commissioner Mink agreed that a separate code section for this use should be the direct solution to the problem. He suggested that people who will be occupying this type of facility would be increasingly important in our community life. He remarked the general outline and statement in the Housing Element which notes res- ponsibility for providing housing structures for individuals in the community. The element goes on to note the high percentage of Burlingame's population who are defined as "elderly." He considered that amending the boarding house code section would create complications. City Attorney Coleman told Commissioners Mr. Johnson, developer of the Casa Amigo project, must appear before the Planning Commission again under the provisions of the new code amendment. There was Commission suggestion that the Commission consider such an amendment at the next meeting in order to deal with the City's obligation toward this project started in good faith and also to aid the developer in starting work before the rainy season. Chairman Sine disagreed with the concept of construction work being necessarily halted during the rainy season, but agreed that immediate action should be taken because of the City's responsibility. Commissioner Jacobs questioned what would happen to the site if the project were unsuccessful. City Attorney Coleman stated that the use would go with the land, not the applicant, adding that this project would be Federally financed under the National Housing Act, and therefore had indications of being successful. - 7 - City Planner Swan questioned if the Commission wished to include a definition of this use. There was some discussion. Commissioner Mink stated he considered the City Attorney's definition in his September 17 memo was adequate. This defines "group residential facilities for the elderly" as "A residence for elderly persons 60 years of age or over in good health and not bedfast, which residence provides centralized dining facilities and related living services." Commission discussion followed which established the fact that Casa Amigo would be for ambulatory lodgers only. City Attorney Coleman told Commissioners this code amendment would be publicly noticed for the October 14 meeting of the Planning Commission. Chairman Sine commented the establishment in Daly City was not fully rented as of several weeks ago. PLANNERS REPORT Secretary Jacobs read the letter of 9/22/75 from David Keyston, president of Burlingame Chamber of Commerce. This communication stated that the Board of.Directors on the advice of the Chamber Sign Ordinance Committee recommended that the Planning Commission consider a complete revision of the sign ordinance rather than piecemeal additions to the present ordinance. The City Planner commented that the staff had previously been directed to bring to October 14 meeting several changes to be incorporated in the ordinance together with a set of definitions. He now asked Commission direction as to what they wished in the sign ordinance. City Attorney Coleman reported on the recent adverse fuling on the Pro Ski and Sport sign because of the judge's opinion there was an omission in Burlingame's sign ordinance regarding painted wall signs. Chairman Sine and Commissioners Kindig and Jacobs agreed the ordinance should be completely rewritten. Commission discussion followed. City Planner Swan told Commissioners background material already prepared would be presented on October 14. OTHER City Planner Swan reported that all four mandatory elements to the General Plan had been completed and adopted by the City. He stated the Planning Department is preparing a list of tasks on which the Commission can determine priorities for the coming year. Chairman Sine commended staff and Commissioners for their work on General Plan elements involving lengthy meetings and much study and effort, with the result of shortening considerably the time necessary for consideration by the Council. Commissioner -.Jacobs initiated discussion of the joint Council -Planning Commission dinner meetings. Commissioner Mink remarked they had been tentatively scheduled for every five-week month with the Planning Commission to prepare agendas. ADJOURNMENT Meeting regularly adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs