HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.06.14J
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Cistul l i
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 1976
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner Yost
City Attorney Coleman
City Engineer Kirkup
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Taylor at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
C. Jacobs requested, under Item #5 of the May 24, 1976 minutes, Variance application
by Maureen C. and Kenneth R. Topping, the addition of Mr. Topping's statement that he
could put in a gate and could lower the structure. (C.P. Swan advised this item has
been appealed to the City Council and it is scheduled for hearing July 6, 1976.)
C. Kindig requested, with concurrence of C.E. Kirkup, under Item #1, Tentative Parcel
Map for Ann Mori of Peninsula Sports Center, page 1, last paragraph, first sentence:
omit the word "former" in the phrase ". . . that the properties are in a former drainage
easement . . . " The minutes of the May 24, 1976 meeting were approved as written with
this addition and correction.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LANDS ADJOINING AND NE OF BLOCK 9,
MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 5 (APN 025-261-110/120 AND 025-271-090), ZONED
M-1, BY LOUIS ARATA FOR ANN MORI OF PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER (APPLICANT) AND WAIKIKI
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY WITH FRANK EDWARDS
COMPANY (OWNERS).
C.E. Kirkup advised all conditions of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map on May 24,
1976 have been met: (1) Dedication of Parcel "A" to City; (2) Dedication of access
easements adequately connected from Rollins Road to each new parcel; these easements
to provide access for the respective Lots and for the City; (3) Preliminary Final Parcel
Map (actually shown on the unsigned plan for Main Drainage Channel dated 5/20/76
prepared by Louis Arata) Note 4 - "Finish grade and/or subgrade shall be such that there
will be positive drainage of the finished site to the new drainage channel. Finish
grades shall be such that there will be no ponding or blockage of drainage on or across
the site."; (4) Plan for Main Drainage Channel Note 5 - "The Contractor is to verify
the location(s) of existing underground utilities."
-2 -
The C.E. advised Commission the Final Parcel Map has been executed and is ready to sign;
all property owners have signed the map. C. Mink moved adoption of the Final Parcel Map,
being a resubdivision of lands adjoining and NE of Block 9, Millsdale Industrial Park
Unit No. 5. Second by C. Kindig and unanimously approved.
2. DRAFT EIR-38P FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF 8 LOTS FROM C-1 TO C-2 FOR THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME.
C.P. Swan informed Commission Item #2 is a hearing item this evening. It is the study
report that was requested by Commission and is required for Item #3 rezoning. The
Reclassification could be noticed and set for hearing on the 28th of June. At that
time the Environmental Impact Report could be certified and reclassification considered.
He then asked Asst. C.P. Yost for review. Mr. Yost stated staff were requested to
prepare this Reclassification study by the Commission May 10, following a City Council
directive after appeal of the Thor Thorstenson application. The outline of this EIR
was discussed by Commission on May 24; copies of the present draft were hand delivered
to businesses and mailed to all property owners; comments were requested in writing
in time for this meeting. The Asst. C.P. also noted that Draft EIR-38P was posted
June 4, 1976 and a public hearing can be held this evening on the Draft EIR. He explained
the procedure on EIRs suggests a two stage hearing: the hearing this evening is on the
Draft EIR; additions and corrections may then be made; and the record of public comment
together with these additions will constitute the Final EIR. If complete and posted
by June 18, ten days before June 28, the Final EIR can then be certified by the Planning
Commission on June 28, 1976.
Asst. C.P. Yost advised that at the June 28 meeting the complementary hearing on the
Reclassification from C-1 to C-2 could also be concluded, and a report made to Council.
He noted that Item #3 is an ACTION item at this meeting only in the sense that the
Commission should now decide, having received the Draft EIR, whether or not it chooses
to initiate a reclassification application for the 8 lots from C-1 to C-2; no notices
were mailed out on this potential application; it could be set for hearing June 28.
In discussing EIR-38P, the Asst. C.P. stated three objectives of this project: (a) To
avoid dislocation and economic hardship to existing non -conforming C-2 businesses in
this block, (b) To encourage such businesses to develop and expand as conforming uses,
and (c) To permit a greater diversity of uses in this block and encourage its function
as a transition zone between the C-1 businesses of Burlingame Avenue and the C-2 uses
of California Drive. He noted that at present there is no transition area although
this block is functioning as such; pointed out Exhibit B which defines the project
area (the boundaries being California Drive, Highland Avenue, Howard Avenue and Hatch
Lane); and called attention to existing businesses as described in Part 3 of the EIR
and listed in Exhibit D on page 8. These businesses are shown on base map, Exhibit B,
and several have more than one lot.
Commission discussion brought out that Thor Thorstenson, Inc. occupies three different
buildings; there are two places where subleases are involved. C. Jacobs was concerned
that with rezoning to C-2 the whole area could become similar to Auto Row. Asst. C.P.
Yost replied the buildings are fairly substantial and it is unlikely they would be
cleared for auto sales lots; however, they could be used for auto showrooms.
C. Francard was concerned about the traffic in and out of Hatch Alley; boats are brought
in by trailer, and he suggested the problem that might be caused should a mobile home
business move in at that location.
-3 -
Alternatives to this project were pointed out by Chm. Taylor as listed on page 11
of the EIR: (a) No change to the present retail commercial, C-1 District classification
of this block, (b) Reduce the project area by deleting one or more lots from the
reclassification, (c) Establish an overlay zone for the 8 lot area which could continue
the C-1 classification, but which could permit a C-2 use with a Special Permit from the
City. The Chm. asked for Commission comments. C. Jacobs felt C-2 would not be a
transition zone in this particular area. C.A. Coleman commented there would be very
little effect on taxes by changing the zoning as these properties are assessed for the
use. It was noted by C. Sine that a future potential use of this area could be an
addition to Auto Row; the high cost of land in this immediate area precludes any
single story structure of automobile display rooms but could work out economically if
the building had a parking structure on the roof; he believed that any future building
would be two story at least.
Chm. Taylor commented that the statement (on page 10),"the long term effects of this
reclassification will be modest and beneficial," should be explained more fully. He
noted that there appears to be a shortage of C-2 property in the City at the present
time and the Planning Commission will undoubtedly be asked to consider C-2 uses in
other zones quite often. C. Kindig felt that C-2 zoning at other locations along
California Drive is somewhat different than C-2 uses adjacent to the Burlingame Avenue
shopping area.
Asst. C.P. Yost inquired if the general conclusions of the EIR were in agreement with
the Commission's feelings: He noted these as follows: ". . .the City's desire to
avoid short term change within this block, with its implicit hardship to existing
non -conforming businesses, is the immediate cause of this project. No adverse economic
effects are expected as a result of this reclassification. No significant changes will
occur in consumption of water, gas or electricity; air quality will remain constant;
numbers of employees and customers in the area may change, but within modest limits."
He continued, this property is within the Off -Street Parking District and any large
building would still have to come in for a special permit if it exceeded review lines,
and be subject to future review.
C. Kindig thought an overlay zone had some merit but, in his opinion, was not necessary
in- such a small area. He concurred with the Draft EIR, but preferred not to use the
term "Auto Row" for this area. C. Sine noted, as far as construction is concerned on
the 8 lots in question, there has not been any major construction, only a few minor
alterations. It was brought out in discussion that there are six apartments on top
of Goldie's Saloon and over Thor Thorstenson's storage space at the rear.
Chm. Taylor advised this hearing on Draft EIR-38P is designed primarily to take testimony,
and asked for audience comment. Mr. Berry Hurley of 15 Jewell Place, Hillsborough
said he was the owner of property at 215/231/233 Highland Avenue. He stated he felt
this rezoning was correct but questioned if the area to be rezoned should not be
enlarged; there is an area on Howard Avenue which is zoned C-1 and used for a dry
cleaning plant, a C-2 use. Asst. C.P. Yost noted this statement on page 7 of the EIR:
"Some non -conforming uses operate on the Lorton Avenue side of Hatch Lane, but their
number and size are modest and would not justify a further extension of the C-2
boundary." Commission consensus was that Hatch Lane appeared appropriate for the
boundary line.
C. Jacobs made a motion to adopt Draft EIR-38P incorporating the changes and suggestions
made at this meeting, and making the findings of fact. Second C. Mink. Motion carried
unanimously. Staff advised that the Commission is to certify all Final EIRs for special
permits and reclassifications. This was confirmed by the C.A. who stated this procedure
should have been followed previously. The Chm. announced the Final EIR will appear on
the agenda for June 28, 1976.
-4-
3. RECLASSIFICATION OF 8 LOTS IN BLOCK 11, TOWN OF BURLINGAME FROM C-1 TO C-2
(APN 029-211-030 THROUGH 080 INCL., -280, -270), BY CITY OF BURLINGAME.
Asst. C.P. Yost told the Commission it now has an EIR which will be on the June 28
agenda for certification. Item #3 for Reclassification is not an action item in the
normal sense; it appears on the agenda tonight for a decision from the Commission
as to whether or not staff should send out notices for hearing, consideration, action,
and recommendation to Council. There being no objection, Chm. Taylor set Item #3
for hearing June 28, 1976.
4. REVIEW BROADWAY ENTRANCE TO THE DIP STICK AT 1049 BROADWAY.
Asst. Planner Yost advised that staff had visited these premises and talked with the
manager who reported that less than 10 vehicles per week are using the roll -up door.
Staff has had no complaints from nearby property owners. There is a line of sight
problem and customers are encouraged to exit via Carolan Avenue. It would be rather
difficult for vehicles to exit onto Broadway after being serviced due to the way
service bays are set up. Commission found that this is not strictly an exit door,
and was informed by the C.A. that since it is under a use permit Commission could
reopen at any time and the matter could be reviewed again in the future. C. Mink
moved acceptance of staff report on this item with a determination that no further
action need be taken. Second by C. Sine; all aye by voice vote.
C. Sine was excused from the meeting at 8:15 P.M. following the action items.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
5. DRAFT EIR-37P FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF SINGLE LOT FROM R-1 TO C-3, BY CHARLES N.
ELEY FOR PERBAK CORPORATION "HOUSE OF TRAVEL."
6. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOT 17, BLOCK 36 OF THE LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION IN THE TOWN
OF BURLINGAME (APN 029-301-160), LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DWIGHT ROAD AND PENINSULA
AVENUE, FROM R-1 TO C-3, BY PERBAK CORPORATION, PAUL S. PERATIS, PRESIDENT.
C.P. Swan introduced Charles Eley and Paul Peratis. He stated this application is for
a reclassification of the vacant lot at the corner of Dwight and Peninsula for a
proposed professional office building. An environmental impact report is needed for
a zoning change because it is a code amendment. Both items should be considered and
scheduled for hearing June 28. Then, after two weeks to prepare findings on the
Draft EIR, certification could be accomplished July 12.
Charles Eley presented findings and the Draft EIR, particularly outlining alternatives.
He indicated the impact of this project would be basically two things: (1) extra
parking demand during certain hours of the day, the peak hours of the travel agency;
and (2) traffic generated at the site will be from 40 to 80 automobile trips each day.
The site is presently used as an unimproved parking lot; the property will be well
landscaped; City of Burlingame will receive revenue via property taxes and business
licenses. The size of the proposed building would be approximately the same as the
single family homes in the immediate area; setbacks would be the same; number of
people about the same. Mr. Eley listed alternatives appropriate for this one lot:
(1) a single family house; (2) rezoning for multi -family duplex or triplex; (3) with
plottage, where two or more lots are combined for one development, a complex of
professional offices or multi -family housing. He stated that one of the big issues
with regard to this project is whether other rezoning applications would result if
the application is approved. It was noted that of the eight single family homes
-5 -
nearby (4 next to the site on Peninsula Avenue and 4 on Dwight Road) only three are
occupied by the owners. In the City of San Mateo, which is directly across the street,
practically all property is zoned C-1 1, or Neighborhood Commercial. The only
significant impact that can be mitigated is parking, e.g., arrangements could be
made for employees to park off the site.
At this point in the discussion C.A. Coleman suggested to the Commission it try to
shorten procedure by not taking testimony at study meetings; he stated that the public
hearing is the appropriate time and place for such evidence. C. Francard was concerned
with page 4 of the EIR which he felt used the word "about" too frequently. C. Kindig
felt employee parking was very important and suggested the applicant keep looking for
some off-site.
Commission discussed scheduling the EIR and Reclassification for hearing June 28.
Notices would be sent to property owners within 500 feet. Simultaneous hearing would
be preferred because the general public cannot make a separation between the EIR and
the Reclassification, and in this manner they would be asked to attend only one hearing.
Chm. Taylor set Draft EIR-37P and the Reclassification for hearing on June 28, 1976.
7. DRAFT EIR-39P FOR JRM OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT, AT 33 PARK ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL
BY GEORGE DAI, ARCHITECTS AND JRM COMPANY, OWNERS.
8. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B AND 3D, BLOCK 3, MAP 1, RSM 4/6, TOWN OF
BURLINGAME (APN 029-223-01, -02, -10, -11, -12), FROM R-3 TO C-1, BY JACOB RATINOFF.
Draft EIR-39P for the JRM office building between Park Road and E1 Camino Real was
introduced for study. George Dai, Architect, retained by Jacob Ratinoff, the property
owner, explained that the JRM Company wanted to build an office building for its own
company. JRM is renting in San Mateo. Earlier studies of a condominium project and
townhouses were proven economically unfeasible. Prior to 1974 there were three C-1
lots fronting on Park Road. These three were rezoned to R-3 and The Burlingame, a 23
unit condominium, was reported in EIR-27P.
Preliminary plans and drawings following page 25 of Draft EIR-39P are to be revised
for an office building with about 18,000 SF of floor area. Sixty (60) parking spaces
would be required and most of the numbers would be increased by 20% because of the
larger building. The Commission discussed removing reference to a building and limiting
the impact to the proposed C-1 use. Detailed building shape and size would not be
significant if within the limits of C-1 District Regulations. The EIR should contain
a list of all uses permitted in the C-1 zone. Mr. Dai felt that design changes could
be made within two weeks. The Commission set both Draft EIR-39P and the Reclassification
from R-3 to C-1 (noted in Item #8) for hearing July 12, 1976.
9. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 23, TOWN OF BURLINGAME FROM R-1 TO R-3A,.BEING
117 ARUNDEL ROAD (APN 029-271-050), BY LARRY M. LYONS, OPTIONEE AND LEON RICHARDSON,
OWNER.
C.P. Swan read evaluation on Environmental Assessment Form E2, concluding "an Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared." The Commission concurred. Mr. Lyons asked if a new
EIR would be required or if EIR-17P could be updated. In response, the Commission
requested a new EIR speaking to current problems and the impact of rezoning that one
lot. It would be reviewed to meet adequacies for today's conditions. Chm. Taylor
explained the fees to be paid and the procedure to be followed to prepare a Draft EIR.
Applicant is to consult with C.P. if he proposes to proceed.
10. (A) VARIANCE TO COVER 43.3% OF R-1 LOT AT 305 DWIGHT ROAD (APN 029-187-090),
BY MR. AND MRS. ROBERT FANUCCHI.
This variance was set for hearing June 28, 1976.
10. (B) VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION OVER A DOUBLE GARAGE THAT IS LESS
THAN 20 FEET IN WIDTH AT 2000 DEVEREUX BY MR. AND MRS. EDWARD F. DOWD.
This variance was reported ready for hearing. New plans and a lot survey had been
received earlier in the day, June 14. It was reported that Mr. Dowd could be present
July 12. Commission removed the application from the table and set it for hearing
July 12. It was requested that neighbors be sent another written notice of this
hearing.
ADVANCE PLANNING
11. CONSIDERATIONS FOR A FORMULA TO GAIN PARKING.
At the May 12 study meeting the City Council asked that the Planning Commission help
to develop a formula to determine parking requirement for projects within the Burlingame
Avenue Area Off -Street Parking District. (Per May 18, 1976 BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER:
"Planning commission and city and bond attorneys to work out parking contribution
formula for future downtown district developments seeking special permits within the
parking district." The C.P. reminded the Commission that no conditions or recommenda-
tions had been made for the 3 -story office building proposed at 1203 Howard Avenue.
When increments of property change exceed the three existing review lines, e.g., more
than 15,000 SF, more than 35 ft. in height, or more than 75% lot coverage, then the
Planning Commission could determine the parking required for the gross floor area
in excess of these review lines. Another alternative would be to exempt the first
two stories from parking requirements. Zones of benefit, spread of assessment,
distribution of cost for new parking and other issues were not discussed. The Commission
focused upon their power to grant special permits with conditions. They agreed that
they could determine how much floor area exceeded the review lines and could say how
many parking spaces should be provided for that incremental floor area. C. Mink
questioned if the Working Paper meant a building can go up 35 feet in height, assuming
two floors and 75% lot coverage, with a building permit; if that is exceeded (essentially
two floors, 15,000 SF, or 75% lot coverage), then all of the additional floor area
should be accommodated by additional parking. The C.P. replied that is a guideline
that might be established by the Planning Commission. The Commissioner continued,
then there should be a formula for establishing the price of each parking space, for
instance, today's estimated price of $4,000 which is subject to change; and there should
be a formula for who pays for the parking spaces based upon who caused the problem and
how close they are to the solution.
There was discussion about involving the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission in order
to gain their assistance. It was generally agreed that the Commission can condition
special permits for parking on-site but they cannot impose off-site parking requirements.
Commission questioned whether other property owners within the Parking District could
be obliged to pay a 25% share of the cost even though they had not created the parking
problem. The Chm. gained support for a direct communication to the Traffic, Safety
& Parking Commission in order to gain their response to the Working Paper, to adopt
certain standards and to specify a realistic cost per parking space. It was further
agreed that in reviewing Special Permits within the Parking District the Commission
could grant the permit with the condition that a contract suitable to Council be
completed, specifically, include a parking condition acceptable to the City Council.
-7-
12. REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Chm. Taylor suggested study of these regulations be held in September.
13. CITY PLANNER REPORT
G.P. Swan distributed a handout of the Aerobay Office Center property between the
end of North Carolan and Rollins Road. The ideal solution to gain proper circulation
would be a street connection to North Carolan. The C.P. reported that preliminary
discussion was held with the owner, Herman Christensen, last Thursday afternoon. A
light industrial development of office/warehouse buildings or perhaps one building was
discussed along with circulation needs. It appears that a parcel map will be required
if four buildings are to be built on the parcel. North Carolan Avenue is over 1700
feet long. A public street would improve circulation but it would require land and
construction of a new street. Staff suggested consideration be given to the ways that
the City might gain a street to connect North Carolan to Rollins Road directly opposite
the intersection at Edwards Court. State Code gives the planning agency authority to
prepare specific plans. (1) The procedure to adopt a specific plan is similar to that
for amending a general plan or adopting a reclassification. Two hearings are required,
one by Planning Commission and one by City Council. Other options reported were:
(2) recommend Council consider negotiation with property owner to share in cost for
a new public street; (3) recommend Council purchase land and build street with
possibility of a benefit assessment district including parcels fronting on North
Carolan; (4) do nothing.
Deliberation ensued regarding Commission responsibility to make a recommendation to
Council. Concerns over the past years included conditional use permits approved for
other.businesses, increased traffic on North Carolan, unsuccessful efforts in the past
to gain a right-of-way from North Carolan to Rollins Road, and neighboring properties
which have not been developed to the highest and best use. The Commission unanimously
agreed to urge that the Council take steps to gain a public street.
A reduced print of the revised General Plan was distributed. More second commercial
(service business) C-2 District property is needed to accommodate demands for auto sales
and services. C.P. reported that previous discussion posed the question of rezoning to
C-2. The frontage on Rollins Road north from Broadway might be reclassified to C-2,
or it might be retained in M-1 and auto sales and service businesses allowed with
special permits.
A housing element is needed for the Burlingame General Plan to qualify for HCDA funds,
estimated to be $50,000 per year.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary