Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.02.09THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 9, 1976 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT FrancardTorbgrgi fgxcused - City Planner Swan Jacobs ami y ness Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Sine Taylor unr.r. r n r.r. 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 January 26, 1976 were approved as written. 1. PRELIMINARY DRAFT: NEW SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 22 Chairman Sine introduced this subject for consideration, noting that staff meetings had been held with realtors, the Chamber of Commerce and representatives of sign companies concerning this ordinance. City Planner Swan referenced transmittal to the Commission of reports concerning these meetings and suggestions from these bodies. He commented that staff is still in the process of collecting input. The City Planner then introduced Mr. Alex Smith, San Mateo -Burlingame Board of Realtors. Mr. Smith reported that the Board of Realtors was pleased to be consulted and had formed a sign committee which had reviewed the draft ordinance at length. Because of the widespread use of real estate signs, the Board had concluded that there should be a separate section in the sign code for them. They had drafted such a section and had transmitted it, together with other comments to the Planning Department. Mr. Smith apologized for a misunderstanding in recommending that the sign code be administered and enforced by the Building Depart- ment, stating this had been proposed merely in the interest of time- saving. He stated the Board welcomed control of signs that are non- exempt, and functional suggestions had been made in the area of sign sizes for flexibility., and fees for real estate signs. He suggested a consent form for property owners, and told Commissioners the Board of Realtors was willing to confer with staff on the new code section. In response to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Smith stated the Board has set up a committee to regulate A -frame real estate I - 2 - signs and has been policing violations for the last two years. Chairman Sine thanked Mr. Smith for his contributions and requested that staff notify him of the date of the public hearing. Mr. Carl Heymann, Director of the Sign Users Council of California was given the floor. He reported the meeting of the Council with City staff, and commented that the draft appeared to be very comprehensive, well written and easy to understand. However, he suggested that some of the definitions could be simplified and some of the processes could be clarified. He questioned how much detail the Commission wished at this time, noting that possibly an hour or two of discussion could be used. Chairman Sine suggested that Mr. Heymann give detailed written information to staff for their review and editing, so that more comprehensive discussion could follow at the next study meeting. Mr. Heymann agreed to this process, but did wish to emphasize two points at this time. 1. He questioned if there could be legal difficulties at a later time because sign applicants on Auto Row are given more signage than other types of sign applicants in the same zone. 2. He also questioned the discretionary decisions that could be made with regard to size, height, color, etc. over and above the ordinance provisions. He amplified that the Council believes in a self-governing Code. Chairman Sine thanked Mr. Heymann for his information and requested he give details to staff. Assistant City Planner Yost reported on staff meeting with the Chamber of Commerce Sign Committee. He reviewed in detail ten suggestions that were formulated during this meeting. They are: 1. Permit developmental signs by a group of property owners in a C-4 or M-1 District. 2. Establish two classes of roof signs: fin signs and others. 3. Review proposed requirements for granting of sign exceptions. 4. Have code --clearly state that--changeable.copy-signs may_,have copy changed: without .-permit . 5. Allow one master sign per construction project with total area up to 100 SF. 6. Simplify Sec. 22.42.01 by eliminating construction details. 7. Consider deletion of Sec. 22.42.03 pertaining to ground signs. 8. Increase permitted sign area in C-1 or C-2 to 64 SF. 9. Increase size of exempt real estate signs. 10. Consider allowing off -premise real estate directional signs on - 3 - public property during weekends and public holidays. There was considerable discussion on these points. The question was raised on the inclusion of graphics in the sign code. The Assistant City Planner remarked that the code dealt with traditional signs and no attempt had been made to deal with graphics or color since it was felt there was no strong agreement in the Commission on these factors. Commissioner Jacobs stated she considered graphics and color should be included in the code. She suggested the Commission go through the code page by page. With concurrence of other Commissioners, Chairman Sine proposed that the review start with the definitions in Chapter 22.04. Comments included Section 22.04.010, Abandoned Sign. Commissioner Mink questioned the use of the word "erected" with relation to painted signs. He suggested the use of "or" instead of "and" in this definition, which makes the sign responsible to one condition instead of to all three. Section 22.04.020 Awning: Commissioners agreed to Commissioner Francard's suggestion that "flat" be taken out of this paragraph, since a roll -up sign cannot be raised "flat" against the building. Section 22.04.040 Building: There was Commission question on the exact definition of a "building." At this point, in view of the long agenda before them, Commissioners agreed to hold a special meeting for the sole purpose of going over the sign code. This would be scheduled after all input had been received by the Planning Department. 2. ANZA FUTURE PLANS AND SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST Chairman Sine announced consideration of this subject. City Planner Swan reported that copies of the prospectus had been received and transmitted to Commissioners. He then accorded the floor to Mr. George Keyston for explanation and questions. Mr. Keyston stated that Anza's decision to liquidate had been brought about by the change in the economy. He stated Anza is not in a position to finance building at the present rate of inflation, and added that he thought the day of the individual developer was over. He thought future building on this land would be done by users them- selves, nor large corporations such as insurance companies. Mr. Keyston discussed the mechanics of liquidation which involve putting all properties in trust. Then when property is sold there is no corporation income tax. He said Anza will build no more buildings but will become a wholesaler of land to the users. He noted that shareholders election will be held in the middle of April, and he anticipated that the liquidation would be approved. He assured Commissioners that he and Mr. David Keyston would still be working with the City and would be here for years, but not as owners of the property. Commissioners voiced regret that this step was necessary for Anza Pacific. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Keyston stated he did not believe there would be any different useage of the land and that they were looking for people who would like to build in compatibility with C-4 regulations. However, the City would be dealing with multiple owners and multiple developments. Anza Pacific would - 4 - no longer do general construction or subcontracting work. They will continue to run Anza Parking and manage other buildings. Income pro- ducing properties will be the last to be sold. Anza has a sixty -year lease on the State owned lands. They can sell the leasehold or assign it but the State cannot sell it. City Attorney Coleman questioned a statement on Page 50 of the prospectus which advises that "Special permits might be obtained.. . . to build residential buildings." He remarked that rezoning would be necessary. Mr. Keyston agreed. There was Commission concern on the development of EIRs for individual properties since any project would have an impact on the traffic. Chairman Sine remarked on the danger of a breaking point where the streets are overloaded with traffic, which he considered might not be far in the future. Commissioner Mink summarized that the Commission is concerned that this large development will have impacts beyond the City of Burlingame. There was concern voiced about dealing with many different.users rather than Anza, but City Planner Swan felt the City would still have control because of the present zoning code. Commissioner Jacobs thought developers would not be building large structures in this area if there was not sufficient traffic entry, but the Chairman reminded her of San Francisco, and gave the opinion that developers are not concerned with traffic problems but merely the fact of building erection. Commissioner Jacobs noted the point of incremental growth which would have been reached in the Anza Master Plan, at which point measures should have been taken about traffic. Mr. Keyston concluded his remarks, stating that with construction costs, he thought the City could anticipate low rise buildings rather than high rise, and that there would be more users. Chairman Sine thanked Mr. Keyston for attending this meeting and for the information given. 3. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Chairman Sine introduced this item for consideration. City Planner Swan commented on the lengthy agenda remaining and the fact that much time could be devoted to this subject. He suggested this matter be considered at the end of the agenda. Commissioners concurred, and the Chairman so announced. 4. STAFF REPORT ON R & R AUTO REPAIR SERVICE AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED 9/8/75. City Planner Swan reported his investigation of this site and displayed an exhibit showing photographic views of different areas of the site and surrounding parcels. These showed dismantled cars occupying the easement; unauthorized parking or rigs, and general debris and unsightly conditions. He remarked that R & R Auto Repair Service appeared to be conducting automobile wrecking. - 5 - The City Planner pointed out that there had been some delay in processing the final parcel map with- its attendant conditions. Conditions included installing redwood slats in the chain link fence, and marking and striping of parking areas. These improvements have not been made as yet. In the following discussion, Commissioners asked that staff try to expedite the Dore map, but in general felt that this presumed wrecking use should be abated; and hiding the area by a slat fence was not the answer. City Attorney Coleman pointed out that R & R has a special permit and that permit could be canceled if conditions were not met. He noted that if they are violating the zoning ordinance they are violating the permit. The City Planner reported that Covey Trucking still has trucks in this area. City Engineer Davidson told Commissioners that the engineer's work on the parcel map was practically done and the map was now in the hands of Mr. Yarborough of Bank of America. He did not believe there was any legal way they could be made to bring the map in. City Attorney Coleman stated the City could contact them and ask the status of the map. Commissioners concurred that staff should be instructed to get findings of fact on the R & R garage, and if there is a violation of zoning ordinance the owner of the property should be notified and abatement proceedings started. Staff was so advised. 5. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE GROUND SIGN WITH 48 SF OF COPY PER FACE AT 380 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY WITH ANZA PACIFIC CORP. BEACH ROAD ASSOCIATES] LUTHER IZMIRIAN AND FREDERICK WURLITZER. Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing and requested staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost stated this is a non -illuminated double faced ground sign with 48 SF of area per face. He noted that drawing and site plans had been submitted to the Commission and this sign could be approved except that: 1. It raises a policy question since it is a proposal for a new type of sign not covered by the code. It is a "development sign" which advertises property both at this address and at others on Beach Road. Present sign code prohibits offsite advertising. 2. It could be considered a freeway sign which is also prohibited by code. If this sign were approved, it would constitute a precedent. The Assistant City Planner raised questions for the Commission's consideration. Among them were: In what other zoning districts would a "development sign" be appropriate? If permitted, how close to each other should the advertised properties be? Should there be a minimum number of property owners or minimum area of properties to be served by each sign? Who maintains the sign? Who takes it down when it becomes obsolete? Would its area be in addition to or included in the permitted signage for each participating property? Could such a sign be approved by staff or should it be reviewed by Commission? Should a draft code amendment be prepared for the next study meeting? The Assistant City Planner noted that there is already a non -conforming sign on the property at 380 Lang Road: the reader boards for the drive-in theatre. Mr. Dick Lavenstein was given permission to address the Commission. He told them this is a secondary result of Anza's plan for selling their property. This is a joint effort by property owners to identify these properties as "Anza Business Center", not as an adjunct to the drive-in theatres. He considered the sign conservative, and stated it fulfilled the requirements for a ground sign, adding that these property owners are in an isolated pocket of land and are looking for identity. In response to Commission question, Mr. Lavenstein described two signs which are now visible from the freeway: the Airport Office Center sign on Gilbreth and the Airport Business Center sign on Adrian. He stated the maintenance of this new sign would be the responsibility of the property owner on whose property the sign is placed. Chairman Sine considered approval of this sign would give a precedent for every developer in the area to follow. Mr. George Keyston reminded Commissioners that Anza had cleaned out a number of signs from their development, and this type of sign would be better than five individual ones. Mr. Lavenstein was asked if he was agent for all these people. He replied he was, only in respect to this application. Commissioner Mink commented he liked the motive of the sign and the clustering together of the property owners, but he suggested there should be some sort of binding document on all the property owners that this would become part of a master signage program, with delineation of responsibility as to who owns and maintains the sign and who changes the copy. Commissioner Kindig agreed. He disliked the use of the phone number which is for an office on Old Bayshore Highway. Mr. Lavenstein noted the City is in the process of drafting a sign code; and rather than have this type of sign as a precedent, specification for it could be included in the draft code. Commissioner Mink pointed out that this is an advertising sign, not an identification sign, which changes its aspect. Commissioner Francard was concerned with the responsibility for it. Commissioner Jacobs suggested the applicant be given time to workout an acceptable sign application. Mr. Lavenstein stated he had a lease for 13 years for this sign, and the lease was binding upon whomever acquired the property. He stated he wanted to satisfy the City's needs, and could come back again with a revised application. Commissioner Taylor pointed out his main objection was that "Anza Business Center" as such did not exist, and therefore the sign was misleading. Commissioner Mink agreed that it was not an entity. Chairman Sine questioned the applicant if he could return in one month with a revised application. Mr. Lavenstein agreed, and this application was declared continued to the first meeting in March. - 7 - RECESS The meeting reconvened after a short recess at 9:40 P. M. 6. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-34P FOR FLORIBUNDA CASITAS, A PROPOSED 30 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) 1515 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, BY "FLORIBUNDA DEVELOPERS" (NICOLAIDES & SON) City Planner Swan explained that an EIR is required for this project because it is a condominium permit which is discretionary. He noted receipt of plot plan and site plan, and told Commissioners his evaluation of the EIR would be favorable. He quoted his evaluation on the environmental assessment form which notes that the General Plan permits high density residential use in this R-3 district, with 51 plus dwelling units per acre. The project density is 33 dwelling units per acre. He questioned if Commissioners had found draft EIR to be adequate, accurate, and complete so that it could be set for hearing. Commissioner Kindig noted discrepancy in figures for curbline openings on Page 9. These are listed as 20 feet, 24 feet and 27 feet. Correct figures shoiW be 20 feet, 14 feet, and 17 feet. Mr. Arthur Dudley stated these would be corrected. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how parking was related to the dens in some of the units. City Planner Swan replied they have to be evaluated as to the possibilities of their becoming bedrooms. The EIR was set for hearing February 23, 1976. 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR FLORIBUNDA CASITAS AT 1515 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (APN 029-111-020/030/040 AND PORTION OF 050) ZONED R-3, BY "FLORIBUNDA DEVELOPERS" (NICOLAIDES & SON, APPLICANT) AND FIR FED SERVICE CORPORATION (PROPERTY OWNER) City Planner Swan listed documents received on this condominium permit as project plans with site and parking plans, landscaping plan, lighting plan, EIR-34P, CC & R and Agreements, and Bylaws. These he announced as on file for inspection in the Planning Department. He then turned presentation of the project over to Mr. Arthur Dudley. Mr. Dudley told Commissioners this will be a 30 unit condominium, 3 stories above parking, and similar in architecture to the Sandpiper West. The project will be on 39,215 SF of land and will have considerable landscaping. He explained other details of construction, noting that size of units ranges from one bedroom and one bath to 2 bedrooms, 2 baths and den. This accommodates a large range of buyers and prices will be from $50,000 to $100,000 per unit. In response to Commission question, he stated that children under 18 will not be permitted as permanent residents because most of the occupants would be middle- aged or older people who have raised their families. This application was set for hearing February 23, 1976. 8. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 6, 11 AND 12 AND A PORTION OF 7,10,13, BLOCK 8, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR FIR -FED SERVICE CORPORATION. City Engineer Davidson reported that all conditions on this map either have been met or are in the process of being met and demolition is being carried out on one of the parcels. City Planner Swan reminded Commissioners that yet another parcel map must be submitted, that of the subdivision of space within the building. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on February 23, 1976. 9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 40, THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 39 AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 41, BLOCK 58, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7, AT 1348 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR JOHN DEVINE. Chairman Sine requested staff report on this proposed parcel map. City Engineer Davidson distributed copies of the crap and told Commissioners Mr. Devine was in the process of removing a portion of his existing house to satisfy the requirement of a side setback. This map can then establish two 50' lots. The City Engineer said his only requirement was that there be either bond for or installation -of sewer and water service for the second lot. He recommended that the map be set for hearing. There was little discussion. The map was set for hearing on February 23, 1976. 10. VARIANCE TO COVER MORE THAN 40% OF AN R-1 LOT AT 419 DWIGHT ROAD (APN 029-181-110) BY MR. AND MRS. ERNEST SCHENONE City Planner Swan reported on this request to add a family room and powder room to a dwelling within the proper side and rear setbacks. The existing structures do not cover 40% of the lot but with the proposed addition coverage will be increased to 45.6%. The City Planner said that this application is well documented and there were no staff questions. He recommended it be set for hearing. There was little Commission discussion. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for public hearing on February 23, 1976. 11. VARIANCE TO ESTABLISH A LOT WITH NO STREET FRONTAGE, PORTION OF 1508 LA MESA DRIVE (APN 029-022-510) ZONED R-1, BY GORDON R. STROCHER 12. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 8, BURLINGAME MANOR NO. 2 AT 1508 LA MESA DRIVE, ZONED R-1, BY GORDON R. STROCHER Chairman Sine introduced this application for consideration. City Planner Swan prefaced his explanation by reading Code Section 25.28.060 which specifies that any lot in an R-1 district must have a frontage on a public street. The City Planner noted that Mr. Strocher's lot does not front on a public street and pointed out its location to Commissioners on the parcel map which was submitted. He read portion of environmental assessment which stated, "Variance would result in the creation of a new R-1 parcel. This alteration in land use limitations may have significant effect on the environment and is not found to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the - 9 - preparation of an EIR." He referred to Council Resolution #26-73 adopting procedures for the making of EIRs. He stated that this lot shows a slope of more than 10% in an area of geologic hazard, and a geologic report would be necessary for the safety of the structure. It was his assessment that an EIR should bb prepared to bring forth all the detail for a decision. Mr. Strocher was given permission to address the Commission, and quoted Code Section 25.08.400 which gives the definition of a lot as "a single parcel of land usually fronting on a street into which an urban block is usually divided for the construction of a building." He contended this illustrates .that a lot does not necessarily front on a public street. The City Attorney amplified that in the City of Burlingame you must either have frontage on a street or a variance in order to build on a lot. Mr. Strocher then went into the history of this addition and the fact that other property owners had constructed dwellings in this area with no problems. He noted his property is undisturbed land with no fill and is stablized by stands of oak trees. There was Commission question as to fire protection and the length of the 14' driveway which would serve the property. City Engineer Davidson estimated the length as probably 450', and stated the Fire Chief had a copy of the map for his recommendations. He noted there had been a problem with the fire hydrant near the site. Mr. Strocher stated the City is a party to the easement without maintenance. Commissioners were concerned about the possibility of slippage and the slope. City Planner Swan explained that in his opinion an EIR was necessary because issuance of a zoning variance is a discretionary project. This variance is comparable to rezoning one lot from R-1 to R-2 because it divides one existing lot into two lots. By changing the land use limitations in the creation of one new parcel, it cannot be called exempt. La Mesa Lane already provides access to homes on five lots. Inihe following Commission discussion the advisability of even putting a structure in this area of seismic hazard was questioned. City Attorney Coleman suggested no subdivision map was needed since there are no public improvements and the lots are already there. Commissioners upheld the City Planner's determination that an EIR is needed. Mr. Strocher protested the decision, and was informed he had the alternatives of filing an EIR on this project or filing an appeal to the City Planner's decision. The application was continued to the March study meeting. 12. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 8, BURLINGAME MANOR NO. 2 AT 1508 LA MESA DRIVE, ZONED R-1, BY GORDON R. STROCHER In conjunction with the foregoing application, this application was also continued to the March study meeting. - 10 - 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PARKING OF AUTOMOBILES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AT 500-600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ON PORTIONS OF LOTS 9-19, BLOCK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. 6 AND PORTIONS OF STATE PARCELS 9 AND 10 (APN 026-342-210,26-361-010 THROUGH 110 AND 026-361-140) ZONED C-4 BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION. City Planner Swan quoted negative declaration which affirmed that no environmental impact report would be required for this use. He noted the land was owned by Anza and the State of California, and a very well defined plan should be submitted showing the exact area when it is implemented. Mr. George Keyston addressed the Commission, telling them it is hoped to develop this area for parking in anticipation of the sale of land south of Airport Boulevard which is presently used for this purpose. Application is being made this far ahead of time in order to acquire the necessary fill material. He was questioned as to type of fill, and stated it would be rock fill - not Bay mud. One Commissioner commented that by using all purpose fill, the use would not necessarily be automobile parking in the future. Mr. Keyston stated that this temporary use gave poor returns, and they could not afford to pave land for it and put in improvements. It was noted there would be no parking need anticipated for another year. There was Commission request that the application wording be changed to read "storage" instead of "parking" of automobiles. Mr. Keyston agreed. There was another suggestion that since Anza will use State land for this purpose there should be a statement that this is consis- tent with Anza's lease agreement with the State. City Attorney Coleman noted that the use is consistent. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing on February 23, 1976. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1320 MARSTEN ROAD (APN 026-134-030) ZONED M-1, BY SCOTT ERICKSON OF BAY AREA COMPACTS ONLY (LESSEE) AND WILLIAM NERLI (PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners this agency would occupy the middle bay in a three -tenant building. 200 SF would be office, and 2500 SF would be storage space for compact cars. In front of the warehouse is a 5,000 SF fenced area; the applicant intends to lease rights to 50% of this area. His plans are to rent 45-50 cars daily. Hours of operation would be from 7:30 A. M. to 9:00 P. M. The Assistant City Planner read excerpts from application letter and noted that a negative declaration had been filed for this project. He introduced Mr. Erickson, who announced his availability for questions. There was some Commission question on signage in this area. Mr. Erickson stated he would file a sign application, but it would not be for a freeway sign. There was Commission suggestion that Mr. Erickson specify at the public hearing that cars will be serviced and washed at a different location, and he should make a statement as to the traffic expected from this operation. Mr. Erickson volunteered that his landlord had offered him the use of his gas pump on the premises. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing February 23, 1976. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF FOOD AT RETAIL AT 1461 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY APN 026-111-110) ZONED M-1, BY WALTER SEELOS OF CLUB CATERING (LESSEE) AND WILLIAM NERLI (PROPERTY. OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost displayed site plan to Commissioners and told them this application is to remodel 825 SF of an existing office and kitchen space into a small cafe which would sell light meals such as sandwiches, and have take-out food. Hours would be from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P. M. Up to 45 people could be seated in the remodeled area, and no additional people would be employed. The applicant proposes to bring a parking layout to the hearing, and believes he has adequate space. Customers will probably be walk-in from the surrounding offices. A negative declaration has been filed. Mr. Seelos addressed Commissioners to the effect that the purpose of this operation is to serve people who work in the area with a low- cost food establishment. This application was set for hearing February 23, 1976. M-1 USES Commissioner Jacobs commented that in the last few months there has been much granting of retail sales in the M-1 area. She stated she was concerned that the M-1 zoning needs revision, possibly with the idea of commercial use. There was some discussion, and it was suggested that staff be directed to have this as an agenda item on the next study session. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE AT 1203 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-224-060) ZONED C-1 BY JOSEPH GELLER. City Planner Swan reviewed code regulation that a structure that covers more than 75% of the lot in the Burlingame Avenue offstreet Parking District requires a special permit. He reported that Mr. Geller's present building is a five unit apartment with 7 possible parking spaces. No parking credit has been taken. Mr. Geller proposes building a 3 story office building on the site which would cover 100% of the lot. The City Planner added that any building exceeding two stories in height in the Burlingame Offstreet Parking District needs a special permit from the City Council. (Sec. 25.70.040 amended by Ord. 911, March 20, 1972). He then quoted environmental assessment which states, "Occupancy of the proposed office building project will have significant environmental impact upon the Burlingame Avenue Area Off -Street Parking District. Employees, patrons and visitors to this site will increase the demand for off-street parking spaces. Estimated cost of the project is about $500,000. . .An environmental impact report is needed to provide more information about the proposed office building at 1203 Howard Avenue." He identified the gross floor area of the project as 14,550 SF. He considered that with this floor area there would be 3,300 SF more than the maximum area that could be built on 75% lot coverage. This extra 3300 S.F. is worth 11 parking spaces. - 12 - Noting that the application was well documented, he nevertheless considered that more information should be provided in the form of an EIR which should include the types of uses, the types of office people, and the amount of floor area per person. Mr. Geller confirmed the facts presented on his proposal and stated he would be happy to furnish any additional information needed to get this application a hearing at the meeting of February 23. He did not wish to prepare an EIR and considered that it would be difficult to estimate the types of uses that would be in the building, noting he hoped to occupy the ground floor with a financial institution. Commissioners discussed the application. There was some adverse reaction to having a three story building close to the sidewalk and they agreed there should be an EIR. Mr. Geller commented that his understanding was that since Parking District assessments had been paid, the property had parking. Upon being informed that it did have parking but a special permit is required to exceed 75% lot coverage, he remarked that the 75% coverage was passed after the District was formed. The City Planner confirmed this, but noted that the 75% set a review line. It does not set a parking requirement. Commission suggestion was that Mr. Geller submit an EIR or cut lot coverage down to 75%. Mr. Geller commented that a recent decision involving the parking district and a lot coverage above 75% had been favorable because the applicant had paid into the parking district. (Ed. The Rorke building addition did not exceed two stories.) He stated he would confer with the City Planner on an EIR. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BEAUTY SALON IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-321-370) BY NEIL VANNUCCI OF V & T INVESTMENTS City Planner Swan introduced Mr. Neil Vannucci for explanation of this late application. Mr. Vannucci distributed plans for his project, and told Commissioners he had purchased this building together with two other owners. They had painted the building and planted street trees. He explained he would like to lease part of this building to a unique beauty salon, and the lease has been signed subject to approval. He introduced Mr. Gerald Norcia, prospective operator of the beauty salon. Mr. Norcia reported he was stewardess supervisor for a large airline. The proposed beauty salon would specialize in the grooming of flight attendants and catering to their special needs. He remarked on the desirability of this location close to the airport. He forsaw no problem with traffic since stewardesses stay in nearby hotels and he hopes to have a mini bus for transportation. Mr. Norcia then introduced a young lady who is stewardess supervisor. She stated she was responsible for the grooming of 1,200 flight attendants and was very careful with her recommendations to them for beauty salons. She stressed the importance of excellent appearance for airline stewardesses and her hope for this prospective salon. - 13 - Mr. Vannucci stated the building had 24 parking spaces which he considered would meet the standard code for warehouse and office building. The City Planner remarked that staff had not yet evaluated the application because of its late submittal. Mr. Norcia added that most of the trade would be from his airline, and the advertising would take the form of placards on the mini bus. There was some Commission discussion after which Chairman Sine set this application for hearing February 23, 1976. 18. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SERVICING AND INSTALLATION OF MARINE ENGINES IN THE C-1 DISTRICT AT 247-251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (APN 029-211-040/050) BY THOR THORSTENSON (APPLICANT)., R. A. WHITE (OWNER OF 251 CALIFORNIA), AND EUGENE AND LOUIS IVANI (OWNERS OF 247 CALIFORNIA) . City Planner Swan reported to Commissioners that this application is to expand an existing business, retail sale of boats, into a vacant property next door. The expansion would allow Mr. Thorstenson to do light mechanical and assembly work on boats. He explained that in a C-1 district this requires a special permit. He read letter of application from Mr. Thorstenson, and stated that a negative declaration might be filed on this project. Mr. Thorstenson was given permission to address the Commission, and pointed out that the entire block has service business, such as motorcycle shops, etc. He stated his work is probably less noisy than any of these. In response to Commission questions, he stated that the boats are brought to the shop through the adjacent alley, Hatch Lane, and he has been in this location since 1967. This application was set for public hearing February 23, 1976. 3. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Chairman Sine reintroduced this subject for discussion. Commissioners commented briefly on staff recommendations. Commissioner Mink suggested regulation of accessory building height, setbacks, and percent coverage of the required rear yard. C�d+EmaWnh�i�Rth;1k Y_%4_iWre should be side and rear yard setbacks./ commissioner in i.g commented on undesirable effects of allowing second stories over garages. Commissioner Jacobs liked the 15' height, but did not want flat roofs, and suggested a restriction on bulk. There was some discussion of con- solidation of buildings and more clarity in regulating attached garages. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:15 A. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary