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