Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.08.08COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION August 8, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT 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 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES C. Sine requested that the next to last paragraph on page 5 of the July 25, 1977 minutes be amended to read as follows: "C. Sine felt the record should show that a number of years ago San Mateo County voted not to participate in the formation of BART, and that the present legislation requires that BART expand to some six other East Bay cities, including Livermore, before possibly extending a line down the Peninsula. He also stated that if San Mateo County, by a vote of the people, votes to get into BART, they must pick up 30% of the bonded indebtedness for BART exclusive of building cost. If BART's extension to the San Francisco Airport ever becomes a reality, potential air travelers should be warned of the unavailability of storage space for luggage." The minutes of the July 25, 1977 meeting were then approved as mailed and amended. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE ON PARCEL A, A PORTION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1417 BURLINGAME AVENUE (PORTION OF APN 029-201-090), ZONED C-1, BY JOSEPH KARP (ND -120P POSTED JULY 29, 1977) C. P. Swan discussed this application. He distributed a communication from the Fire Dept. which had been received late afternoon the day of the meeting which stated the Dept. "would be willing to accept the plan as is, provided the building is provided with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system throughout." He noted a colored artist's rendering of the proposed Fox Mall and called attention to colored floor plans which indicated lot coverage on each of the two parcels. Items #1 and #2 on tonight's agenda are parallel applications for structures that cover more than 75% of the lot area. Each lot would have a 2 -story building with 5,800 SF of gross floor area at ground level and 6,700 SF of floor area on the second level for retail stores and shops. There would be a 20' x 80' open interior court with stair and elevator to covered deck around the court on the second floor. The stair and elevator are proposed Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 directly on the property line, half on each lot. On the second level 4 -hour fire resistive walls would satisfy Building Dept. requirements. The elevator and stair occupy an area within the interior courtyard and the actual coverage of each building would be 8,030 SF, or 89.2% of the 9,000 SF lot. 75% of each lot would be 6,750 SF; the floor area in excess of that figure would be 1,280 SF which', divided by 400 SF/ parking space, would result in a net parking deficiency of 3.2. Since any portion of a parking space is considered one space, each structure is deficient four parking spaces for a total of eight. Mr. Swan drew attention to the conditions suggested in the staff report dated August 5, 1977 and discussed these briefly. The Fire Dept. had suggested 4 -hour fire resistive construction in addition to an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout. The Building Inspector suggested the stairwell be shifted one bay toward the rear to more equally provide access to the facilities throughout the building. 'The dimensions of the elevator and stairwell in the courtyard were determined to be 5' x 9' (with walls) and 12' x 18' respectively. Joseph Karp, 1103 Juanita Avenue, Burlingame addressed Commission, stating he was also representing his associate, Mario Castro, this evening. He discussed parking require- ments as related to various plans they had considered for the theater property and advised they had agreed to completely sprinkle the buildings. He also questioned the calculations with regard to parking deficiency. After some discussion Chm. Taylor told the applicant that if Commission granted the application, approval would be conditioned with compliance with the formula for payment to the Parking District; the appropriate body for interpretation of this ordinance would be the City Council. There was some discussion between the applicant, his architect and Commission regarding the Building Inspector's suggestion to move the staircase. Mr. Karp believed the proposed center staircase would help to create circulation for the business people on the second floor. He told Commission the recommended joint ingress/egress easement for use of the elevator and Stair #3 would be no problem, and would be executed before the building permits were issued. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink discussed the intent of the Burlingame Avenue Area Off -Street Parking District Regulations and floor area ratio with regard to the two proposed projects. He concluded there is reasonable cause to believe that the intent of the ordinance has been met by the proposed design. There would be less than 15,000 SF of gross floor area and the floor area ratio would be less than 1.5 on each parcel; lot coverage appeared to be a matter of discretion. He wished to have this considered by Council at the appropriate time. C. Jacobs moved approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) building to be constructed per plans received August 5, 1977 showing a 4 -hour fire wall next to the common property line; (2) joint ingress/egress easement for both the elevator and Stair #3; (3) assurance that the 10' x 30' (300 SF) second floor area at the front of the building will not be enclosed or used; (4) a payment to be made to the Parking District as specified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-76 adopted September 13, 1976 and as modified and approved by the City Council on November 1, 1976; (5) building to satisfy all municipal codes, especially Building and Fire regulations, including the Fire Chief's memo of August 8, 1977; (6) that stairs be moved per Building Official's recommendation. Second C. Cistulli and approved on unanimous roll call vote. Chm. Taylor advised the applicant the dollar amount of the parking assessment would be determined by the City Council as the appropriate body and reminded no building permit would be issued until the joint easement is executed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 8, 1977 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE ON PARCEL B, A PORTION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1415 BURLINGAME AVENUE (PORTION OF APN 029-201-090), ZONED C-1, BY MARIO R. CASTRO (ND -121P POSTED JULY 29, 1977) C. P. Swan noted this identical application for the lot next door to Mr. Karp's parcel, Mario Castro being the partner who owns the other part of the proposed Fox Mall. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink moved approval of this special permit with identical conditions as for Item #1. Second C. Cistulli and unanimously approved on roll call vote. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 859 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-401-510), BY TOM MONK FOR PUROLATOR COURIER CORPORATION.(APPLICANT) WITH SARMIENTO INTERNATIONAL INC. (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -119P POSTED 7/29/77) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the background of this application, noting the several moves the company had made since 1969. In early 1974 the name was changed from American Courier Corp. to Purolator Courier Corp.; a new business license was applied for and approved. He noted reasons for the present application: (1) Commission decisions over the past 2-3 years have established that a courier company is a conditional use in the M-1 District; (2) the company has grown over the past eight years and now operates nine vehicles over two shifts, between 2:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M.; (3) the most recent move was to 859 Cowan Road and a staff inspection for a new business license resulted in the determination that a special permit was necessary. Mr. Yost referred to the site plan circulated to Commissioners; it shows a 12,400 SF building which requires 32 on-site parking spaces to code standard. Thirty spaces are provided and 11 of these are leased to Purolator for their exclusive use. This is six or seven spaces more than their code entitlement and makes the rest of the parking deficient by eight spaces. Maintenance is done on-site and vehicles are cleaned at local car washes. The company presently has eight full-time employees based at this location and a further 17 who work as couriers over less than a 40 hour week. Most of these people are out on routes with the majority of extra traffic being generated at the beginning and end of each shift. During Commission discussion C. Jacobs questioned the availability of parking for the courier vehicles at the beginning and end of each shift. Mr. Yost advised he had observed some vehicles parked off -premise. Tom Monk, District Manager of Purolator, described this aspect of their business. It is a pickup and/or dropoff operation; eight full-time employees does not necessarily mean eight employees on shift at one time. A full-time employee is a person who works 32 hours a week, but the 25 full-time people work sporadically, during the week or on the weekend. There are six vehicles which depart between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M., returning by Noon, and six which depart between 2:30 P.M. and 4:00 P.M., returning between 8:00 and 11:00 P.M. On Saturdays and Sundays there are only two vehicles out on the road each day. Mr. Monk advised that Sarmiento is not the landlord of the building now; it was sold to Airport Executive Offices. During further discussion it was determined the company has nine operational vehicles at the present time in Burlingame; the total building is 12,400 SF; five parking spaces would be required for the 4,300 SF warehouse space and 27 spaces for the 8,100 SF office area, making a total parking requirement of 32 spaces. Thirty spaces are shown on the lot now, and 11 have been released to Purolator. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 C. Mink stated concern over parking for the total site; perhaps this should be discussed with the landlord, not with Purolator, since Purolator has more than adequate parking spaces for its needs. The Commissioner was told by Joel Auslen, Operations Supervisor, that the largest shift would have no more than seven employees and at the most impacted time of operation the maximum number of vehicles brought to the site would be eight, six going out on runs and two internal to the organization. C. Mink summarized Commission discussion regarding parking: there are nine company vehicles; at the most dense time of operation six of these are on the road and those parking spaces are probably filled by two on-site employee vehicles; essentially Purolator would be using six spaces for courier cars, two for inside cars and three for pickup vehicles, for a total of 11. C. Jacobs felt the applicant was provided with the parking he needed but questioned the fact that the rest of the building would then be deficient. Mr. Monk told C. Francard the repair work was being done within the building at the rear. Asst. C. P. Yost noted types of repairs: oil changes, tire changes, etc., not a commercial repair garage; there is a service hoist in the building. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Asst. C. P. Yost told C. Jacobs there were two suites presently vacant in the building. The Commissioner again stated her concern should the building fill up as office space with the consequent deficient parking and possible parking on the street. C. Mink moved approval of this special permit with the change in property owner to Airport Executive Offices. Second C. Sine and unanimously approved on roll call vote. 4. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ANZA AIRPORT PARKING SERVICE AT 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD; PROPERTY INCLUDING LOTS 3-13, BLOCK 7; LOTS,8-12, BLOCK 5; LOTS 1/2/14/15 AND PARCEL B OF BLOCK 7; AND THAT PORTION OF PARCEL C, BLOCK 10 WHICH IS CURRENTLY PAVED; ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6, ZONED C-4; BY DAVID H. KEYSTON FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (ND -74P POSTED 1/16/76) David Keyston, the applicant, was determined to be present. C. P. Swan noted the previous special permit had actually expired on August 3, 1977 and that minutes of the 1/26/76 meeting had been circulated to Commission. He pointed out this area is now owned by Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust and includes the redevelopment area. The application is for a one year extension, with the same conditions applying, and Mr. Swan believed Commission could extend this special permit with a simple motion. A condition might be added that if the Bayside Redevelopment Project were implemented the permit would become invalid. C. Mink commented that the original motion stated: ". . . this special permit be voided for those lots for which a building permit has been granted," which he thought would be sufficient to cover the condition suggested by the C.P. He inquired if it was important to grant the extension with all previously stated conditions, and C.A. Coleman stated he believed this would be wise. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in favor and David Keyston addressed Commission. He noted a technical problem in that the condition quoted by C. Mink would require Anza to shut down the parking lot the minute it received a permit to build a new parking lot. C. Mink thought only those lots where redevelopment took place would be affected. Mr. Keyston added he would be happy to go along with the pleasure of Commission as to length of this extension; it was understood that should the Bayside Redevelopment Project materialize there would be no competition between the existing and the proposed airport parking. There were no further audience comments in favor and none in opposition. Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 C. Mink moved approval of a one year extension of this special permit to Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust with the same conditions as for the original special permit approved on January 26, 1976. (Ed. These conditions were: ". . . that there be a continuance of the waiver of liability, there be no parking in front setbacks, there be no new signs added, this special permit be voided for those lots for which a building permit has been granted, and that no cars be parked within 35' of structures either completed or under construction." The one year extension is to August 3, 1978.) Motion seconded by C. Cistulli and unanimously approved on voice vote. A short recess was called at 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:07 P.M. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-43E, FOR THE BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item. Initially this Report by H.K.S., Incorporated considered (1) a convention center; (2) 150 rooms on public property; (3) a 9 -hole golf course; (4) relocation of Bayside Park and (5) acquisition by the City of Anza Airport Parking. Since that time the disposition of the sleeping rooms has been altered and they are now on Sheraton Inn property and have been increased to 210 rooms. Draft EIR-43E addresses the original 150 rooms. The main text of the Report is divided into four parts: Part One - The Proposed Development; Part Two - Environmental Considerations; Part Three - Impact Overview; and Part Four - Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The site plan of the proposed project on page 16 was pointed out and, on page 17, the more detailed diagram which shows the main convention center building, the 150 room addition, the existing Sheraton Hotel and the Golf Clubhouse/Restaurant. Alternate One, a 210 room hotel addition on the Sheraton property, is described on pp. 101-104 and is the project presently intended by the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Yost noted the diagram on page 101 is the only information on this alternate currently available to the Planning Dept.; however, he understood that an adjustment has been proposed by the project architect which would move the convention center meeting rooms closer to the existing Sheraton Inn. H.K.S., Incorporated was not represented at this meeting and the Asst. C. P. suggested the most direct approach might be questions on the EIR from Commission. He continued with a comment on procedures, noting a Draft Resolution prepared by the C.A. to ensure that State EIR requirements are followed in the processing of this EIR. There is a 45 day review period preceding the public hearing and it was suggested the earliest the EIR could be heard by the P.C. would be September 26, 1977. C.A. Coleman stated his concern with regard to updating Burlingame's EIR Guidelines; this had been discussed with Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch's office (Counsel for the Redevelopment Agency) and this Draft Resolution resulted. Basically the resolution starts the processing procedure after receipt of an EIR. It was Mr. Coleman's hope that in about a month Burlingame would have proposed guidelines to update its present ones. He remarked on the necessity for carefulness; lawsuits are lost on procedures, not circumstances. Chm. Taylor introduced Sharon White, attorney in the offices of Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch of San Mateo. Attorney White explained that the main purpose of the resolution was to set forth in detail the procedures the State Guidelines require in processing an EIR; Commission would not be approving at this time, merely stating that the EIR can be circulated to agencies and interested persons and citizen groups. She noted that each of the steps set forth in the resolution are required by law, and adoption of a resolution is a good way to set out the step by step procedure. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 Chm. Taylor and Commissioners reviewed the resolution paragraph by paragraph with respect to the assigning of each responsibility. The Chm. suggested the C.P. be responsible for filing a Form C-95 with the Secretary for The Resources Agency of the State of California and for mailing this Notice of Completion to all organizations and individuals who have requested same. C. P. Swan suggested the resolution be amended to include the date of July, 1977 when referring to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In further discussion the City Clerk was directed to give public notice of the Report; the C. P. to distribute copies of the Report to all involved public agencies as well as the appropriate public libraries, and to receive written comments to the Burlingame Planning Commission during the 45 day review period. Replying to C. Sine, C. A. Coleman said the 210 room addition to the Sheraton is included as Alternative One and is a part of this EIR; it would appear a separate EIR would not be required for this type of convention center project. C. Mink moved adoption of Resolution No. 14-77 "A Resolution Making Determinations with Respect to Draft Impact Report, Directing Circulation of Said Report for Comments, Establishing the Time and Place of Public Hearing Concerning Environmental Effects and Providing for Notice Relating Thereto - Bayside Redevelopment Project and Plan." It was noted this resolution sets EIR-43E for public hearing by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1977. There was Commission consensus on the suggested responsibilities in the resolution, and Resolution No. 14-77 was adopted on unanimous roll call vote. 6. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.70 TO PERMIT THE ADDITION OF: 210 ROOMS TO THE EXISTING SHERATON INN AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-290-310), ZONED M-1, BY BARRY SILVERTON WITH PHILIP WASSERSTROM (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 13, 1977) Asst. C. P. Yost discussed this application, a private proposal to add 210 rooms to the present Sheraton Inn. In Alternative One of EIR-43E the parking provided on the Sheraton property is part of a larger parking area available for the Redevelopment Project. With this interpretation the project is adequately described in EIR-43E; and after public hearing on the EIR a hearing could be held on the variance application. Mr. Yost advised the applicant has made statements that this application should stand on its own and the request be treated independently of the convention center project. If this is the preferred alternative before Commission this evening, it is the opinion of staff as well as the traffic consultant that the EIR is not adequate. Figures used by National Feasibility Corporation and H.K.S., Incorporated were predicated on a larger pool of convention center parking which is off-site from the Sheraton Inn property. If this parking next door is not available, staff believes additional detailed information should be prepared by the applicant; at this point there is not enough information to enable the P.C. to hold a hearing. Barry Silverton addressed Commission, stating it was his hope and expectation that there would be a convention center; however, to ensure an early start to the Sheraton expansion, he was formally requesting that this variance application be treated separately from the convention center project. He spoke of loan commitments for private financing. Sheraton improvements could start in October, whereas the bond issue would not become a reality until December. Mr. Silverton told Commission he would be willing to comply with P.C. request for additional information by the next Commission meeting. It was his belief the traffic consultant would indicate there is enough parking. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 Chm. Taylor suggested further information be furnished concerning the 210 room addition as a separate and distinct project; it could be at the discretion of the C.P. if a negative declaration could be posted. Mr. Silverton stated he wished to cooperate fully in order to meet the October.date and said he would work: with staff as to the information required from consultants. He added he would like to be on the P.C. agenda of August 22. Chm. Taylor reminded the applicant of the lead time Commission would need to study the information submitted by a traffic consultant. It was Mr. Silverton's belief the statistical data needed had actually been completed. C. Cistulli questioned procedure if the variance is not granted; could it be brought up with the Convention Center before a year had elapsed. C. A. Coleman told him there were a number of ways this could be handled. C. E. Kirkup stated his concern over additional work by the City's consultant for the Bayfront Traffic Study and felt the City had first claim on his time. The applicant noted that the Anza property had been studied by other traffic engineers in the past; he would be willing to retain someone else. C. Sine preferred that the matter go through the proper channels; there appeared to be too many "ifs" and he did not like the continual threat of the loan commitment. C. Francard noted the variance application also included a figure of 330 rooms and was told by the C.A. the idea of 330 rooms had been dropped. Mr. Silverton confirmed this statement.. C. Jacobs inquired about a variance previously granted by the P.C. to the Sheraton for parking; Asst. C. P. Yost told her this had never been implemented and the permit had expired. Mr. Silverton reiterated his request to stay on the agenda for the next P.C. meeting and said he would comply with Commission requests. C. Mink noted three possibilities: (1) negative declaration; (2) EIR for the hotel expansion without a convention center project; (3) EIR within the context of the proposed convention center. It was noted that this last possibility has already been considered and appears as Alternative One in EIR-43E. With no objection from Commission, Chm. Taylor referred the matter to staff. He cautioned the applicant that if staff discretion finds that an EIR is necessary, Commission would not wish to consider an incomplete application. 7. VARIANCE FOR POOL EQUIPMENT AND TOILET ROOMS AT 2525 POPPY DRIVE BY JOHN CASEY Asst. C. P. Yost referred to site plan showing location of proposed pumproom/toilet room. A building permit can be issued for an accessory building if it is in the rear 30% of the lot. The proposed location is in the rear 40% of the lot. It is next to a 10' alley and is a considerable distance from the neighbor's house. Mr. Casey has a building permit for a swimming pool and is about to build it. He said the building would be 16 feet from the neighbor's house. C. Jacobs asked if sections were available and learned they were not. Mr. Casey said there were no plans for a building but the plans for the pool show a pump pad. Chief Building Inspector had recommended going to Planning Commission and later submitting plans for the accessory building permit. Commission set variance for hearing Aug. 22, 1977. 8. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR THE BELLEVUE CONDOMINIUMS, A 25 -UNIT PROJECT AT 1210 BELLEVUE AVENUE, BY JACK WOODSON FOR THOMAS J. GLYNN C. P. Swan referred to adopted condominium guidelines. The City seldom receives enough detail for thorough review of a condominium and the privacy provided. Mr. Glynn purchased a lot with a single family dwelling and combined it with a larger parcel. The final parcel map was approved by Council July 5, 1977. It is now one lot. A 25 -unit building would be constructed with one unit and 19 parking spaces at ground level, 28 parking spaces at a basement level. Project would have six 1 -bedroom and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 19 2 -bedroom units and a total of 47 parking spaces A swimming pool is located at the side and behind a is a 20 foot rear yard,with no accessory buildings useable for recreational purposes. Page 8 August 8, 1977 including two for guest parking. portion of the building. There or vehicle parking,that will be C. P. reported that John Hoffman, Park Director had reviewed the landscaping plan and made a site inspection earlier that day. Mr. Hoffman had reported that a large liquidambar street tree could be saved by relocation of the driveway and sidewalk. C. P. Swan requested additional information: (1) orientation with respect to buildings with structures on surrounding lots; (2) provisions to achieve sound control and privacy, and insulation of walls and roof; (3) plans that indicate location and type of utilities, building services and separate facilities for the individual units. C. Sine questioned use of 1"x4" tongue and groove horizontal siding. Jack Woodson advised it was not plywood but sawn wood. He referred to a building at Market and Noe in San Francisco that had a similar siding to the ceiling height of the first floor. The enclosure structure around the pool would be constructed 8-1/2' or 9' high. C. E. Kirkup commented that new street trees would be planted further back from the curb and behind the sidewalk. The condominium permit and tentative subdivision map*were set for hearing August 22, 1977. (* Agenda Item #9) 10. CASITAS D'ORO, A 15 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1209 OAK GROVE AVENUE, BY FRANK DONAHUE/ JOHN GIANNETTO/J. J. QUILL 11. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, 1209 OAK GROVE AVENUE This project has 15 two-bedroom units; C. P. Swan suggested condominium plans be considered with respect to privacy and the quality of life provided for the occupants. A driveway along one side yard provides access to covered parking at grade beneath the building. Units.with openings on that driveway will have the impact of traffic in and out to the rear of the lot.by other residents, almost like living on a private road. The structure will appear as a three story building. It has been designed for maximum yield. The C. P. asked how private will it be? The City has no details for mechanical equipment. C. E. Kirkup expressed concern because the building is right next to the creek. The foundation should be designed to resist shaking and slipping of the creek bank. He noted many large trees, including a 30 inch magnolia, would be removed. Chm. Taylor questioned how the driveway with a 900 turn would work. C. Jacobs asked about insulation in walls facing the parking area. John Giannetto and Frank Donahue, property owners, were present. John Giannetto said anything that has to be done will be done. He asked about the driveway. C. P. Swan pointed out the 20'6" wide driveway, less width of fence, had a 900 turn at the end. It would be a tight turn and may not be the best quality access. Mr. Giannetto claimed the radius had been checked with the city. The condominium permit and tentative subdivision map were set for hearing August 22, 1977. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL BEDS AND MATTRESSES AT RETAIL AT 1333 MARSTEN ROAD BY RALEIGH M. EVERETT OF RESTINGHOUSE SOFA BEDS WITH OSCAR PERSON, PROPERTY OWNER Asst. C. P. Yost advised this business would occupy a portion of an existing building, this portion being about 34' wide, for materials to be wholesaled and retailed. The retail portion of the business requires a special permit. The applicant declares retail sales will approximate 15% of the total business. Negotiations are under way Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 to share a paved area. Perhaps the main question is whether beds should be sold at retail in the M-1 District. Chm. Taylor inquired about signs. Mr. Everett planned to put a 4' x 8' sign directly against the building. C. Mink asked how many people would be dropping in for retail business. There was no specific answer. Mr. Everett estimated 15% of $1,000,000 would be several hundred beds. C. Mink also asked for some division of space to know what part would be used for storage and what for display; and an indication of how merchandise would be delivered to and from the premises. The Commission discussed parking and access drives. Mr. Everett indicated there is an existing 12 foot driveway on Rollins Road and he is planning a 20 foot driveway. This special permit was set for hearing August 22, 1977. 13. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR OSCAR PERSON PROPERTY AT 751 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND 741 SAN MATEO AVENUE C. E. Kirkup reported that this property was the subject of EIR-47P, Reclassification from R-3 to C-2 which had been recommended to Council for consideration. Eventually there will be a building constructed on the back portion of Lots 11 and 12. The map calls for an access easement to link San Mateo Avenue with California Drive. The C. E. recommended the tentative parcel map be set for hearing August 22, 1977. 14. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE PROPERTY AT 1862-1872 ROLLINS ROAD INTO TWO PARCELS FOR ARTHUR RUDE, JR. C. E. Kirkup reported the owner proposes to subdivide an existing parcel into two parcels. Each parcel will have an existing building with approximately 14,000 SF and 18,000 SF respectively. There would be a common ingress and egress. C.E. stated this map could be set for hearing. Asst. C. P. Yost advised there are two older buildings; the existing floor areas by use within the buildings have been provided. Total parking required is 49 spaces. The possible parking is 31 spaces. The proposed dividing line would result in Parcel A having a 16% deficiency and be short four spaces; Parcel B would have a 58% deficiency and be short 14 spaces. A small triangular area is noted as a possible addition. This should be included and there should be an equitable distribution of parking between the two parcels. A varinace may be needed to handle the parking deficiency. The C. E. believed a variance could be considered at the same time as the map or the tentative map could be conditioned. C. Mink believed the map should include the proposed acquisition. The Asst. C.P. remarked that map details may come out after the variance information is presented. It was agreed by Commission that staff would schedule the tentative map and -variance when ready. 15. Asst. C. P. Yost reported that Commission had required staff report back on the 1/24/77 special permit to Leite Drayage Company. Leite Drayage is doing the same thing as before. There have been no changes in their operation. The special permit can be confirmed and continue to run. 16. STAFF REPORT ON BUILDING PLANS FOR TWO 7 -UNIT APARTMENTS AT 1329/1333 EL CAMINO REAL Asst. C.P. Yost reported he had measured the space between apartment buildings at 1329/1333 E1 Camino Real to be 18'-1". Exterior walls project out; the distance between building walls on the second and third floor is less than 18' because there is an overhang. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 C. Cistulli asked how cars could back around within the 18 feet allotted. C. Kindig also asked, are you sure that building meets code? Asst. C. P. Yost reminded Commission that it was this particular plan which sparked the Fire Chief's memorandum about squeezing a lot of cars on a given lot. This plan shows the cars parked in the side yard. The way the code is worded we do not actually prohibit the parking of cars in the side yard. This design uses our code to the fullest. 17. SERVICE VEHICLE PARKING ALONG MAGNOLIA AVENUE The C.A. had no new information to report. C. Cistulli felt parallel parking including double parking would be preferred to semis backed up to the curb. As it is now trucks block half the street. C. Kindig commented about the driveway to Wells Fargo Bank being blocked by a truck. Staff follow-up is expected. 18. URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 1107 This ordinance will expire September 6 unless it is extended at a noticed public hearing. C. Jacobs was not ready to make a recommendation to Council. C. Mink felt we are proceeding with the study on schedule, cannot complete it by September 6, but Council should consider extending the ordinance. David Keyston read August 8, 1977 letter advocating that the emergency ordinance not be extended or reinstated. His letter suggested exempting.five projects. C. Mink felt Council might consider extending or modifying the ordinance for the purpose of completing the study. C. Kindig noted Council had made certain exceptions. He felt they were familiar with .the situation and could make modifications if desired. It was Commission consensus to prepare a letter to Council in time for their August 15 meeting. 19. TITLE 25 CODE AMENDMENTS were considered: a) Amend parking regulations to allow compact cars. (Agenda item at Commission request.) C. P. Swan commented that since a major project had received a parking variance, for equity, other applicants would likely ask for similar consideration. He questioned if the Commission was ready to study the matter. C. Sine felt many other applications for compact cars would follow. The Commission preferred to wait for Council action on the King project and use it as a guideline for consideration. Staff should prepare code amendments for b, c and d. C. E. Kirkup suggested the Planning Commission request Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission study and review to come up with some parking standards. Planning Commission agreed to advise Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission that parking for compact cars has been considered by the Planning Commission. After Council action on the King Project the Planning Commission will seek Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission advice and consent before proceeding further. C. Kindig expressed support for the C.P.'s idea that after the first 50 parking spaces 20% compact spaces be considered. Language drafts are needed for other code amendments, agenda items b, c and d. The Asst. C. P. insisted we need to change wording to meet past practice. P.C. asked that ordinance drafts be presented at the next study meeting. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1977 20. PROGRESS REPORT ON LAND USE/BAYFRONT TRAFFIC STUDIES C. P. Swan reviewed the list of assumed property developments. He stated two approaches could be taken to determine the worst case: maximum traffic generated by total new development; minimum economic gain where municipal costs exceed expenditures. A certified list of assumptions was requested by J. D. Drachman for the first 30 day report. The traffic engineer will use all possible projects expected by 1980 for the first 30 days of study. Shortly thereafter decisions will have to be made to direct John Blayney Associates to prepare sketch plans, preliminary plan and then a final specific plan. If the Commission has anything to do with the specific plan it will eventually need to decide whether the possible projects are included or not. C. Mink suggested we optimize economic development with the future circulation system. C. E. Kirkup described the most economic sketch plan as the one that would result in the most revenue and least municipal cost. He told Council we will assume the worst case for traffic and the convention center is in. C. P. Swan reported on the status of EIRs in process. He commented on Council approval of the budget on August 3. The Planning Department budget recommended by the City Manager was approved. It includes for the Commission: travel, conferences, meetings, $600; and for continuing education., $250. It also includes fees, as special services to the Planning Commission, for a recording secretary and for hearing notification. Council budget policy will be to go to zero budgeting next year. It was recommended that a 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program be considered this fall. C. Sine commented on local housing opportunities for young people. He felt that by zoning we could designate areas where condominiums could be built and by so doing encourage apartments in other multi -family zoning areas. The Commission requested copies of the program for the League of California Cities Conference which will be held in San Francisco the last week of September. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary