Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.01.24THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT ' OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Taylor City Planner Swan Francard Asst. City Planner Yost Jacobs City Attorney Coleman Kindig City Engineer Kirkup Mink Sine CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman (V -C) Jacobs at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present; Chairman Taylor absent due to illness. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 10, 1977 were approved as mailed. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOT 20 AND A PORTION OF ADJACENT AREA IN BLOCK 11, EASTON ADDITION NO. 1 (APN 026-201-140) AT 958 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR THOMAS MC LAUGHLIN C. E. Kirkup reviewed this parcel map which was requested in order to delete the lot line between Mr. McLaughlin's property and the adjacent 14 foot wide area which he recently purchased. Commission approved the tentative map subject to the condition that easements be granted to the City for sewage and drainage facilities at their existing locations in the 14 foot strip. These easements have been granted and approval of this final map was recommended by the C.E. There was no audience comment and V -C Jacobs declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink moved approval of this final parcel map; second C. Cistulli, and approved on unanimous roll call vote of members present. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3, 4 AND THE SOUTHERLY 37.5 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 50, EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 (APN 026-013-020/030) AT 1469/1471 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY EDWARD BACA FOR FRANK DONAHUE ET AL (OWNER 026-013- 020) WITH GORDON AND MARION KULLBERG/TERRANCE IRWIN (OWNERS 026-013-030) C. E. Kirkup told Commission this map is a resubdivision of approximately 2-3/4 lots into two separate parcels; Parcel 1 would be 12,575 SF with 75.02 feet of frontage on E1 Camino Real and Parcel 2, 10,369 SF with an E1 Camino frontage of 62.52 feet. He explained there is existing curb and gutter along the northerly 60 feet of Parcel 1; the remaining frontage does not have curb and gutter, and there is no sidewalk along either parcel. Several large trees preclude sidewalk within the normal area between the property line and the curb and gutter. It was the C.E.'s recommendation this Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 24, 1977 tentative map be approved subject to (1) curb and gutter installation along the full frontage of both parcels and (2) that a ten foot pedestrian access easement be granted to the City along E1 Camino Real for the full frontage of Parcels 1 and 2 in order to install a sidewalk within the front setback and avoid the trees. He reported the Park Director had recommended this sidewalk be kept a minimum of one foot from the tree roots. It was determined that Gordon Kullberg, one of the property owners, was present in the audience; Mr. Kullberg told Commission they would be happy to do everything required by the City. C. Sine, having been absent at the January 10 study meeting, was advised by C. A. Coleman he could vote on Items 2, 3 and 4 of tonight's agenda, voting on the basis of information given at this public hearing. C. Mink inquired if there would be benefit in having plans for the sidewalk approved by the C.E. and Park Dir. before Commission voted on this map. It was the opinion of the C.E. that since plans for the sidewalk would have to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments, there would be no problem in making sure Commission's conditions were met. V -C Jacobs was told by C. E. Kirkup City policy has been to replace sidewalks which were damaged by trees; otherwise the sidewalk is the property owner's responsibility; this policy would apply to the sidewalk under discussion. C. Kindig determined from the C.E. that the existing apartment house on the corner of Adeline and E1 Camino Real was located on a parcel which included Lot 1 and 12.5 feet of Lot 2. The proposed two new parcels would be made up of 37.5 feet of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 and 4. The Commissioner was told that 37-1/2 feet Flus 50 feet is vacant at the present time. C. Francard objected to the proposed sidewalk extending 10 feet on private property and to the use of concrete for the sidewalk rather than asphalt. He felt asphalt was an easier material to work with should tree roots cause an obstruction and noted it was a more economical material. The C.E. said that standard City policy has been to require concrete sidewalks for new development, and added there is now a gravel sidewalk on both sides of this proposed development. There were no audience comments and V -C Jacobs declared the public hearing closed. Commission discussion continued regarding the sidewalk and how this problem of large trees along E1 Camino Real has been handled in the past. C. P. Swan commented that construction of a sidewalk between this parcel and Adeline Drive might be a City project because there is a bus stop there presently, with an existing curb and gravel walkway. C. E. Kirkup suggested two options for this location: (1) the City could construct a sidewalk, or (2) the Council, on motion, could require a sidewalk be installed. He added that the Engineering Dept. had not intended to complete this at the present time. It was C. Mink's suggestion that perhaps, after Commission discussion this evening, the C.E. might choose to reevaluate this particular situation. He felt the matter incidental to the tentative parcel map before Commission at this hearing. C. Cistulli stated his approval of concrete, or perhaps brick, as construction material for a sidewalk. C. Sine pointed out that the bricks on Burlingame Avenue were laid on a concrete base, and noted the permanency of concrete. He also stated he would defer to the judgment of the C.E. with regard to the material for a sidewalk. C. Mink moved approval of this tentative parcel map with two conditions: (1) that curb, gutter and sidewalk be installed along the E1 Camino Real frontage, and (2) that a 10 foot sidewalk easement along Parcels 1 and 2 be granted to the City. Second C. Cistulli; and approved and recommended to Council for adoption by unanimous roll call vote of members present. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 24, 1977 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A TRUCKING BUSINESS IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 5 GUITTARD ROAD (PORTION OF APN 025-166-090) BY AUGUST LEITE OF LEITE DRAYAGE COMPANY, INC. APPLICANT) WITH CROCKER NATIONAL BANK (OWNER) Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this application after distributing photographs of the area taken January 10, 1977. Leite Drayage Company leases 20,000 S1= of warehouse area at 5 Guittard Road; the company operates three trucks from this location, normally has two people in the office and, in addition, several other trucking lines deliver and collect from the warehouse. The applicant has estimated 10 deliveries are made each month to the warehouse, with an estimated two out -trips per day. A negative declaration has been posted for this project and the present use of the warehouse seems reasonably compatible with other light industrial businesses in the neighborhood. A principal concern is that the existing truckyard is very small, approximately 50' by 60'; shown on Drawing #3 circulated to Commissioners. This drawing shows 7 possible truck parking spaces near the entrance to 5 Guittard Road; three are in the existing truckyard, one is on an unpaved sideyard adjacent to the railway, and three others take up car parking spaces in the employees' parking lot. This seems a reasonable temporary arrangement as 5 Guittard Road is part of a larger building at 1755 Rollins Road which was constructed with parking for 44 cars. With only three tenants in the building at present, there appears to be no parking problem. The Pfizer master lease will expire in 3-1/2 years; if Commission approves this special permit staff recommends conditions: (1) that the special permit expire July 1, 1980; (2) that the parking lot adjacent to the truck dock at 5 Guittard Road be restriped to clearly identify those area's where Leite Drayage Co. trucks can be parked; and (3) -that the special permit be reviewed after 6-12 months to assess the parking situation. V -C Jacobs determined that Mr. Leite was present and received comment from him that he was agreeable to the conditions suggested by staff. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed and the public hearing was declared closed. Commission discussion brought out that automobile parking spaces 21, 22 and 23 adjacent to the loading dock were for employee parking; Bay #5 located away from the loading dock generally would be used for dead storage; there is no striping of parking at present so this could be accomplished easily. C. Sine expressed concern that Bay #1 might be in the Southern Pacific right-of-way. He was assured by the Asst. C.P. this space was just outside S.P. right-of-way and belonged to the property, having been checked with architect's drawings received by the Building Dept. in 1957. C. Mink moved approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) the special permit will expire July 1, 1980; (2) the parking lot of the property be striped in accordance with Drawing #3 (page 5 of staff report attachments) which indicates seven parking spaces for trucks; and (3) this special permit be reviewed by staff in six months with report back to Commission. Second C. Cistulli, and approved by unanimous roll call vote of members present. The V -C told the applicant this permit may be subject to appeal to City Council and would become effective immediately following the next Council meeting, or on February 8, 1977. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A HEALTH CLUB IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 865 HINCKLEY ROAD (APN 026-321-310) BY DOUGLAS DAWKINS (APPLICANT) WITH STERLING AND LOIS CALL ET AL (OWNERS) This application was reviewed by Asst. C. P. Yost. He noted Mir. Dawkins' letter of January 7, 1977 which stated he intended to occupy the front half of the building, using approximately 10,000 SF of space; peak hours would be after 4:00 P.M. weekdays and 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Saturdays. The applicant would require the use of only half the existing 75 parking spaces now provided; no construction or major modification Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 1977 will be required. Mr. Dawkins has estimated there will be 4 employees and 50 customers a day; a negative declaration was posted on the basis of this information. The existing concrete tilt -up building is vacant at.present; staff thought it unlikely, in the short term, this use would cause special problems for neighboring businesses. In the long term, the applicant may wish to expand to full use of the building. Mr. Yost noted Chief Fire Inspector Pearson's memo of January 14, 1977 which had been distributed to Commission this evening. This memo stated the Department had not seen plans for the facility, but should 10,000 SF of the building be used for amusement, entertainment, or instruction, it would be subject to the safety requirements; of Title 19, California Administrative Code. The Fire Dept. would require adequate exits with panic hardware, exit signs and a possible occupancy separation from the remainder of the building. Mr. Dawkins addressed Commission, stating there were two persons in the audience willing to speak in favor of this use, if necessary.. V -C Jacobs asked for audience comments in favor. Ms. Woolverton, 370 Imperial Way, Daly City, CA. spoke in favor of the application, stating she had been a.participant in gymnastics training classes. She noted Mr. Dawkins' fine work with children and felt his business would be an asset to Burlingame. There were no audience comments in opposition and V -C Jacobs declared the public hearing closed. During discussion Commission found the landscaping extremely deficient, and C. Francard requested any motion include a condition that the landscaping be brought up to date. The C.E. requested a stipulation that the project be subject to all Fire and Building Dept. requirements. C. Sine emphasized it would be helpful to have a floor plan showing the proposed use and said he had been told by the Chief Bldg. Inspector this information was requested several weeks ago but had not been received. Mr. Dawkins told the Commissioner no structural changes were planned and only minor installation of movable equipment would be involved. C. Sine inquired if there would be hardship to the applicant should this .item be continued for two weeks and was told by Mr. Dawkins his lease was running out and delay would cause problems with scheduling of classes. He told Commission this was the fourth facility he had leased for this use and always complied with Building and Fire Codes. C.s Mink and Sine asked if sanitary facilities in the building would meet code. The applicant advised there were restrooms in the building at the present time. The C.E. was not aware of whether sanitary codes were being met or not. V -C Jacobs was of the opinion there would be no problem if the special permit were conditioned to require Building and Fire Code compliance. C. Cistulli was in favor of this project for the benefit of children, but was in agreement with C. Sine that more information regarding the plans for the interior was needed. Asst. C. P. Yost remarked that when a business license application is made conformity with code would be required. C. A. Coleman explained conditional use permits; when a proposed use is not a permitted use in a particular district, Commission may condition the permit so that there are no adverse effects to others in the same area. C. Mink thought the proposed use for this particular space under present conditions was acceptable in view of the hours of operation as outlined by the applicant and traffic in the area at those hours; he had no doubt Building and Fire Codes would be adhered to in light of recent P.C. experience with these two City departments. C. Mink moved approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) before occupancy for this use the building meet all existing Building and Fire Codes; and (2) within 30 days of occupancy the landscaping be reinstalled and thereafter maintained. Second C. Cistulli, and approved by unanimous roll call vote of members present. C. Sine commented his vote was a 'very reluctant' aye. It was also pointed out that expansion would require an additional use permit or an amended permit. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 24, 1977 5. RESOLUTION NO. 1-77 GRANTING CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL USE - 1305 BAYSWATER AVENUE C. P. Swan requested a motion to approve this resolution, noting hearings on this matter have been thoroughly documented and a confirming letter= sent to Mr. Harrison. This has now been incorporated in Resolution No. 1-77 and can be recorded with the County Recorder against the property at 1305 Bayswater Avenue„ The permitted specific uses would go with the land. C. Kindig moved adoption of Resolution No. 1-77; second C. Cistulli and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR C. Sine abstained because he was not present at the hearing of January 10, 1977. OTHER BUSINESS 6. ORDINANCE NO. 1096 ADOPTING NEW SIGN ORDINANCE C. P. Swan commented on Chm. Taylor's work in carrying Commission's modern sign ordinance to the City Council for adoption. It had been adopted on a 3-2 vote with some apprehension and .the possibility that some sections might: be subject to review during the coming year. He noted Commission had received a copy of David Keyston's letter of January 11, 1977 addressed to the City Manager which contained some recommended revisions to the new sign code. The C.P. said that recommended sign permit fees will be on the next Council agenda, and asked Commission for feedback and direction in administering this new ordinance. Mr. Keyston discussed the recommended revisions enumerated in his letter. His main concerns were the roof sign definition and the requirement that a new owner or tenant must get a new permit for an existing sign. Commission discussion brought out that the P.C. had worked long and hard in the formulation of this ordinance and members of the business community had been contacted for input throughout Commission deliberations. There appeared to be Commission consensus to work with the new sign code for one year before studying any possible changes. Some Commission concern was expressed about "fin signs" and the requirement for review of a sign with change in tenancy or new ownership; perhaps these two areas of the code should be reviewed sooner. With regard to those projecting signs which are defined as "roof signs" by present code, C. A. Coleman noted there are only eight of these on Burlingame Avenue and 12 on Broadway; they have been grandfathered in. The C.A. advised he found the new sign code quite adequate to take to court. 7. DISCUSSION OF GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS C. P. Swan and Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed past and present experience with regard to Home Occupation business licenses. The staff report sent to Commission had given several examples of the problems encountered by staff. Many violations appear to be Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 1977 caused by contractors; it has become increasingly difficult to identify a Home Occupation business. Suggestionswere requested in order to establish classifications for Home Occupation business licenses in a systematic manner. It appeared the 1961 ordinance definition of a Home Occupation should be reviewed and possibly updated. It was also suggested by staff that an appeal procedure be established for Home Occupation business license applicants who are denied a business license by the City Planner. The Asst. C. P. detailed the procedures followed by the Business License Clerk and the various means employed for locating those persons who require a Home Occupation business license. There was considerable Commission discussion with suggestions for a basis of review. These included the belief that review should not be based upon the amount of money gained in a Home Occupation but upon the effect on the zone. Would it diminish the quality of life or character of the R-1 District"? Is there a visual effect on the neighborhood? Storage of equipment and/or materials which might cause a fire hazard or have an external visual effect on the neighborhood should be restricted; review unwarranted effect of traffic; and restrict parking of employee vehicles. Staff was directed to draft detailed guidelines for consideration by Commission at their February 14 meeting. CITY PLANNER REPORT C. P. Swan reported Council had accepted Commission priorities with no additional comments. Staff will proceed to follow this work schedule. Commission had received a Procedural Outline and Tentative Time Schedule for the convention center project. Mr. Swan noted on the list of tasks to be performed to gain convention center approval that Commission must review the project area and preliminary plan in February and approve each by a resolution; then later, in April, the Commission is scheduled to recommend by resolution approval of the specific redevelopment plan. At present the project.is pending until Council makes a decision to go ahead. Some Commission members were concerned that they had so little information on the project but would be asked to make a decision in the near future. They were assured by staff all possible background information would be provided to them when it was available. C. P. Swan reminded of the community meeting to be held in the Council Chambers Wednesday, January 26 concerning the Broadway grade separation project. C. E. Kirkup noted this meeting is merely to receive community input; no drawings are available at the present time and this will not be a report on the Draft EIR. Three alternatives are being considered by the firm undertaking the EIR and this meeting is to request any other alternatives the community might wish considered. Apparent violations of two special permits were reported by the City Planner. Dollar -A - Day Rent-A-Car at 1815 Bayshore Highway received a special permit in 1969 at which time the applicant had advised a maximum of 40 vehicles would be stored on the premises. The latest inspection of this site on the morning of January 24 revealed there were 13 cars parked on the northerly side of Bayshore Highway where no parking is allowed at any time. The previous Friday there were 11 cars and a parking auto transport blocked a lane off Bayshore Highway. The other violation concerned the Complaint Department Store at 1669 Bayshore Highway. The original special permit was granted to Ronald Rosberg of Repo Depo for retail sales of office furniture and office space limited to the front 3,000 SF of space. This was appealed to Council and P.C. decision was sustained with the additional condition that no more than 20% of new merchandise be allowed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 24, 1977 Two Commissioners indicated they had recently visited this site and observed the violations. Many varieties of merchandise were being sold. Mr. Swan noted, contrary to the original plan presented which showed approximately 3,000 SF for the use, they have recently expanded by about 2,000 SF; this extension of area and change of use is well beyond the special permit conditions. Following further discussion Commission directed staff to make an investigation of these two businesses and give written notice to the property owners to comply with the conditions of their respective conditional use permits. C. Sine noted that this meeting represented a "first" in Burlingame - a lady chairing a Planning Commission meeting. He congratulated Vice Chairman Jacobs on a very good job. An.innPNMFNT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary