Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.01.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSIO14 January 10, 1977 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Sine City Planner Swan Francard Assistant City Planner Yost Jacobs City Attorney Coleman Kindig City Engineer Kirkup Mink Fire Chief Fricke Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present; C. Sine absent due to illness. MINUTES Minutes of the December.13, 1976 meeting were approved as mailed. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. APPEAL UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 18.08.050 FROM UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEC. 502 (1973 EDITION) PROHIBITING A CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL USE AT 1305 BAYSWATER AVENUE (APN 029-223-080), ZONED C-1, BY ADOLPH C. HARRISON, SR. (CONTINUED FROM 12/13/76) Chm. Taylor announced this item and determined that Mr. Harrison was in the audience. He commented on the irony of a recent destructive fire in the Burlingame Avenue commercial district immediately following Commission discussion on December 13 of fire codes and the need for protection in commercial buildings. Fire Chief Fricke addressed Commission, noting Chief Fire Insp. Pearson's memo of December 21, 1976 which had been circulated to Commission members. This memo detailed a call to the International Conference of Building Officials, followed by a letter from the Code Coordinator of the ICBG. The Code Coordinator had stated he did not feel the proposed change from a dwelling occupancy to an office occupancy would be more hazardous; however, during the telephone call he indicated that not all members of the ICBG were in agreement with this opinion. The letter further stated that the Building Official must evaluate the building for code requirements and that each change of occupancy must be judged on its own merits. Noting it had been resolved with Mr. Harrison at the last meeting that the appellant would present a specific request, F. C. Fricke said the Fire Dept. was objecting to a broad interpretation of an F-2 occupancy. Addressing Commission, Mr. Harrison mentioned the Fire Chief's statement at the previous meeting that the fire risk of a real estate or attorney's office was almost in an equal category and might be a little less hazardous than a residence. The appellant directed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 10, 1977 attention to the plan he had submitted for this meeting requesting use of his residence as a real estate/insurance office, travel agency or attorney's office. The plan showed the layout of his residence and indicated a plan for razing the patio and garage in back to allow for off-street parking on the premises. Mr. Harrison told C. Jacobs he had seen the memos from the C.F. Insp. and Dir. of P.W. regarding requirements for proper electrical wiring, safe heating equipment, adequate exit facilities, maintenance and fire extinguishing equipment. The appellant stated that Ibefore any alterations were made he would apply to the City for all necessary permits and request inspection by the Building Insp. In further discussion C. Francard inquired about the previous discussion regarding fire resistant material for interior walls. It was Chm. Taylor's belief Commission could not hold the appellant to more stringent requirements than those of the Building Code; however, Commission could place restrictions on allowing a use change. The C.A. thought this a fair statement as any work inside the building would have to be completed according to code. The C.E. added that any remodeling would have to meet the one hour construction requirement of the code; the main concern of the Building Dept. and the Fire Dept. had been the exterior walls in case of a fire next door which might easily spread. The C.E. also pointed out the request in his memo of January 5, 1977 that Commission emphasize its decision was for this building location and use only and would not apply to any other structures; he feared a decision which might set a precedent for many other wood frame dwellings in the City. C. Jacobs thought there was little objection to allowing this use since the whole block is commercial at present. C. Mink noted that the plan presented by Mr. Harrison included removal of the garage. He determined the appellant was aware, after this had been accomplished, the house would no longer be eligible for use as a dwelling since off-street parking requirements would not be met. C. Cistulli asked that any P.C. motion limit the uses to those requested by the appellant. F. C. Fricke also asked that Commission limit the uses to the four specific uses requested by Mr. Harrison, and commented on the abundance of this type of building in the City; in the opinion of the Fire Dept. these structures would not lend themselves to a change of use and would be most hazardous. C. Mink summarized: Commission received a specific application for real estate/insurance office, travel agency or attorney's office, and had reviewed other uses in the local neighborhood; Commission found that the proposed use is equal to or less hazardous than a residential use; reports on the building itself had been received and Commission found the recommended modifications to the site will meet requirements to maintain fire safety in the City; Commission also found that if it is necessary to make any modifica- tions, the entire building must be brought up to code for its intended use in order to maintain fire safety; a final finding was, in the case of modifications of this site, a residential use at this location would cease upon the modifications being accomplished. C. Mink then moved that this appeal by Adolph C. Harrison, Sr. be granted to the appellant; that the C-1 uses at 1305 Bayswater Avenue be restricted to real estate/insurance , travel agency and/or law office; with the additional restriction that all electrical systems, heating systems and plumbing be brought up to code; and that all proper exits and fire extinguishers be maintained on the premises. Second C. Cistulli, and appeal granted by unanimous roll call vote of members present. Chm. Taylor advised this was a final decision; and Mr. Harrison expressed his appreciation for the consideration of the Commission. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 10, 1977 2. APPEAL UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE -SEC. 18.08.050 FROM UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEC. 3707 (1973 EDITION) PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION OF TWO WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES AT 110 PARK ROAD, UNIT 607 (APN 105-360-310), ZONED C-1, BY RENE CARDINAUX (ARCHITECT) WITH RALPH CARLSON (DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, PARK PLAZA TOWERS) Chm. Taylor announced this item and requested comments from F. C. Fricke. The F. C. stated it has been along -standing practice of the Fire Dept. to limit or restrict fireplaces in apartment houses or multi -family rental units. This stand has been based on the hazards created by (1) combustible fuels needed for a fireplace, (2) ashes and the disposal of same (such as in garbage chutes in apt. houses), and (3) the combustion possibilities in modern buildings (with sealed units, thermal windows, etc.). The Dept. has now learned that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has objections to gas burning fireplaces because of the energy crisis. The main concerns of the Fire Dept. are the storage of firewood and disposal of the ashes. F. C. Fricke stated that Fire Dept. experience has proven the disposal of ashes has caused many fires in the City. C. Francard commented that people have been known to haul ashes all the way to the dump and set it afire. There were no comments from the City Planner. Rene Cardinaux, architect, addressed Commission and stated his reasons for disagreeing with the Fire Dept. (1) This building is a condominium with owned apt. units and he felt people would be more careful with something they owned. (2) Even though this could be considered a highrise building, it probably more well built than some of the other older buildings in the City. (3) The type of metal fireplace which they intend to use is a superior product and has been approved by the International Conference of Building Officials. Mr. Cardinaux did not think a wood burning fireplace was more hazardous than a gas burning unit, since the latter might be considered to have the danger of explosion. He stated the installation would include a special safe location for storage of firewood, and two metal containers with lids would be used for transport- ing ashes from the fireplace to a designated safe, sprinklered pick-up area outside. He added that they wished to,conform to all safety requirements. Chm. Taylor asked Mr. Cardinaux if he had any comments on the possibility of someone taking the line of least resistance in connection with removal of ashes. The appellant said it's possible, but he did not believe it was any more hazardous than, for instance, the dangers inherent in dumping garbage after cleaning up from a party. The Chm. thought these ever present dangers of one's neighbors could be more of a hazard in an apartment house than in a single family home. Mr. Cardinaux thought this argument had been countered by the petition signed by the other occupants of the building approving wood burning fireplaces in Unit 607 of Park Plaza Towers. The appellant stated he was a practicing architect in California and his experience included buildings in several parts of the state. He noted that many luxury condo- miniums had been allowed wood burning fireplaces; most cities seemed to allow them. He added that the fireplaces being proposed were identical to some he had put into 12 -story buildings. C. Jacobs determined the unit involved was on the top floor of a fully sprinklered building. She stated her feeling that one could safety orient one's world to the point of not living, especially since the other people living in the building approved. C. Francard questioned what would happen if the unit were solei. The C.A. stated that control in that case would be the responsibility of the condominium association; the City would not have any enforcement control. Mr. Cardinaux noted that Insp. Pearson had said approval might be revocable if the fireplaces were used improperly or there was improper disposal of ashes. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1977 C. Cistulli inquired about.the possibility of someone on a lower floor desiring a fireplace. Discussion brought out that the economics of such an installation would probably be prohibitive. C. Kindig stated his concern about setting a precedent, if this appeal were granted, lest it apply to other buildings in the City. He wished to be sure the Fire Dept. would be just as restrictive on any other request of this sort. Chm. Taylor agreed that each such case should be handled on its own merit, and that the Fire Dept. should continue to enforce regulations for fire safety without relaxation. C. Mink recalled that this building had been approved by City Council action and asked the.C. A. if it was proper for the P.C. to deal with this matter. C. A. Coleman replied Councilhad dealt with unit configuration and there would be no conflict. C. Mink stated findings: because the construction of the building is Type I, sprinklered and it is a condominium, namely an owned unit, and because the Homeowners Association of Park Plaza Towers agreed to a proposal for the storage of fuel (wood) and disposal of ashes in a safe place, this particular action does not create an untoward fire hazard. The Commissioner added he did not wish the Fire Dept. to be required to police this situation and believed it was the obligation of the other condominium owners at Park Plaza Towers to regulate and police this installation. C. Mink moved that this appeal be granted to the applicant with the condition that the storage of fuel (wood) be in an acceptable location to the Fire Dept. and that the method of disposal of the ashes be acceptable to the Fire Dept.; that the fireplaces be constructed as documented by the applicant and the Fire Dept. Second C. Jacobs and appeal granted on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SINE C. Mink requested that the section of the minutes relating to this topic be sent to the proper official in the condominium association for distribution to the other homeowners. 3. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 65 AND 0.686 AC MOL PORTION OF PARCEL 56, ASSESSOR'S MAP B16 (APN 026-131-020/090) AT 1221-1281 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1, BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR NICHOLAS CRISAFI C. E. Kirkup reminded Commission the tentative map had been approved by them in August of 1976. The final map is technically correct and Mr. Crisafi is now the legal owner of the property. With regard to the requested agreement that the buildings all be treated individually, he told Commission the C. A. had advised this condition is not necessary; the agreement has not been tendered. C. Jacobs was told by the C. A. she could vote on this final map even though she had not been present to vote on the tentative map. C. Mink moved approval of the final parcel map; second C. Kindig and approved on unanimous roll call vote of members present. 4. MODERN SIGN ORDINANCE Chm. Taylor explained the status of the modern sign ordinance. Ordinance No. 1096 had been introduced December 20, 1976 and given second reading January 3, 1977. At the January 3 meeting there were no comments from the floor; Council continued the hearing to January 17 and requested comments from businessmen. C. A. Coleman added that the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 10, 1977 new guidelines adopted by Council have worked very well for the past several months; however, there is now need for support from the business community to gain adoption by Council of this new sign ordinance. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, requested and received copies of the final draft ordinance to be distributed to the Chamber of Commerce committee. He referred to a Merchants Association newsletter recently sent out with comments in opposition to approval. Discussion of the roof sign definition adopted in December, 1974 indicated there was still concern about the problem of fin signs. Signs fastened to the walls of a building and which project above the roof are, by definition, roof signs. It was acknowledged that fin signs could be a problem. The staff confirmed that all existing fin and roof signs are grandfathered in and if there is a problem with fin signs, the roof sign definition could be changed. C. Jacobs commented that P.C. approval and recommendation to Council of this new sign ordinance had been unanimous with three objections by herself which were in the original motion. She had expressed concern about fin signs and real estate signs in the M-1 District. During further discussion C.s Kindig and Mink discussed Council options which might include: (1) adopt as is; (2) adopt and refer certain portions back to the Planning Commission for a study of changes to be made; (3) amend the sign ordinance and then adopt it; (4) refer it back to the Planning Commission; or (5) drop the matter and live with the old Title 22. 5. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PLANNERS' INSTITUTE C. P. Swan advised Commission of the Planners' Institute to be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Los Angeles February 2-4, 1977. Council had approved use of budgeted funds for two members of the P.C. to attend. Copies of the agenda had been circulated previously and comment was made that this agenda appeared to be interesting and might prove informative and helpful to Commissioners. Chm. Taylor indicated he would attend; C. Mink requested tapes of some of the sessions since he would be unable to attend. 6. 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) AND GORDON AND MARION KULLBERG/TERRANCE IRWIN (OWNERS 026-013-030) Tentative parcel map to create two lots was reviewed by C. E. Kirkup. He advised the P.C. that it satisfied all requirements and recommended that it be set for hearing. Commission asked that the applicant and owner be present. C. Francard suggested (1) that other properties in the same block be subject to the same policy concerning sidewalk location, and (2) that no tree roots be cut. This item was set for hearing January 24, 1977. 7. 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 item. Leite Drayage Company is presently operating at 5 Guittard Road, and during a business license inspection Mr. Leite was advised that a special permit is required to operate a trucking business in -the M-1 District. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 10, 1977 This firm operates three trucks in Burlingame which serve the 20,000 SF of warehouse area Mr. Leite leases on Guittard Road. In addition, other trucking lines deliver and collect from Mr. Leite's portion of the warehouse. Staff questioned the number of trucks to be operated at this location and expressed three concerns: (1) the small truckloading area with trucks being parked in the area designated for employee parking; (2) a possible shortfall of employee parking spaces (more information is needed concern- ing other tenants in this building and the number of employees for each); (3) exclusive use of the area next to the existing truckyard by Leite Drayage (redesign and restriping may be needed). During discussion Mr. Leite indicated there are usually 25 empty car parking spaces, and that his business is principally a delivery business. C. P. Swan asked for more detailed information about the number of trucks in order to complete the Environmental Assessment form. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing January 24, 1977. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A HEALTH CLUB IN THE M-1 DISTRICif AT 865 HINCKLEY ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-321-310) BY DOUG DAWKINS The Asst. C. P. briefed Commission, commenting that the proposed health club and gymnasium had been fairly well described by Mr. Dawkins' letter of January 7, 1977. The applicant indicated there may be four employees and up to 50 customers. No refreshments or stimulants (herbs or pills) would be sold on the premises. Mr. Yost noted that Mr. Dawkins is proposing use of only 10,000 SF of this presently vacant building; if his business is successful, he may wish to consider full use of the building. C. E. Kirkup advised Mr. Dawkins to check with the Building Inspector because of the change from F to B occupancy. This item was set for hearing January 24, 1977. 9. PROGRESS REPORTS ON PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES Staff reported progress on various activities for determining Planning Commission priorities. Major items of discussion included the following: (1) A recap of the first two meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee to Recommend a Housing Element by C. Kindig and C. Jacobs. They touched upon information requested by the Committee; local problems; and suggested objectives and policies for consideration. Among topics discussed were housing for senior citizens, places that young people can afford, and tax benefits. C. Jacobs -reviewed housing elements of Millbrae, Belmont and San Carlos, and pointed out that the housing element must be consistent with the land use element of the general plan. The Committee expressed the desire to preserve the residential character of Burlingame and also to identify where growth may occur. One suggested objective would be to keep more than 50% of the living units in single family dwellings to maintain community stability. C. Mink suggested the Committee look at housing with respect to open space and transportation. (b) Asst. C. P. Yost showed a key plan map dividing the City into sub -areas. He explained the map coverage and the type of information that will be shown on each individual zoning map. (c) C. P. Swan commented on the convention center project reports received from National Feasibility and HKS. He questioned the feasibility and the claims that a high occupancy rate will be maintained while room rates are scheduled to be increased twice within a five month period. The National Feasibility report uses the term "profit before depreciation, income taxes and debt service," and omits net profit figures. They Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1977 summarize that the project should produce an annual net revenue in the years '78 through '83 of not less than 1.6 times the average principal and interest payments on the proposed revenue bonds. The HKS report identifies the principal environmental impacts: substantial increases in traffic, demand for new parking, increased wastewater or sanitary sewerage, and fiscal impact upon the community. The report identifies unstable foundation conditions and the need to relocate existing sewer lines which are located beneath the proposed convention center building site. The initial environmental assessment by HKS states that assumptions and design parameters are still tentative or undefined at this initial stage. (d) C. E. Kirkup discussed the De Leuw, Cather work program on the Broadway grade separation and inquired about Planning Commission sponsorship of a community meeting. The Commission preferred to have the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission conduct the community meeting to obtain public input because the P.C. will later conduct a hearing on the draft EIR for the project. This hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 25, 1977. (e) C. P. Swan explained the status of the proposed.bridge for the Shoreline Pedestrian/ Bicycle Path across the outlet of Mills Creek. Such a bridge would link Charley Brown's with the Benihana of Tokyo and The Fisherman, and provide safe public access. The Commission mulled amendment of Ordinance Code Title 25 Zoning. Instead of a complete reorganization of Title 25, which would be a time consuming task, the P.C. agreed to deal with specific sections, a portion at a time. C. Mink felt. that any Planning Commission activity on ordinance amendment might be preceded by a joint meeting of the Council and all Commissions that deal with aspects of the General Plan. As a group we might gain a general understanding of our City's goals and then we could change the General Plan so that it relates to our goal statements. By so doing, Title 25 can help us move toward our General Plan goals. He thought the Broadway grade separation project a good example. C. P. Swan suggested priority be given to establishing guidelines for the approval of business license applications. He believed this is particularly needed for contractors who seek to obtain "Home Occupation" business licenses. Guidelines are needed to prevent erosion of the R-1 character and to provide processes both for approval or denial, and for appeals by the applicant. The Commission asked staff to draft guidelines for their study. It was recognized there will still be the problem of policing. The Planning Commission found the staff report on the order of priorities to be acceptable and agreed to forward it to Council for their review, modification if desired, and approval. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary