Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.06.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1978 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order Monday, June 12, 1978 at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Jules L. Francard Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman Everett K. Kindig, Secretary Charles W. Mink Thomas W. Sine Thomas C. Taylor Absent: Frank Cistulli (excused absence) Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner Tony Rebarchik, Assistant City Engineer Jerome Coleman, City Attorney (arriving at approximately 9:45 PM) Quorum present; Ruth E. Jacobs, Chairman presiding. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held May 22, 1978 were approved with the following addition: under Item #2, Chairman Jacobs wished the minutes to reflect her concern that the variance for noontime parking at this restaurant would be only one space per 200 SF versus the code requirement for a specialty restaurant of one parking space per 91 SF of gross floor area. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at 10:50 P.M. MINUTES of the meeting held June 12, 1978 were approved as mailed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes APPROVAL OF AGENDA Pa ge 2 June 12, 1978 The order of the agenda was approved, except Item 4 being delayed until the arrival of the City Attorney. HEARING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AT 810 MALCOLM ROAD/1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 024-403-270 AND 026-301-180) (Lots 4, 5 AND 6, BLOCK 3, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 1 AND LOTS 39 AND 40, BLOCK 3, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2) INTO PARCEL 1 (2.34 ACRES) AND PARCEL 2 (0.48 ACRES), ZONED M-1, BY JAMES F. CARROLL & ASSOCIATES FOR FLAGSHIP INTERNATIONAL,.INC. (SKY CHEFS) (PROPERTY OWNER) City Planner Swan and Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik briefly reviewed the proposed resubdivision, noting some previous concerns which had been resolved on the map, i.e., easements for sewer, drainage and utilities (electric and telephone). Mr. Rebarchik concluded that the map was complete and ready for approval. Responding to questions from the Commission, City Planner Swan confirmed there would be one ownership and that there is ample parking on Parcel 2 for the approved rent -a -car agency (which includes an 800 SF building). He further confirmed that the rear portions of Lots 4, 5 and 6 would become part of. Parcel 1. There being no further discussion, Chairman Jacobs opened the public hearing. There was no public input and the hearing was closed. Based on the statements of the Assistant City Engineer, Commissioner Taylor moved the above -noted map be approved. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. It was agreed the conditions contained in the June 7, 1978 memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer be included in the motion, that the following dedications be included on the map: (1) easement for sewer, (2) easement for drainage, and (3) easement for electric and telephone. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously of those present 6-0, Commissioner Cis tulli absent. Before discussion of the tentative and final parcel maps on Item #2, Commission discussed the conditions pertaining to landscaping on the Trans Rent-A-Car permit (reference minutes of May 22, 1978). The applicants wished to have the Commission consider two site plans, one having shrubs and one having the 4' mounds. Commission, staff and Cyrus McMillan, attorney representing the applicants, discussed this briefly. Mr. McMillan stated they would be willing to go along with the wishes of the Commission but urged them to reconsider the condition requiring 4' mounds as there was a safety concern with the mounds. Barry Rafter, architect, was also present and noted that a shrub on the adjacent property has a notch cut in it at about the 4-1/2' level for this very reason. It was felt that if the mounds were only planted with grass there should be no problem, although the middle mound might be removed. Upon study of the condition, as noted in the minutes, it was pointed out that the condition leaves some flexibility on this although it was agreed the condition did not contain the Commission's true intent. It was therefore agreed that approval of an alternative to the mounds was not necessary. Commission did note that the purpose of the mounds was to screen the cars. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 12, 1978 2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 4; PROPERTY AT 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-342-190/200), ZONED C-4, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR STANLEY TSAI LO AND ROBERT TUNG CHOU (PROPERTY OWNERS) Commissioner Kindig noted the item for the proposed building on this site had been appealed to Council and asked if the map should be conditioned on the fact that the proposal was approved. City Planner Swan explained that the two lots are owned by one person and the variance and special permit were approved subject to approval of this map. He stated it is essential to have the two lots combined for practically any development. - Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik noted the two lots could be combined into a single parcel by eliminating the lot line and the map would go to Council under ordinary procedure, through recommendation from the Commission to Council. He recommended approval of the map. There being no further discussion the public hearing was opened; there was no public input and Chairman Jacobs closed the hearing. Commissioner Mink moved that the above -noted map be recommended for Council approval. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried unanimously of those present 6-0, Commissioner Cistulli absent. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1600-1638 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-310-200/210/220/230/240/'260/270) (LOTS 20-26, BLOCK 5, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2) INTO.PARCEL 1 (1.615 ACRES) AND PARCEL 2 (1.590 ACRES), ZONED M-1, BY BRIAN/KANGAS/FOULK & ASSOCIATES FOR HANSEN-COLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik reviewed the application, rioting it is a resubdivision of seven lots into two parcels, including the vacating of existing easements and dedicating a new easement where needed. He noted the map is complete as all concerns have been adequately resolved on the map itself. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There was no public input and Chairman Jacobs closed the hearing. Mr. Rebarchik confirmed there was a typographical error in his memorandum, noting that item 3 should read PUE (public utility easement) rather than PVE. Commissioner Kindig moved for approval of the above -noted map and Commissioner Sine seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously of those present, Commissioner Cistulli absent. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DEIR-49P FOR AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENT -A -CAR AT 1222 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-02030) City Planner Swan reviewed this item, noting the Draft EIR addresses the impacts of the proposed rent -a -car outlet. He noted that the application is subject to BCDC jurisdiction and comments from State public agencies would-be forthcoming. A City objective is to provide a continuous shoreline pathway between the small City park at Airport Boulevard and the California Trucking Association property. He noted the existing drainage ditch would be filled and this area would be paved for parking. He recommended that both the Draft EIR and Special Permit be scheduled for hearing, noting the special permit would not be final until Council approval of the Final EIR. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1978 The City Planner advised that Charles Eley, architect and planning consultant representing the applicant, was present. He stated that Mr. Eley did not prepare the Draft EIR. Mr. Swan confirmed that changes in wording aria usually done through amendments to the document. Commissioner Kindig was concerned about the possibility of the hearing on the 26th being a study of the special permit and asked if the information for the special permit was available. Mr. Swan stated the purpose of the EIR is to provide information and the special permit can be considered after the EIR. Chairman Jacobs felt the EIR made it seem as though a rent -a -car agency would be the best possible use of the parcel, which she found hard to believe. Charles Eley presented a revised site plan to the Commission, noting there were no major changes in the application. He stated that contacts had been made with Westbay Community Associates, the adjacent property owner (reference Exhibit A, page 2) and it was learned that under no circumstances would they permit a bicycle path on their property. For this reason, the bicycle path had been relocated on the applicant's property except where it crosses the unimproved rear portion of Mobil Oil property. If an easement can be obtained from Mobil, the path on the project site could be connected with the mini park. It was noted that a condition could be made on any application for development of the Mobil Oil property relating to this. Mr. Eley noted BCDC is concerned with the location of the drainage pipe because the velocity of the drainage water might damage offshore cord grass. Because of this concern the outlet was redesigned to eliminate this potential. He noted the application would need City approval before BCDC consideration. He confirmed there would be no unloading of cars at this location nor storage, and the reference to cars "out of service" refers to those needing oil changes, etc. He concluded that he was not involved in the preparation of the EIR except to provide information. There was some question of a roof sign and it was noted such signs are prohibited. Mr. Eley agreed there could be a problem of cars coming in over the landscaping from adjacent properties unless fence or bumpers are added. City Planner Swan commented the revised site plan would be considered with the special permit; the bike path should be on fill over the drainage culvert to eliminate the cost of a bridge on private property. It was confirmed that the bicycle path was considered part of the 15% landscaping. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik questioned whether the EIR addressed the discharge of the drainage pipe in any way and did not feel there is enough flow to create a problem for the cord grass. He felt the location of the outlet could be left open and subject to engineer's design. Chairman Jacobs questioned the reference to 14% landscaping, stating this would require a variance. Mr. Eley stated they measured 18% and noted the discrepancy could be a result of including that portion of the property which is inundated by the Bay in their calculations for landscaping. Commissioner Kindig was concerned about the reference in the DEIR to the selling of cars. City Planner Swan confirmed that notification to the City is sufficient (via application for a license under Sec. 6.08.110 Used motor vehicles). Normal procedure would include this use as part of the special permit. With reference to an alternative office development on page 24, it was noted it looks like it is right over the drainage culvert. City Planner Swan stated such a building could be designed although he noted this was just'a conceptual alternative. He pointed out a•change to page 23, that the restaurant alternative should read 3,800 SF. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes -June 12, 1978 Chairman Jacobs felt that too many assumptions were made, i.e., instead of statements that views of the Bay would be blocked by some alternative developments, the EIR should read "could be"., etc. She stated she would be willing to make a list of these small but meaningful statements. The Draft EIR was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978 and the special permit was also scheduled if information for the hearing is complete. Chairman Jacobs noted the presence of Councilman Martin in the audience. 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B (1.203 ACRES MOL), PARCEL MAP VOL. 26/38; PROPERTY AT 1327/1337 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026- 121-080), ZONED M-1, BY FRED C. GUENTHER, JR. FOR KAREN HOLDING COMPANY (PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the above application, concluding that from a zoning standpoint the item was ready for hearing. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik referenced his memorandum dated June 7, 1978 which noted five items of information necessary for -the hearing. Fred C. Guenther, Jr. and John Sutti were present and confirmed that the information would be provided. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978. 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 57, EASTON ADDITION NO. 6; PROPERTY AT 2111/2201 EASTON DRIVE (APN 027-154-140/150), ZONED R-1, BY RAYMOND J. MASON FOR GORDON AND BARBARA WILKINSON Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, stating that a boundary line change to the proposed parcel map had been recently made by Mir. Wilkinson, and that the new proposal now technically meets zoning ordinance requirements. It was confirmed that an amended parcel map would be available in time for the hearing. Gordon Wilkinson, the applicant, was present. Reference was made to Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik's memorandum of June 7, 1978 which indicated additional details would be required; these had been identified in a letter to the surveyor dated June 6, 1978. Hearing on this parcel map was set for June 26, 1978. 8. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.030 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTIN13 LOT INTO TWO PARCELS, ONE OF WHICH WILL HAVE UP TO 74 PARKING SPACES LESS THAN CODE REQUIRES AND 90 PARKING SPACES TO A SUBSTANDARD SIZE; PROPERTY AT 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE (APN 025- 121-220), ZONED C-3, BY STEPHEN H. EDWARDS, PRESIDENT OF 'THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PROPERTY OWNER) 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE/1833 MAGNOLIA DRIVE (APN 025-121-220) INTO PARCEL A (4.157 ACRES) AND PARCEL B (1.731 ACRES), BY BRIAN/KANGAS/FOULK & ASSOCIATES FOR THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting it was a revision of a plan presented to the Commission in May. Mr. Yost detailed the changes, addressing the Commission's earlier concerns. It was noted that Parcel B would now have street frontage; Mr. Yost further noted that Council introduced an ordinance which would omit residential uses from the list of permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district. He further noted that the CTA property (Parcel A) had been redesigned to show that it could park 209 cars, the current code requirement. He concluded that with these changes the application had improved considerably and the main issue is whether or not a variance for the substandard parking on Parcel A is justified. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1978 Mr. Yost referred to a memorandum dated 6/12/78, noting the following suggested conditions for the mandatory expiration of the variance: (1) if the CTA sells Parcel A; (2) if the CTA rents or leases Parcel A or any portion to some other company or legal entity; (3) if.a building permit is obtained to add floor area to the existing building or to remodel the unfinished portion of the existing basement; (4) the variance be reviewed four years -after it is approved and then may be cancelled, modified or extended; (5) the parking variance on Parcel A be reviewed one year after any substantial improvements to Parcel B are completed. With regard to Parcel B, Mr. Yost stated that building lines should be considered. He then concluded that the variance application is complete and ready for hearing and that planning items pertaining to the parcel map are also complete. Mr. Rebarchik also felt the map was ready, subject to recommended conditions by the Fire'Department. City Planner Swan cautioned Commission that this would be a new approach to a variance, noting it would be good until something happens to make it "self-destruct;" he felt this would be difficult to enforce and might require 'litigation measures. Commissioner Francard felt the landscaping alternatives and parking should be shown. Mr. Yost noted that if the present landscaping were removed, the variance would not be required. Commissioner Mink questioned whether requirements for a sprinklered building should go on the map. Mr. Rebarchik said it had been noted by the City Attorney that such requirements be on the map although he felt it was required by City code. He confirmed it would be more enforceable if it is on the map rather than simply conditioned in the minutes. Penn Foote, Assistant General Counsel for CTA, stated that a resolution could be recorded containing the conditions. He confirmed they would agree to setback lines for Parcel B. Items 8 and 9 were scheduled for hearing on June 26, 1978. A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M. 10. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO PERMIT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE WITH 2' SIDE YARD; PROPERTY AT 1431 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM AND JEAN GILMORE Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, pointing out special circumstances. He concluded that the application is complete and ready for hearing. Mrs. Gilmore was present. There was concern about Fire Department access and Commissioner Mink requested information about the ownership of the alley adjacent to the lot. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978. 11. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.70.010 TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE "? DISCO" WITHOUT PROVIDING OFF-STREET PARKING; PROPERTY AT 1316 BROADWAY (APN 026-095-150), ZONED C-1, BY GEORGE SINCLAIR OF PANKO/SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR JIMMY CARRASCO OF CARRASCO, INC. (QUESTION MARK DISCO) (APPLICANTS) WITH MARY OLCESE, ET AL (PROPERTY OWNER) City Planner Swan reviewed the unique situation (i.e., no off --street parking provided in the Broadway area) and stated it was the first time a request had been made to expand a building on Broadway_ without providing additional parking. It was noted the second floor area would be increased by 966 SF for 84 additional seats; the disco use could generate a great number of people. He stated he had requested a listing of available parking spaces within 1200 feet. Some concerns were expressed; the idea of a disco in a C-1 District (C-2 permits commercial entertainment uses other than a theater); people.living in the R-3 District behind the disco have complained about noise. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 12, 1978 Mr. Swan reviewed the permit history of the building, noting the present permit would expire August 21, 1978. A minimum of five parking spaces would be required for the addition; he confirmed there was a stipulation that the hours be limited to evening so that surrounding on -street parking could be utilized. He noted that the Commission could recommend policy for additions to buildings in an area which does not have off-street parking and therefore there is more to consider than the variance itself. George Sinclair, architect representing the applicants, was present and confirmed that the hours are limited from 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. He also confirmed there is a new operator for the disco and the use of a fire siren was discontinued when he found it had been a noise irritant to the neighbors when used by the previous operator. He further confirmed that the building, which is approximately 50' wide, includes a coffee shop; but the portion of the building with -the disco is slightly less than 40'. He also confirmed the building is not sprinklered. Commissioner Sine expressed concern about front and rear exits on the ground floor only and Mr. Sinclair stated the new stairway would provide a new approach to the ground floor exit which is allowable under certain interpretations of the code; however, he noted the Fire Department would have to see final plans. There was discussion on the possible requirement of an EIR and City Planner Swan referred to the Noise Element of the General Plan, explaining that with limitation of noise pollution to less than 65 CNEL a negative declaration would be prepared; without this provision an EIR could be required. Commission agreed that Fire Department input would be required. Police Department input was discussed; it was noted that as this was a permitted use through Council, it was generally agreed this should not be a concern of the Commission. It was requested that the owner/ operator be at the public hearing. Mr. Sinclair noted the owner/operator was present at this time and would be present for the hearing. This item was set for hearing on June 26, 1978. 12. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.62.040 TO PERMIT A TRELLIS TO ENCROACH 7 FEET INTO THE FRONT SETBACK AT 1225 OAK GROVE AVENUE (PORTION OF APN 029-131-100), ZONED R-3, BY JOSEPH G. LOMBARDI (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost briefly reviewed the application and stated it is ready for hearing. The applicant was present. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978. Note: City Attorney Coleman arrived at approximately 9:45 P.M. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 6 RACQUETBALL COURTS AND EXERCISE ROOM IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1730 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-262-270) BY ANN MORI OF PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER WITH JAMES C. LOUSTALOT (APPLICANTS) WITH JACK BELLEVUE (PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the proposal, noting how the revised application addresses the concerns expressed by the Commission at their study meeting in May. He stated that a staff report would be prepared for the public; hearing, including an analysis of parking data and a parking standards proposal for commercial recreation uses of this type. He concluded that the application was complete and ready to be scheduled for hearing. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 12, 1978 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE 11 RACQUETBALL COURTS, SAUNAS AND A PRO SHOP SELLING RACQUETBALL EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1401 MARSTEN ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-102-030) BY GERALD E. KUNZ (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) WITH KENN EDWARDS OF AIRPORT -RACQUET -CLUB (CO -APPLICANT) City. Planner Swan reviewed the application, noting that the landscaping is less than 10%, that there is an emergency access to the lot which is at the end of a long cul-de-sac with no turnaround area. Another concern he noted was the security of adjacent property owners. He felt adjacent property owners probably would not oppose an industrial use bringing employees to the site. Mr. Swan recommended that the parking requirement be not less than 2-1/2 spaces per court, noting 3 spaces have been provided at other San Mateo County racquetball courts. He stated the plan submitted is only a conceptual diagram and not a floor plan showing specific facilities. Kenn Edwards, the applicant, was present and confirmed that "word of mouth" advertisement would be adequate publicity and there would not be extensive signage. Mr. Swan confirmed the application is adequate for hearing. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW WALL., FLOOR AND WINDOW COVERING TO BE SOLD AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1675 ROLLINS ROAD (SUITE D) (APN 025-280-210), BY EDWARD AND RINDA ARIAS OF ARIAS INTERIORS (APPLICANTS) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER (PROPERTY OWNER) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, the main emphasis being that on-site parking is less than code standards. Mr. and Mrs. Arias were present and were requested to provide more information about parking. Staff was instructed to obtain the names of other businesses in the building and the number of employees. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978. As the applicant for Item #16 was not yet present (it was noted he might be delayed), Commission considered an item not on the agenda. Assistant City Planner Yost introduced two school teachers who plan to operate a summer school at Roosevelt School contingent on School Board approval. He noted the proposed classes would only run through this summer, providing a service which might be discontinued as a result of recent budget limitations. He stated this would be considered by the School Board on June 13 and, depending on that outcome, this application is ready for Commission consideration. City Attorney Coleman stated he talked to the School District's attorneys and the non-profit status was being studied as obtaining a non-profit status takes time and there is little time . available if the school is to operate. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1'978. 4. RESOLUTION ON SCHOOL SITE ZONING Staff presented transparencies showing the Washington and McKinley School sites and discussed the 1941 zoning map. City Attorney Coleman noted that if the entire Washington School site is zoned R-1 there would be a jog in the zoning district boundary line and if the zoning boundary is straight the site would be a split into the R-1 and R-3 areas. He confirmed that the Commission adopted a map making the General Plan and zoning consistent, with the exception of school sites. There was concern that half R-1 and half R-3 would create problems and City Attorney Coleman advised that if it is ever sold, an application would probably be presented for a large condominium project or similar development. He stated he would like to know if there is to be one zone with a jog or two zones and no jog. Commission decided on two zones, to extend the R -1/R-3 district boundary through the Washington School site. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1978 There was discussion of the code with regard to the McKinley School site, with lots facing E1 Camino Real. City Planner Swan noted that the first 20' on E1 Camino Real cannot be built on. Commissioner Mink felt that, based on interpretations of the 1941 code, Lots P, 0, 1 and 1A should be zoned R-3 and all other lots on that property be zoned R-1. There was some question as to whether Lot Q actually faces E1 Camino and it was agreed that Lot Q should not be included in the R-3 zone. It was also noted that Lot 1 is useless, although staff noted when combined with other lots it could be used for landscaping and open space, permitting a more dense use of the other lots. Staff also confirmed the lots would be very difficult to develop independently. It was noted the total area is approximately 20,500 SF. Commission agreed with Commissioner Mink's statement, that Lots 1, 1A, P and 0 should be zoned R-3 and the remaining lots be zoned R-1. City Attorney Coleman will prepare the.necessary documents. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND U-STOR-IT, A AT 1.855 ROLLINS ROAD (AND WITH SECOND 010), BY JOHN HARRINGTON OF COLE REED PROPERTY OWNER) SELF -STORAGE WAREHOUSE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT ENTRANCE FROM BROD'ERICK ROAD) (APN 025-163- ASSOCIATES/U-STOR-IT (APPLICANT AND As the applicant was now present, the Commission studied this item. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, the main concern being the parking. It was noted the entire property has fewer parking spaces than code requires; Mr. Yost noted a self-service facility may put a lower demand on the parking available than the normal permitted uses. He stated the application was complete. This item was scheduled for hearing June 26, 1978. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan updated the Commission on recent Council actions. He noted that the Mills Estate Pharmacy sign application appeal was granted by the Council; he felt this was a significant step in that existing nonconforming roof signs could now continue and be changed for a business change, if there is no change of property owner. This was discussed briefly and City Attorney Coleman confirmed that staff would act on the premise that this was approved by Council because the same people were operating the different business. City Planner Swan noted two code amendments had been introduced by Council: (1) deleting residential uses from the C-3 District, and (2) changed permitted uses under C-4 District regulations. Office buildings will become a conditional use requiring a special permit. BURLINGAME BAYFRONT PLAN STUDIES City Planner Swan updated Commission on the amended contract with John Blayney Associates and Council direction that a study be made for 30 acres of residential development at a density of 32 units per acre. The next Blayney report will include a Draft Master ETR for the Bayfront Plan with information about impacts with or without condominium residential development. He noted that State law requires the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on a specific plan. He emphasized Commission responsibilities and expressed his belief that Council wants recommendations from the Commission. Commissioner Mink felt the procedure was clear, the Commission would consider all the reports and hold appropriate hearings with recommendations to the Council. Commissioner Sine added that the Commission does not necessarily need guidance from Council, that Council can approve the Commission's recommendations or not approve those recommendations. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 June 12, 1978 Commissioner Mink also noted that a proper EIR must consider alternative uses, mitigating measures and future impacts; all should be in the EIR whether they are considered the primary use or alternative uses. It is the Commission's responsibility to make sure this is complete. Code amendments would then be made to implement the plan or the alternatives. afl.10110NMFNT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary