HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.10.13THE CITY OF BU RLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
October 13, 1971
C014MISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli
Jacobs
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
Kindig - Excused City Planner Swan
City Attorney Karmel
Former City Planner Mann
The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission
was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine
presiding.
ROLL CALL
All members of the commission were present except Commissioner Kindig
who was excused.
APPLICATIONS
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5, AND PORTION 7,
BLOCK 36, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2
Planner Swan explained that this resubdivision concerns two parcels
of property, that a new property line was being established and it
would be recorded by a parcel map. He presented the Commission members
with a tentative parcel map. This involves the transfer of a 50'x50'
plot from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2, since the owner of Parcel 2 wants to
put in a swimming pool. The lot coverage for Parcel 1 is in excess
of the required area. This is to be considered as a less than five -
parcel subdivision. Chairman Sine announced that this parcel map
would be considered at a.public hearing two weeks hence on October 27.
2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, LANDS OF MOORE AND MASTERS, PARCEL 45,
ASSESSORS MAP B16.
The City Planner passed around a tentative parcel map and explained
that it had been requested by the city staff. He said that there were
conditions to the permit granted by B.C.D.C. Parcel 1 is to be
financed and developed as a -leasehold so it can be considered an
independent property. Parcel 2 may subsequently be subdivided into
two parcels. The access is an exclusive easement from Bayshore 15'
wide across the lands of O'Hara. There is another non-exclusive
30' wide easement from Burlway Road which is owned by McClenahan.
There must be landscaping plans for the public access to the entire
property. The public access must be a strip of land not less than
30' wide along the shore line of the entire property. The most
acceptable process for recording the access would be to show it on a
parcel map. Paul Markley, design representative, introduced himself,
and offered to answer any questions. He stated that when the parcel
is developed B.C.D.C. will allow 125' of building along the water,
- 2 -
with the public easement to the rear. There was a question of
setback from the public access and he stated that the setback was not
required beyond the road.
Former City Planner Mann elaborated that the code requires a 25' setback
from the property line on water, and it also requires that 15% of
any development must be landscaped. Mr. Markley noted that drawings
have been submitted to B.C.D.C., but a permit has been issued only
on Parcel 1. The City Planner noted that there is a stipulation that
an easement go around th tire property, and the plan was discussed
further. Inoted Lthad .�C.D.C. will allow 25% of the proposed
building, a*e*'s*urant,yto go out over the water, and that nothing
beyond the property line is going to be filled. The area of the
building is 8,000 square feet on the ground floor and 3,000 on the
mezzanine. Chairman Sine announced that this proposed subdivision
will be scheduled for the public hearing on October 27.
3. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS,
BAYSHORE EXECUTIVE OFFICE CENTER, IN AN M-1 ZONE.
Planner Swan explained that a special permit is required in an M-1
district for office uses. Herman Christensen of Christensen Properties,
Inc., San Carlos introduced himself as a representative of that firm.
Mr. Christensen passed out site plans, floor plans, and elevations
of the proposed buildings, together with info�ation booklets. The
question was raised whether this would requir subdivision. Mr. QwtJ w
Christensen said that they must combine the property but if they
combined lots without getting the special permit it could be an
awkward situation. It was suggested that subdivision be made
contingent upon getting the special permit. Chairman Sine stated
that the matter would be considered at the public hearing of October 27.
4. APPLICATION FOR FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, 118
ANI TA ROAD.
This application was introduced but no representative of the applicant
was present. The City Planner explained that the applicant worked
until 10:30 p.m., and the application was postponed for consideration
later in the meeting.
5. PETITION FOR FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, 104
OCCIDENTAL AVENUE - MR. AND MRS. PAUL MUNKDALE
The City Planner distributed plans of the fence (which had previously
been erected) and read a letter from the applicant. It stated that
the fence is seven feet high to provide privacy for a raised deck
in the rear yard. The letter described the fence and mentioned the
favorable reactions from the neighbors. The letter stated that a
verbal misunderstanding with the City Building Department has led the
applicant to believe that the height of seven feet was acceptable.
Mr. Munkdale had erected the fence one month ago and it was brought
out that he had not obtained a building permit for it. The Chairman
scheduled this matter for a public hearing October 27, 1971.
3 _
6. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE (EXCEPTION) FOR TWO 5' x 7'
REAL ESTATE SIGNS TO ADVERTISE NORTHPARK, BURLINGAME SHORELAND
PARCEL.
This application was introduced for consideration. City Planner a.van
announced that he had talked with Henry L. Richman, representative
of the applicant, and learned he was ill and unable to be at the
meeting. He passed the plot plan and sign design around and explained
it. Also, the letter of application was read. It stated that
permission was requested for two 5' x 7' signs, the tops of which
would be 10' above the ground. This size they felt was necessary
because of the large size of the tract. Although the square footage
allowable for a subdivision is 80 square feet, they ask for a total
of only 70 square feet. The City Planner stated that this is a
request for a real estate sign for a tract well in excess of one acre.
He reported that the applicant had asked for a period of one year on
these signs, where the code permits six months with a six month
extension.
There was a discussion as to whether this should be a permit or a
variance. Former Planner Mann indicated he could find no reason not
to approve the sign, since this particular type is not in the code,
and the sign does carry the name of the architect, contractor, etc.
The Chairman told the Commission this would be scheduled for the
public hearing two weeks hence, and stated that the applicant must
be at the public hearing in person.
7. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO MODIFY ADVERTISING DISPLAY
ADJACENT TO FPEEWAY FOR HYATT HOUSE HOTEL.
The application was originated by the Custom Sign Corporation of
Hayward. Their representative, Mr. D. C. Smith, presented pictures
of the present sign to the Commission. This sign is in two parts,
and the lower sian cannot be seen from the highway traveling North
on Highway 101 because of trees. The Custom Sign Company wants
to raise the entire structure 8' and install another display on the
existing sign. Mr. Smith stated that they had talked to the
Department of Highways in Sacramento and were assured that as far as
the State was concerned there was no problem with the sign itself.
He also noted that Custom Sign Company would like to get a permit
to keep the trees topped. He stated that the Hyatt House will
cooperate with the City and State as to what goes on the reader
board. Former Planner Mann queried him as to what had happened to
the rule about reader boards being prohibited within 600 feet of
the highway, and was informed that they were not considered
an attractive nuisance by the State.
Mr. Smith then introduced Mr. Jim Moran of Custom Sign who told
the Commission that the Z'berg Amendment does not prohibit reader
boards. They are acceptable as far as the State is concerned as
long as a mechanism does not change the content of the sign automatical
There was a discussion of different types of reader boards. Planner
Swan stated that this application should be for a special permit rather
than a variance since it is for a use with a special permit in the
M-1 district. The Chairman stated this application would be considered
at the next regular meeting, but noted that the manager of the Hyatt
House should definitely be in attendance.
8. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CAR RENTAL SERVICE AT
HUGHES BURLINGAME SHELL STATION, 1490 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Planner Swan read a letter from the applicant, John J. Hughes. This
letter asked for permission to operate a car rental service at this
station which would occupy only two or three of the parking spaces
there. The applicant stated that this service would not interfere
with the operation of the station and would be an addition to the
business district. Mr. Hughes was present and amplified the
statements contained in the letter. Upon being asked if he was
presently using the station for car rentals, he replied that the
cars he was using were rented from the Valiant Car Rental and used
for pickup and delivery of customers leaving cars for service. The
Chairman scheduled,this application for the public hearing on
October 27.
9. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ALLOWING ONE BUILDING TO BE USED FOR
TWO FAMILIES.
The City Planner reported that this anticipated application did
not come in. The Commission then proceeded to the postponed item
of 118 Anita Road.
4. CONTINUED: PETITION FOR FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT,
118 ANITA ROAD, PAT WEATHERSBY.
This item was reintroduced and the Planner read the applicant's
letter to the Commission. The communication stated that the fence
was almost seven feet high and had been put up for privacy, protection
of the garden against dogs, and protection against flying baseballs
and basketballs from an adjoining school playground. This is the
rear of 120 Anita Road, a property with two houses on one lot. The
fence -is visible from the driveway along the school property.
Mr. Weathersby was present, and upon inquiry stated that he had not
obtained a building permit since he did not realize it was necessary
nor did he realize the fence was above the legal limit until he was
informed by a City employee. He pointed out that he and a friend
were renters of this property and had been given permission by the
owner to erect the fence. This was his reason for the present
application. The Chairman scheduled this matter for the meeting of
October 27.
10. ORDINANCES - RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS; HEIGHT LIMITATIONS
ON POLE SIGNS.
This matter had been carried over from a previous meeting for further
study and ordinance revision.
A. Radio and Television Antennas: This ordinance was written by
former Planner Mann because the City Code does not contain provisions
for the City to inspect and control these antennas. Former Planner
Mann addressed the Commission giving details of his research and the
- 5 -
criteria for the heights contained in the ordinance. The height
limitations in the various zones are predicated upon the heights
of the buildings in those areas, with the exceptions of arbitrary
heights in C-1, C-2, M-1 and C-4, for which there are no present
building height limitations. He stated that FAA had approved an
antenna in the waterfront district which is 150', but refuses to
approve anything over that. He noted that he was also guided by the
Uniform Building Code which has a certain set of limitations for
towers. He had sent copies of this ordinance to many firms connected
with erection of television antennas. Favorable comments had been
received from RCA and Motorola and no reply from the others, which
he considered tacit approval. He commented that towers are a construc-
tion problem, since three in the waterfront district have already
blown over.
Planner Swan presented the Commission with alternates to the
heights proposed in the original ordinance. He noted that in the
City of San Mateo the heights of antennas are considered with relation
to the topography, and their proximity to other structures and high
voltage power lines. The alternates were discussed, with main
objections being to the 150' tower in the Waterfront and Commercial
zones. However, there was a comment that a freestanding tower would
be financially unrealistic because the guy wires would require
considerable land area.
A Commission suggestion was made for C-4 that applicants be asked to
come in and tell what their specific needs are. Former Planner Mann
suggested that other than the normal 15' allowance for antennas on the
roof in the C-4 district, no other antennas be permitted without a
special permit.
Chairman Sine announced that this ordinance would be resolved at the
public meeting of October 27.
At the conclusion of this discussion, former City Planner George
Mann thanked the Commission for their cooperation and help through-
out the years.
B. Height Limitations on Pole Signs: This ordinance is an amendment
to the Municipal Code, and limits pole signs to 20 feet in height
in C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 districts. In the M-1 district pole signs
are limited to 35 feet. The Commission scheduled this ordinance for
public hearing on October 27.
NEW BUSINESS
Schedule for submittal of applications: The City Planner suggested
to the Commission that a Commission Rule be established for
prospective applicants to have their applications in by a certain
time in the month in order to give staff more time for review and
research. In addition he wished to have a plot plan on all
applications. After much discussion and with some reservations,
since the City is a public service agency, it was agreed that there
would be a deadline on applications subject to the discretion of the
City Planner. The Tuesday after the first Council meeting of the
month was suggested. The Chairman announced that this item will be
put up for voting at the regular meeting of October 27.
Sign and fence "exceptions" City Planner Swan expressed his
hangup with the present code classification of sign and fence
"variances." He thought that the more descriptive term "exception"
should be used instead of "variance", since neither fence nor sign
"variances" require a fee and only adjoining properties are notified
of hearings; nothing within a radius of 500' as required for
variances and special permits. He questioned whether or not there
should be a fee for these two categories also. The City Attorney
made the statement that the fees are charged for other types of
applications to reimburse the cost of publication and mailing. A
suggestion was made that lower fees could be charged for fence and
sign applications. The commission agreed to study this further.
With reference to the John Exline fence variance, the City Flanner
stated that he had received phone calls from the Exlines but did
not know if the fence had been taken down yet.
Future ReclassiL"ication studies: The City Planner told the
commission that he would be interested in making a study for
considering reclassification of some residential areas, with the
possibility of creating overlay zones, where every property within
a boundary would be considered for a different use. He stated
that certain areas of the city are ready for redevelopment right now.
There was a Commission suggestion that at the same times areas are
reclassified they should be upgraded as to undergrounding utilities,
increasing city services, etc. There was further discussion.
Planner Doan proposed that he bring back to the Commission a report
on this type of program one month from now (November 8.) Commission
members approved.
Chairman Sine noted that the beautification of Burlingame Avenue was
going to take effect next spring and some of the related problems
should be resolved soon.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig
Secretary