Loading...
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