Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.08.27THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION August 27, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Marr Kindig (Arrived at 9:00 PM) Mink City Attorney Karmel Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:04 P.M., Chairman FCindig presiding. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of July 23, 1973 and of the study meeting of August 13, 1973 were approved and adopted. HEARINGS AND SIGN PERMIT APPLICATIONS 1. SIGN PERMIT TO ERECT A POLE SIGN WITH THREE FACES OF 59 SQUARE FEET EACH IN A C-2 DISTRICT AT CALIFORNIA DRIVE: AND HOWARD AVENUE BY COAST SIGNS TO IDENTIFY THE BUBBLE MACHINE Chairman Kindig announced that the sign proposal presented at the regular meeting of the 23rd had been continued to this date. Mr. Thomas C. Thatcher, Vice President, The Bubble Machine, appeared with copies of their new plan. He advised they had had a couple of meetings with the staff and believed the new plan would meet the concerns voiced by the Commission at the last meeting - the sign has been lowered and decreased in size, the coloring now being all blue lettering on a white background. He added they have reviewed a two sided sign but felt their present proposal would be more effective and aesthetically able to do the job on that corner than a two sided sign. Chairman Kindig pointed out that this, then, is a three sided sign, 18 feet in total height. The audience was asked for opinions, favorable or in opposition, and there being no response Chairman Kindig declared the public hearing closed. He then asked for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Sine commented that he thought the Commission had asked to see a two sided sign, and Commissioner Mink advised he had suggested the applicant consider this; however, the applicant preferred to stay with the -three sided sign. Commissioner Sine related that at the suggestion of Mr. Thatcher he had visited The Bubble Machine car wash in Redwood City, and had his car washed there. Contrary to Mr. Thatcher's -2- assurance that everything would be competitive in :price, only one-half block away he found gasoline at 6(� less. Also, Commissioner Sine reported, the supervision, if any, was mythical and the wash a very spotty job - he hoped the Burlingame Bubble Machine would do better. The applicant advised they would certainly try. Commissioner Cistulli remarked reduction is not what he expected. He said he would rather see the sign at 20 feet rather than 18 feet as this is going to obstruct vision. Mr. Thatcher commented that in their experience the 11-1/2 feet of clearance was high enough - no obstruction. Commissioner Mink inquired if the sign was to be illuminated only while the service station was in operation. Mr. Thatcher advised it would be illuminated in the evening but would be turned off when the station was not operating. Further discussion revealed that The Bubble Machine posts all its prices on the sign support pedestal but that any prices posted would not extend beyond the width of the pole, about 20 inches. Commissioner Taylor advised that he voted fQr, The Bubble Machine in Burlingame but had since seen one in another part of California with the sign lighted although it was.closed, and the sign did stand out. He also commented that he has objected over the years to price statements in a sign, and that he felt the word ".free" was just another word that means "price." Chairman Kindig asked if there were any other comments and Mr. Thatcher said he felt the word "free" is going to be the subject of quite a bit of debate in years to come. His counsel had thought they were within proper rights to advertise that way. There is no reader board, and saying "free car wash with any fill -up" tells the public exactly what they are getting. Chairman Kindig asked City Planner Swan for his comments. Mr. Swan commented that the City Council had approved the Special Permit for The Bubble Machine and with the information and limited time the applicant had received, it did seem reasonable. In the Sign Review System the staff is recommending that pole signs be limited except in the auto sales location in Burlingame. In this section, C-2 south of Burlingame Avenue, signs in excess of 20 feet would be reasonable. This application satisfies the existing sign regulations; it is not a variance. 'A sign permit is requested because the sign is more than 32 square feet in size. Commissioner Mink moved that the Sign Permit to erect a pole sign with three faces of 59 square feet each in a C-2 District at California Drive and Howard Avenue by Coast Signs to identify The Bubble Machine be approved as per the drawings submitted with the condition that the sign be illuminated only when the station is in operation. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR,KINDIG NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE Chairman Kindig and City Planner Swan agreed that this Sign Permit is subject to appeal and that it would become effective on the 5th of September if no appeal is made to the City Council.. -3- 2. SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A POLE SIGN 36 FEET IN HEIGHT AND A POLE SIGN 28 FEET IN HEIGHT IN A C:-2 DISTRICT AT 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND 1123 HOWARD AVENUE BY CUMMINGS & CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR ARATA PONTIAC Chairman Kindig advised that this sign proposal also had been continued from the July 23 meeting. Mr. L. E. Goble of Cummings & Co. appeared for Mr. Arata. Mr. Goble advised he had submitted new drawings as per Commission request. Chairman Kindig asked for audience reaction. Mr. Arnold Rodman of 905 Morrell, Burlingame commented that he.believed the sign was 10 feet higher than existing signs in that location and that this should not be allowed. Mr. Goble said that in order to see the sign that height was necessary. The open hearing was then declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned the applicant with regard to the sizes of the various signs General Motors has available to dealers and the intent of Arata Pontiac with regard to the walls of the building where there were existing signs. Mr. Goble advised the square footage of available signs as 245, 137 and 92. He said the wall signs would remain there, protruding ones would be removed. Commissioner Sine objected to General Motors dictating as to what kind of sign they would have in Burlingame, and said he would like these signs scaled down still more. Chairman Kindig asked what kind of lighting would be used and was advised it would be slim line lighting, plastic faces. Commissioner Norberg thought the width of the base of the sign should be cut down. Discussion about the sign support brought out that it was a square, 10" x 10" solid type pole engineered by General Motors, the space between the two actual supports was open, and that the sign was within one foot of the property line. Chairman Kindig asked City Planner Swan for comments. Mr. Swan stated that this sign is diagonally across the street from The Bubble Machine sign but it is twice as high. With this height and the proposed intensity, it might be visible from Broadway. The Arata signs are variance applications. The City Planner wished these signs were smaller because they will set a precedent for Auto Row. In further discussion Commissioner Mink said he was hesitant to put signs higher than city street electroliers, thinking of these as sort of a guideline. He also commented he thought Sign. D was atrocious for a C-1 district. Further discussion followed by the Commissioners regarding the height of the sign and Commissioner Sine stated he would like to appeal to Mr. Arata's civic pride, asking if he would cut back to 30 feet. Mr. Arata said he had no objection if Mr. Goble could work it out with the sign people. Discussion continued regarding the size of the used car sign. City,Planner Swan indicated that each sign is a variance and City Attorney Karmel stated: they are sign variances under the sign laws and should be considered independently with action being taken upon each sign. Commissioner Mink commented that signs noted B and C were satisfactory in his opinion. He then moved that Sign A be approved contingent upon the height being no higher than street electroliers located on the corner of California Drive and Howard Avenue. The motion was =m seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Sine moved that Sign B be approved as indicated on the Howard Street elevation, the motion was seconded and passed on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Sine then made the motion that Sign C as detailed be approved. This was seconded and passed on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Sine moved that the sign on Highland Avenue and Howard Avenue labeled Sign I) be approved contingent on it being no more than 22 feet in height. This motion was seconded and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,JACOBS,NORBERG,:>INE,TAYLOR,KINDIG NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK City Planner Swan stated that if no sign appeal is made to City Council within five days, this decision is valid. City Engineer Marr arrived at the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Chairman Kindig declared a short recess at 9:02 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened. 3. VACATION OF EXISTING 10 FOOT WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 8 OF VIEWLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION FOR FLORIN RHOADS, 1530 LA MESA DRIVE City Engineer Marr stated that this has been presented to the City Council. City Attorney Karmel advised that the Planning Commission must hear it and make recommendation prior to the City Council hearing. Mr. Florin Rhoads appeared at the hearing and explained that five years ago he was granted a standard sewer easement across the back. This was in essence a private easement and didn't connect to the newer easement which was deeded to the City. Mr. Rhoads was asking the City to abandon the live easement. He was proposing to use the lower sanitary sewer easement rather than the top one. He stated it was a matter of formality. It has been worked out with the Engineering Department and is legal. He was asking to present this to the Planning Commission so legal formality can be accomplished. Chairman Kindig asked for comments from City Engineer Marr who replied that Engineering has okayed the new sewer and installation of the sewer is almost complete. The City Council may act to establish the new sewer easement along the rear of the lots and then the old one can be abandoned. He stated that the Engineering Department has no objection. City Attorney Karmel advised there are: two ways of abandoning an easement. One is just by Council action with no hearing except that Council satisfies itself. The other concerns an easement that appears on a map and has never been used or hasn't been used in a period of time (say, three years) prior to Council action. In the case of a live easement, then Council must proceed to the public easement vacation law which requires recommendation by Planning Commission and public hearing for City Council to adopt. He stated the Council has done this and a hearing has been :yet for September 17. City Attorney Karmel added that under the public easement vacation law no order of the Council shall be made in an area until.the proposed vacation is submitted to and acted upon by the Planning Commission. Obviously, the Planning Commission cannot vacate the easement, and the nature of the Planning Commission action is a report to City Council. M15 At this point Commissioner Mink proposed that the easement for sanitary sewer across Lots 1, 2, 3 and 8 of Viewland Estates Sub- division for Florin Rhoads be vacated as identified on the tentative parcel map and be recommended to City Council. This recommendation was approved by unanimous roll call vote of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sine then asked if there had been a permit issued for the work under way and City Engineer Marr replied this had been agreed to in the Engineer's office and permit issued, not a building permit. Plans for the new sewer had been agreed to. The next item on the agenda was taken out of order to allow the applicant's attorney to catch a plane for Los Angeles. 13. CONSIDER REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALFA DOLLAR -WISE RENT -A -CAR SYSTEM AT 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert A Lapporte, an attorney from the Los Angeles area. He commented that Mr. Jaoude, the present manager of Alfa Dollar -Wise Rent-A-Car System in Burlingame, had indicated the source of the problem at the last meeting of the Commission. At the time of the agreement with the Planning Commission, Alfa had 19 parking spaces at the rear of the building. Since then the property had changed hands and the present owner is using those spaces. This presents a hardship for the Alfa operation. He then advised the Commission that within the last three days or so they had entered into negotiations with Mr. Robert Brown to lease additional parking area near their site. They believed this would alleviate their problem and allow them to comply with the prior intent of the Commission. In addition, Mr. Jaoude had written a letter asking to lease a strip of City owned property adjacent to the Alfa Dollar -Wise property. Alfa does not feel that leasing of that strip is necessary for them to avoid further violations of the existing permit. He had one further request to the Commission: at the time of prior hearing the Commission had said they could park six vehicles by the side of the building. Vehicles are now smaller, compact vehicles, and they would like the limitation increased to eight or nine vehicles. Further discussion followed on leasing property at the rear of a commercial building for parking rental cars off site. The.10,000 square foot building at 1722 Gilbreth Road has an area at the rear paved for the purpose of future parking. City Planner Swan was asked his opinion and he advised he had had no knowledge of this plan prior to this meeting. He added that it deserved study for consideration as a retail service establishment in an M-1 district. It might be recommended that the owner of 1722 Gilbreth Road apply for a special permit for lease of off -site parking to another establishment. There was further discussion regarding Mr. Jaoude's letter of August 20, that the Commissioners would like more time to study this proposal and pursue it with staff. Commissioner Sine commented during this discussion that Alfa did certainly flagrantly abuse their previous agreement and most members felt the matter was in a gray area at the moment. City Planner Swan stated he wanted to make the record clear that the City cannot lease its street areas. Further, in light of that, he commented it seemed that continued parking of commercial cars on the City property ought to be desisted from now on. The City of Burlingame had received a letter from someone on Stanton Road and Mr. Swan felt this communication should be included.in the hearing. Secretary Jacobs read the August 21 letter from William R. Benevento, Treasurer, Curley -Bates, 860 Stanton Road, Burlingame for inclusion in the minutes of this meeting. "Regarding the Planning Commission's review prior to granting any special permit to Alfa -Rent-A-Car System at 1669 Bayshore Highway, we would bring only one observation. Specifically, at times there are a substantial number of their cars parked on Stanton Rd. It would appear that the property does not have sufficient space to park their vehicles thereon, thus, necessitating Alfa's use of the street. If in fact, their plan is to expand their business over the course of: time, then I question the adequacy of the current location to house the vehicles which they rent." Chairman Kindig announced that this item will be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mink indicated he would like the record to show Alfa Rent-A-Car is to desist from parking on public property, even until. the time of the next hearing. Mr. Lapporte advised they will attempt to consummate the lease as quickly as possible. Chairman Kindig then noted the presence of Mayor Martin, Councilman Mangini and Councilman Amstrup. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE LOT 8 VIEWLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND LANDS OF KILBOURNE FOR FLORIN RHOADS, 1530 LA MESA DRIVE Mr. Rhoads stated that the easement previously considered was a separate matter. The purpose of this request was to deed himself 2-1/2 feet so that the property line of the present lot will meet acreage that he has in back. He stated he believed the Engineering Department and City Attorney would say that he had met all the recommendations that have been made. This hearing is his formal request. Discussion followed revealing that there is a common driveway off Mesa Court. Property the applicant is taking off his lot is the southeastern portion of Lot No. 8; and the map indicates Parcel A and B are outside boundaries of Viewland Estates Subdivision. There was discussion by the Commissioners regarding the exact lot. Chairman Kindig declared the public hearing closed after no response was received to his request for audience comments. City Engineer Marr explained that Parcel B proposes to have access to La Mesa Court (a common drive and Public Utility Easement) by a private driveway; Parcel A has access to La Mesa Drive, a public street. Parcels A and B as far as the City is concerned are one lot at the present time and Mr. Rhoads is dividing it 'up into two parcels. He further stated that access to the private driveway is adequate and the total of 15,000 square feet is adequate. -7- There followed a discussion regarding cut and fill and the need for a soils engineer's report on these lots. Mr. Rhoads stated he didn't believe this had a bearing on making this a legal lot. City Attorney Karmel commented regarding the legality of the lot, advising that he didn't know whether the one lot had access to the city streets but if that access is now in existence, then these lots are legal and he has the right to subdivide. He also advised that the fact that this involves two subdivisions does not affect the legality. City Attorney Karmel further commented that a number of years ago Burlingame wrote into their code the matter of hillside subdivisions. Where it is not possible to have a frontage on a public street, there might be dedication of an easement, and lots could front on that right-of-way. It has been the practice in this city to make the City of Burlingame an owner of an easement to make certain vehicles and personnel could use it. Mr. Rhoads stated that this is a common easement between all lot owners and the City. City Engineer Marr indicated he was fairly certain that at the time of the Viewland Estates Subdivision under date of 1968 the City was a party to this common driveway. City Attorney Karmel advised he did prepare such an easement for Mr. and Mrs. Rhoads. City Engineer Marr stated that prior to issuing a building permit a soils report is required, and that the building permit has already been issued for Parcel B. City Planner Swan said the public utility easement is bordered by Lot 8 of Viewland Estates. The apparent purpose of` this parcel map is to sever a portion of Lot 8 and add it to Parcel. B of Lands of Kilbourne. He stated that Mr. Rhoads' mention of 2-1/2 feet confuses the way lot lines are being described and changed. Chairman Kindig commented that they were really going one step further, actually effecting a third lot. Mr. Rhoads stated he is the: owner of Parcel B but not the owner of Parcel A. Commissioner Mink made the motion the Commission adopt the Tentative Parcel Map to divide Lot 8 Viewland Estates Subdivision and Lands of Kilbourne for Mr. Florin Rhoads, 1530 La Mesa Drive:, as indicated on the drawings dated June 6, 1973. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,SINE,KINDIG City Engineer Marr advised that a final parcel map will be needed. Chairman Kindig declared a short recess at 10:00 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at 10:05 P.M. 5. VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD REGULATION FOR GARAGE AT 2201 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, BY WALTER L. MC ARDLE (ND-9P POSTED 7/12/73) Chairman Kindig advised that this item had been continued from a previous meeting, the public hearing on this was closed and Mr. McArdle had been asked to talk to staff and come back with a revised plan. �� Mr. McArdle stated that he had not talked to Mr. Swan since the previous meeting, that the suggestions from the Commission were not applicable and that he seemed to be the only concerned party. In the discussion that followed it was pointed out that at least two of the Commissioners had driven by to inspect his house from the outside, that the Commission thought he left the last meeting with the idea of making some changes and that it seemed he wanted to do something that other property owners were not allowed to do. There was also objection from the Commissioners to the inside stairway. Commissioner Taylor commented that the variance would have to be passed on need and need was not apparent to him. There were alternatives available which the applicant did not want to explore. During further discussion Commissioner Sine suggested that Mr. McArdle be granted an extension of time for 60 days in order to consult with a designer and staff as to what he can and cannot do that would be agreeable to the Planning Commission. City Planner Swan stated the plan originally brought in to the building inspector showed an extension of the garage into side setback. Plans excluding the garage were approved June 15, 1973; the applicant had an O.K. to get a building permit for everything he wanted to build except the garage. The garage extension requires a variance. It was suggested by several of the Commissioners that. this matter be put over for two to three months and that Mr. McArdle would be well advised to come up with something definitive from an architect, draftsman or whomever (someone who knows the code) and consult with staff. Chairman Kindig asked at several points if Mr. McArdle wanted a vote now and explained that in such case, if he was turned down, he could not reapply for a year. Commissioner Cistulli believed the Commission had given him ample time and still received the same explanations, and. at this point made a motion that the Commission deny this variance. Chairman Kindig asked again if Mr. McArdle wanted a vote and Mr. McArdle answered that he would talk to Mr. Swan. Commissioner Cist:ulli then withdrew his motion. City Planner Swan requested direction as to whether this is a hardship or not, whether it is just redesigning or should a variance be requested. He noted that City Council has suggested that we do not accept applications unless they are justified. City Planner Swan stated that unless there's a hardship, there's no need to spend further time on the matter. Commissioner Mink suggested that Mr. McArdle consider the matter and if he feels hE! can meet all the requirements, then he would recommend staff receive the information and prepare a report for the Commission. Chairman Kindig then declared this hearing continued to the meeting of September 24. 6. PARCEL MAP TO CREATE TWO PARCELS FROM PARCEL C:, 2.83 ACRES, MOL, ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF ADRIAN COURT IN UNIT NO. 3 MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK BY WILLIAM J. LOWENBERG Herbert Hall of Wilsey & Ham appeared, representing Associated Engineering Construction who represent Mr. Lowenberg. He advised that the Commission had seen the tentative map and that the one CUM he was presenting was the final map, also stating that this is a simple resubdivision approximately 1.4 acres each. City Engineer Marr advised that existing Parcel C, one large parcel, will be divided into two parcels, D and E. He said Engineering has checked the engineering, arithmetic and description, and if the Commission wished to pass, he had original tracing for its signature. He also stated there is more than sufficient frontage on a public street. Chairman Kindig asked for any audience comment. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Mink moved that the Commission approve this parcel map. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and passed by unanimous roll call vote. 7. PARCEL MAP BURLINGAME PLAZA NO.1, LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 (APN 025-122-110, 100 AND 050 RESPECTIVELY), FOR PETRINI'S MARKET AND OTHERS BY FRANK VENTURELLI Mr. Louis Arata appeared before the Commission representing the owner, Mr. Venturelli. City Engineer Marr had no comments, saying that the map was ready for Commission approval. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment, there was none and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Cistulli made the motion that this parcel map be approved by the Commission, it was seconded by Commissioner Sine and passed by unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Arata added for the information of the Commission that there was interest concerning efforts of upgrading the Burlingame Plaza area. An organization has been formed by the merchants to gradually improve Burlingame Plaza and the first action taken has been the spending of a little over $1,000 to buy concrete receptacles for the area. The money for these improvements is coming out of the pockets of the merchants themselves and they will go ahead as such, is available. 8. RESUBDIVISION MAP TO COMBINE PARCEL 1 AND 2 PORTION LOT C BLOCK 10, BURLINGAME LAND CO. AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD FOR S. L. GRIFFITHS, INC. OFFICE BUILDING Mr. Allan T. Meyerhoffer represented S. L. Griffiths, Inc. City Engineer Marr indicated that, as stated in the study meeting, this has gone through City Council for permission to construct an office building on this property, located next to the service station on Primrose Road near the corner of Chapin. As yet Engineering has not received the final tracing. It is up for passage by the Commission. Chairman Kindig asked for comments from the audience. There were none and he declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Cistulli made a motion that the Commission approve this resubdivision map, it was seconded by Commissioner Sine and approved unanimously by roll call vote. -10- 9. PETITION FOR A FENCE AND TRELLIS WHICH EXCEEDS SIX FEET IN HEIGHT BETWEEN 1516 AND 1520 BERNAL AVENUE BY MR. AND .MRS. V. MANFREDI AND MR. AND MRS. R. MARTIN Richard F. Martin appeared for the applicants. He said that Commissioner Sine visited the property and suggested they prepare drawings of the fence design and also the trellis. These were then presented to the Commission, the first page being a top view line drawing of the driveway, property line between the two homes, line of posts for the fence and also plan view of trellis. The trellis would begin opposite the rear of the Manfredi deck. The second page was a photograph from SUNSET MAGAZINE showing the design of the fence with the trellis that they are interested in building. The third drawing was Mr. Martin's drawing of what the side view of the fence would be, the way the posts are put into the ground, and also top view of the trellis. Chairman Kindig asked for audience comments and there being no response the public hearing was closed. In the ensuing discussion by the Commissioners and applicant it was developed that the trellis would be no higher than eight feet, 18 inches on each side, 36 inches across. There was some concern expressed regarding the overhang of the trellis. Commissioner Cistulli moved that this petition for a fence and trellis which exceeds six feet in height be approved as shown on the drawings submitted by Mr. Martin at this meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously by roll call vote. 10. SIGN PERMIT FOR 207 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN TO IDENTIFY PETRINI'S MARKET AT BURLINGAME PLAZA BY AD -ART SIGN, INC. Mr. Wade McCord appeared for Ad -Art Sign, Inc. and presented a colored drawing of the proposed sign. Chairman Kindig asked for audience comment and there being none he declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Cistulli moved that the Commission approve the sign permit for a 207 foot wall sign to identify Petrini's Market at Burlingame Plaza. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and passed unanimously by roll call vote. At this point Commi.ssioner.Cistulli commented that Mr. Petrini had been most cooperative and that he is a welcome addition to the community. Mr. Petrini answered that he looked forward to helping upgrade Burlingame Plaza. 11. SIGN PERMIT FOR A 48 SQUARE FOOT POLE SIGN TO IDENTIFY KEE JOON'S PENTHOUSE RESTAURANT AT 433 AIRPORT BLVD. BY AD -ART SIGNS, INC. Mr. Les Kynett appeared for Ad -Art Signs, San Jose regarding this free standing pole sign to identify Kee Joon's. Chairman Kindig asked for audience comment. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine commented that he would like to :gee the rendering of the next item on the agenda before voting on this sign, questioning the need for this sign if there is a large sign on the building. -11- Commissioner Mink moved that this sign permit for a 48 square foot pole sign to identify Kee Joon's Penthouse Restaurant be approved according to the drawings submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and approved unanimously by roll call vote. 12. SIGN VARIANCE FOR AN ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN AT A HEIGHT GREATER THAN FIFTY FEET FOR KEE JOON'S RESTAURANT The illuminated wall sign was then demonstrated to the Commission by Mr. Kynett. Mr. David Keyston advised the Commission that this would be the only sign on the building. He also commented that the sign was different - a bronze solar screen with bronze anodized aluminum letters, a subdued white light for illuminating the letters. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment, there was none and the public hearing was declared closed. Discussion followed by the Commissioners eliciting the following points: there will be no further signs on the building; the intention is to have two walls of travertine marble for the entry lobby out to the street and the only other identification for the building will be the street: address. Mr. Keyston indicated the master plan for this area mentions the possibility of taller buildings between Kee Joon's and the freeway within six or eight years, -at which time this sign would not serve much purpose. Commissioner Mink then moved that the Commission approve the sign variance for an illuminated wall sign at a height greater than fifty feet for Kee Joon's Restaurant located at 433 Airport Blvd., the top line of copy to have a maximum letter height of eight feet, the second line of copy to be six feet, using solar screen with anodized aluminum letters, and with the following conditions: if other identification signs are requested for this building, they will be considered contrary to the intent of this variance and this variance will be subject to revocation, and that this variance be adopted for a term not to exceed five years. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it was adopted unanimously by roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Sine brought up the matter of the Bank of America plans and questioned the architect coming in with an addenda for the sign only with separate set of specifications. City Engineer Marr advised a permit had been issued for the Bank of America building on the corner of Chapin and El Camino but he didn't know of any signs. City Planner Swan said the Bank of America plans were approved by the Planning staff excluding the sign and subject to approval of landscaping by the Park Department. He also said Planning did not receive documents other than the set of plans and application for a building permit. 14. REPORT ON SIGN PERMIT FOR CABLE CAR WASH City Planner Swan commented that the sign for Cable Car Wash was part of the Building Permit approved before the code was amended requiring a sign permit for any sign larger than 32 square feet. Commissioner Sine also commented that the Council had approved, but the sign would have to stand on its own and come in for a sign permit. -12- 15. PROGRESS REPORT ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICES AND RESTAURANTS City Planner Swan reported his comments at the Parking Commission meeting Wednesday, August 22. He said the Planning Commission had directed study of parking requirements for offices and restaurants. In his opinion parking requirements for general offices (one space for 300 square feet of gross floor area) appeared to be appropriate. Based on his experience there are three types of office uses that probably should be given closer study because they require more parking: (1) banking (floor area); (2) medical office buildings; and (3) real estate offices. They crowd more desks into a small area and generate need for more parking than the usual office. City Planner Swan also commented the C-4 districts are a particular problem because of restaurants. Operators of restaurants are in compliance with the code but still do not have enough parking. He mentioned alternatives for employee parking such as bus or the transport of employees to places where their cars are parked. New ideas will be explored in the future in this regard. City Planner Swan read excerpts from a letter to Atlantic Richfield Company regarding the Atlantic Richfield car wash at Broadway and Rollins Road, City of Burlingame from Robert S. Chadwick, Attorney at Law. Writing on behalf of Industrial Realty and. the Estate of Clare F. Kemp, Chadwick expressed concerns about all traffic from the car wash exiting via Whitehorn Way, a private road. He alleged there might be damage from heavy construction equipment, wear and tear, conflicts with other users, water dripping and storm drainage; and . a car wash would certainly involve a substantially greater use than the road has ever been used to carrying before." There was discussion by City Attorney Karmel and others of the Commissioners regarding public and private right-of-way in relation to Whitehorn Way. COMMUNICATIONS City Planner Swan noted that the Division of Highways is obliged to measure and report noise along State highways. Burlingame is involved with E1 Camino Real, Route 101 and Route 280. The Division of Highways will be preparing noise element information at the county- wide level; Burlingame has received figures and maps before other counties and cities. He also commented on zoning regulations for Day Care and Residential facilities in San Mateo County. There is a need for housing of different types of people such as invalids, the elderly, handicapped, foster children, et cetera, and provisions in local zoning laws to accommodate these people. It is not possible for -the City of Burlingame to take the lead but we will coordinate when other local agencies adopt enabling legislation. City Planner Swan informed the Commission that a Policy Document and Revised Ordinance on Signs has been prepared for review with the -13- City Council. Urban Design Guidelines Report No. 7 from Bill Spangle will be transmitted to Council on September 4. Council may wish to schedule this for study. The basic recommendation in Spangle's report is to require special permits for building:; that are more than 35 feet in height. The City Planner does not: think this is a comprehensive urban design principle. He believes more specific guidelines and regulations are needed. Chairman Kindig then announced that Mr. Malcolm M. Jacobs, presently secretary of the Planning Commission, has sent in his resignation to the City Council. He spoke for all members of the Commission in saying that they had enjoyed working with him and appreciated the contributions he had made during his term of office. Councilman Amstrup, present for a great part of the meeting, then commented he had enjoyed the meeting. He also advised the Council had passed the budget that evening and that the tax rate for the next year was $1.15. He, also, added a few words of thanks to Mr. Jacobs, speaking for himself and many people of Burlingame, and saying that Mr. Jacobs was deserving of nothing but praise. Commissioner Jacobs commented it had been his pleasure to serve on the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary,