HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.07.23THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
July 23, 1973
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None City Planner Swan
Jacobs City Engineer Marr
Kindig City Attorney Karmel
Mink Consultant Spangle
Norberg Planning Assist. Eley
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 8:00 P.M., Chairman Kindig presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of June 25 were approved after
the correction of the first sentence on Page 7 to read, n. .
moving present zoning only one lot West . . ." The minutes of the
adjourned meeting and the study meeting of July 9 were approved and
adopted. The minutes of the special meeting of July 13 were approved
after correction to show Commissioner Cistulli's arrival at 5:30
instead of 5:40 P.M.
GENERAL PLAN
1. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL: CONSERVATION ELEMENT REVISIONS REFERRED
BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REPORT TO COUNCIL AUGUST 6.
Chairman Kindig reviewed briefly the action which previously took
place on this element. The Planning Commission had two hearings
on this element, finally passing resolution recommending its approval
and forwarding it to the Council. The Council, after hearing,
recommended some changes which are tonight brought back to the
Commission for review. It was noted that this was a Commission
action and not a public hearing.
Chairman Kindig expressed his regret to Mr. David Keyston that his
proposed changes to one of the appendices could not be considered
at this meeting since it is for the express purpose of considering
Council changes. He suggested to Mr. Keyston that his changes be
brought to a Council hearing. Mr. Keyston remarked he thought the
appendices were not a part of the Element and changes could be made
by the Council without referring back to the Planning Commission.
The City Attorney concurred. The Chairman reminded those present
that the Planning Commission resolution adopting the Element had
included the adoption of Appendices 1 through 4.
City Planner Swan commented that the changes should be consideed
one at a time at this meeting with a report back to the Counci .
- 2 -
Chairman Kindig then reviewed the proposed changes separately,
asking for Commission comment. Changes and comment were:
Page 3 - omission of sentence, "In case of any conflict the
Conservation Element is intended to supersede previously adopted
material but only to the extent of the conflict."
Commissioner Mink felt there was some ambiguity in this action.
Commissioner Taylor commented that this sentence had originally
been added in response to wishes of the public present at a hearing;
and requested clarification from the City Attorney.
City Attorney Karmel stated he thought the practical effect is
not going to change whether the language stays in or goes out.
This Element addition is a part of the General Plan. If there are
inconsistencies between a part which`&added later and a part which
has existed for some time, the rule would be that the later action
of the Council is to be given effect because the Council knew what
the prior application was.
Page 8 - Addition of "g) To promote economic growth which is con-
sistent with an improvement in the quality of the environment."
No Commission comment.
Under Summary Recommendations addition of underlined phrase in
b) "The City should initiate a study by the Planning Commission
of the remaining natural areas to determine the effect of development
on or near these areas." No comment.
Page 9 - addition to g) "and in the community." No comment.
Page 19 Paragraph 633 - "Extend a sewer outfall to the deep waters
of the Bay, preferably through cooperative action with other
jurisdictions" add "if Federal grants are received." Chairman
Kindig was not happy with this phrase since he felt it implied that
if a Federal grant of only 10% were received, for instance, the
City would be obliged to comply. He conceded that this is`not usually
the case, but questioned the legality. The City Attorney reported
that Burlingame is under a mandate by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board to dispose of effluent through an outfall sewer and
it is required to do this through South San Francisco's outfall.
There is presently a Joint Powers Agreement between the cities of
Millbrae and Burlingame for the building of a connection between
their two plants and the plant at the south end of South San Francisco.
Applications for Federal grants have already been made. This is
why the phrase was added by the Council. They did not plan to do
this with the funds available solely to this city and Millbrae.
Page 25, Paragraph 659 - Add "Develop programs to arrest deterioration.
Add "For areas in transition monitor the needs of the areas and
develop programs accordingly." Delete "Develop and implement
special zoning for areas in transition. Study the urban services and
utilities needed in these areas, develop a pro ram, ar� aa implement."
Add "Insure that urban services meet the demands." Add "Develop
- 3 -
a maintenance code for all private properties, to eliminate fire
hazards and to improveappearance and public safety." No comment.
Page A-IV-6 - Change line 6 to read "Elementary schools are not
conveniently accessible." Change line 8 to read "Rehabilitation
program needed." No comment.
Page A-IV-7 - Area 14 - delete "This area, along with areas 15 and
16, has the major concentration of deteriorating residences in the
City according to the 1960 Census of Housing. The City Attorney
remarked the Council possibly objected to the word "deteriorating."
No comment.
Page A-IV-B - second line, delete "Special low income housing
program may be desirable." Change fourth line to read "Area
requires careful treatment to maintain quality." Change fifth and
sixth lines to read only "Rehabilitation and code enforcement
programs are needed." Commissioner Mink questioned if the General
Plan did not require a low income housing element. Both City
Planner Swan and Mr. Spangle agreed that there was a section about
a preliminary housing element, but no further work had been done
on it.
Page A-IV-10, Area 18 - Seventh line to read "Some older homes,
which are within a block of E1 Camino Real and which are slowly ."
Change fourth paragraph to read only "Care needs to be taken to
Protect the entire area." No comment.
Commissioner Sine stated he had had minor changes to suggest in
this element but they.would wait for the trial period. He moved
the Planning Commission adopt the Conservation Element revisions
referred back to them by the City Council. Commissioner Cistulli
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
2. PRESENTATION OF URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINES BY
WM. SPANGLE & ASSOCIATES.
Mr. William Spangle presented a progress report on this subject.
He told the Commission that he and his consultant had hopes] to complete
this work by meeting date but had been unable to do so. However,
it will be completed and delivered to the City on August 7 for
presentation at the Planning Commission study meeting on August 13.
He then reviewed previous work on this element. Report No. 1 was
a visual survey and,an outline for urban design framework. This
report outlined some of the existing urban design conditions, with
the purpose of outlining major factors. This identified focal
points and special qualities in the city, and some of the urban
areas. Report No. 2 covered open space inventory and identified
some criteria for placement of tall buildings and guidelines.
Report No. 3, presented in February, 1973, included some preliminary
urban design guidelines. Mr. Spangle and his associates are now in
the process of reviewing these from the standpoint of public input
at these meetings. The framework that will be presented will be a
beginning point in establishing city policy regarding matters
affecting visual quality in the City.
Mr. Spangle then showed slides, most of which were maps and dia irams
identifying land uses, circulation, problems and issues in certain
- 4 -
areas, criteria for placement of tall buildings, etc. There were
a few slides showing views and characteristics of the city that he
thought it important to preserve.
Mr. Spangle reviewed briefly the major elements of the urban design
framework. These include hills and ridge lines, bay and shore
lines, rows of tall trees along transportation corridors, and the
development that occupies the spaces between these features. Each
of these developmental areas has its individual character, and he
thought these characteristics must relate to the overall framework.
New buildings must relate to the existing buildings as well as to
the overall framework. He pointed out that in making this review
there are many other factors to be kept in mind other than visual
quality when standards are being established, such as the relations
between the traffic generating characteristics, the airport extension,
the proposed transit system, and consideration of equity for property
owners. Guidelines have been organized under main sections -
those that would apply city-wide, and those that apply to sub-
areas.
These sub -areas include commercial areas, residential, industrial,
and the waterfront area. He noted there will be specific consideration
of the railroad corridor since substantial improvement could be
made there. There will also be identification of criteria for
buildings over 35' in height, and a recommendation for review and
special permit for all new structures over 35' in height.
Chairman Kindig thanked Mr. Spangle for his report. He then
announced that Mr. Charles Eley would make a progress report on
sign review procedures.
Mr. Eley reported briefly on the timetable for this work. A
photo survey of signs in Burlingame has been completed. This
includes regulations for various typesof sign procedures in various
locations. In the next three weeks it is intended to revise the
first draft fully; and meet with City staff, Planning Commissioners,
and staffs of other cities to develop feedback. On August 13 the
proposed ordinance will be presented at the Planning Commission
study meeting. During the two weeks after that, it will be further
revised to put it into shape for action by the Commission on
August 27.
HEARINGS AND SIGN PERMIT APPLICATIONS
3. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-18P WITH ADDENDA PREPARED
BY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES FOR THE BURLINGAME BUBBLE MACHINE
Chairman Kindig announced consideration of this environmental impact
report. He noted the presence of Mr. R. H. Rieber, property
representative of Standard Oil; Mr. Thomas C. Thatcher, vice president,
The Bubble Machine= and Dr. Richard Cole of Environmental Science
Associates.
City Planner Swan reported•to the Commission that EIR-18P as well as
two addenda dated May 24 and June 26 had been circulated to Commission
members. He added that if the information is deemed adequate it is
customary that the Planning Commission give its approval to this
EIR.
=tW
Chairman Kindig requested comments from City Engineer Marr. The
City Engineer questioned if his criticism of Page 6 of the EIR
had been noted and the EIR corrected. This referred to the statement
that untreated effluent sometimes reached the Bay during period of
peak flow.
Dr. Cole reported that correction had been made by Addendum No. 2,
Pages 2 and 3, which states, briefly, that during peak periods
of wet weather flow effluent may receive only primary treatment and
chlorination; and during peak dry weather flow, effluent still
receives secondary plus partial tertiary treatment. The City
Engineer read the corrections and stated he would accept them.
Commissioner Taylor noted that the technical discussion regarding
wastewater recycling stated it is possible to have 100% recycling.
However, on this small size site it was not feasible. He questioned
what recycling would be done. Dr. Cole replied that 100% of the
wash water would be recycled, but that the rinse water would not be
recycled at all and would go in the sewer system. Recycling all the
water would require too much space.
Chairman Kindig requested comments from the City Planner, who
reported he thought the EIR was very complete.
Commissioner Taylor, after remarking that the EIR furnished more
information than he wanted to know, moved adoption of Addenda 1
and 2. Commissioner Mink seconded and the motion carried on voice
vote.
There was discussion on procedure as to whether the EIR or the
special permit should be considered first. The City Attorney suggested
Item 3, EIR; and Item 4, special permit, be consolidated for the
purposes of this hearing.
Mr. R. H. Rieber, Standard representative, was invited to address
the Commission. After thanking the Commission for their courtesy
in continuing this hearing, he told them that Standard proposes to
remove the existing facility and rebuild with a carwash. Continuation
was necessary since they wanted to place the present operator at
another location. The "Bubble Machine" will operate this external
car wash under a lease. Mr. Rieber noted Standard's concern with
community service and their feeling there is a need for a car wash
in that area. The new facilities will be landscaped, covering 25%
of total site area. He commented that Standard thought a fine job
was done on the EIR. Mr. Rieber then introduced Mr. Tom
Thatcher of the Bubble Machine.
Mr. Thatcher also remarked that the location was good for this type
of operation, and that it was a necessary service. He said the
Bubble Machine was not a franchise company but a California
corporation, 3'h years old. It has several locations, the nearest in
Redwood City, and is expanding into Southern California.
Mr. Thatcher went on to say that exposed aggregate would be used on
the site and landscaping would be serviced by automatic sprinkling
system. Employment would be provided for a number of young people
as attendants. There now exist five open driveways. It is proposed
to close two of these and the third would be only an escape. The
entrance and exit will abut the auto machine shop at the far end
of the property. Mr. Thatcher voiced hope that they could locate
in Burlingame and give the community a service.
There was no audience comment for or against and the public hearing
was declared closed.
Mr. Eley showed slides of the plot plan and of elevation transparencies.
The City Planner noted that the roof line had been changed in
accordance with Commission suggestion at the study meeting.
Commissioner Norberg questioned the nature of the roof, and when
informed it would be wood shake, suggested that it should be tile
to conform with the surrounding buildings. He said that otherwise
the design is acceptable. Mr. Thatcher said that using tile would
present no problems if that was what the Commission desired. He
indicated they would not use anything but Mission type tile.
Commissioner Taylor asked if assurance could be given that the
recycling operation would not be bypassed. Mr. Thatcher informed
him that they preferred to recycle the wash water since it has
detergent in it and other material which they don't want going into
the sewer. This is a permanent type of installation and pit.
Commissioner Taylor questioned why Alternate Plan No. 3 had not been
used. This plan shows the building back along California Drive and
seems to have advantages from a car -stacking standpoint.
Mr. Thatcher stated that Alternative 3 had originally been considered
but the present plan was better from an operational standpoint, and
people would enter the car wash at about the same rate regardless
of whether the entrance was on California Drive or Highland. The
right hand turn into the site is also more convenient.
Mr. Taylor then questioned if Alternative 3 would not reduce the
blower noise on Highland. Dr. Cole reported that the blower would
add an insignificant amount of noise in this area. It stands 10'
within the building. Also they have already made design changes
in consideration of this noise. He noted the Bubble Machine at
San Rafael has an opening 8'8" high and 13' wide. The Burlingame
machine will have an opening 7'4" high and 10' wide. Other
significant changes have been made within the building to harness
the noise. With reference to Alternative 3, Dr. Cole commented that
this would involve an awkward traffic crossing problem on site.
He stated that the noise level at the nearest house is 63 dba. In
comparison, the level of normal speech, close up, is 60 dba.
In response to Commissioner Mink's questions about tree planting,
Mr. Thatcher stated trees would be planted on mounds approximately
3 feet high, 15 gallon tub size, with trees of 8" diameter. The
Commissioner approved the present site plan rather than #3, since it
presents a more open character to the California Drive side and
opens up the intersection. Commissioner Mink questioned if most
of the business was repeat. Mr. Thatcher said it was.
In response to Commissioner Sine's questions Mr. Rieber stated
that Standard owns the property and they have a tenure lease agreement
- 7 -
with the Bubble Machine for 3-5 years. In the event the Bubble
Machine is unsuccessful Standard Oil will be responsible for any
action at'the property. On further questions from Commissioner
Sine Mr. Thatcher stated that 15-20 young people would be employed
in part-time work, with a maximum of 4-5 at any given time on the
site. These could be youngsters who could fit this work in with
their school schedules. There would be 3, possibly 4, parking
spaces on the site. The City Planner commented that the code
requires 2. Mr. Rieber told the Commissioner that the present operator
would remain if this permit is not granted. Mr. Thatcher added that
the car wash is free with any fill -up, whether the fill -up entails
one gallon or 20. With respect to price of gasoline, Mr. Rieber
stated that Standard's prices in this city are established at their
Broadway and California station. At a dealer station, such as the
Bubble Machine, they would be in a supplier only position and sell
to the dealer at a wholesale price. The Bubble Machine would
establish the retail prices. Mr. Thatcher added that prices
are not raised to compensate for the car -wash program. They could
even be lower than street prices. The Bubble Machine is competitive
with local dealers.
Commissioner Sine commented that the layout is predicated on the
wall to the south acting as a sound barrier. He questioned if they
would put in a sound barrier if this building were torn down. Mr.
Thatcher said that they would if that happened and that they would
work with the City to rectify it. Mr. Rieber questioned if the
code would permit a wall if the building, which is right on the
property line, was torn down. The City Planner indicated that some
arrangement could be made.
Commissioner Cistulli questioned how much a wash would be without
gas. The price will be $1.25. The Commissioner wondered how the
car wash could remain in operation if they gave many washes at one
gallon. He was informed that the average fillup is 12 gallons.
Commissioner Mink questioned the hours and was told they hope to
open at 7:00 A.M. and close at 11:00 P.M. He cited the wind
conditions in this area and questioned the control of wast6 paper.
He was informed that there are built-in trash containers.
Commissioner Mink moved that the draft EIR 18P with two addenda
as prepared by Environmental Science Associates be considered to
be the report for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Taylor
seconded and the motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, MINK, NORBE RG, TAYLOR, KINDIG
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,SINE
Commissioner Jacobs .q a tis if-the_Qperatars_would-be W ing.=to
close .at 9:00 PM. Mr} That stated they -_could, but would-_arathe�__
make it `10 :00_P:_M. _ .
Commissioner. Jacobs moved that_'the
=_s ` --special-pi t- f _._ .
type car wash and gasoline service station by Standard Oil Company
for the Bubble Machine be approved in accordance with plans submitted
and with the following conditions: A tile roof is to be placed on
the building. Hours of operation are to be from 7:00 A.M. to
10:00 P.M. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and it carried
on the following roll call vote;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR,KINDIG
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,SINE.
5. SIGN PERMIT TO ERECT A POLE SIGN WITH THREE FACES OF 70 SQUARE
FEET EACH IN A C-2 DISTRICT BY COAST SIGNS TO IDENTIFY THE
BUBBLE MACHINE
City Planner Swan drew attention to a sign exhibit which showed this
sign as compared to others on the agenda. He stated that a model
of the sign and a definite site location had been requested. Mr.
Thatcher produced a plastic model, in color, of the sign. It is
red, white and blue with red lettering on the readerboard. He
also pointed out the definite location on the site plan.
Chairman Kindig requested audience comment. There was none.
(Ed. I wonder who does care?) The public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Cistulli remarked that if most of their business was
repeat customers, it was not necessary to have so large a sign which
blocks the view of the corner. Mr. Thatcher replied he thought
there is almost that much sign area there now. Identification is
definitely needed. Advertising reminds customers of what is there.
He stated they would like to have just the name "Bubble Machine"
but this is a young company and many people do not know what it
offers. The sign is permanent and is not a reader board.
Commissioner Cistulli protested the sign area of 210 square feet.
Mr. Thatcher stated this is total area for all three signs. One
side is only 70 square feet.
Commissioner Mink suggested that identifying.the Bubble Machine
with Standard Oil was all that was necessary, eliminating the wordage,
some of it in red, on the sign.
Commissioner Jacobs and Chairman Kindig agreed that the red on the
sign should be eliminated. Mr. Thatcher stated that even though
they wanted to highlight the word "Free" they would be willing to
change. Commissioner Sine stated he would not vote for such a
sign because of its size, height, and garish appearance. He suggested
the company had other types of signs that would be acceptable to the
Commission. Mr. Thatcher offered to go to a two-sided sign but felt
they still needed the width.
There was further discussion on the fact that the red in the sign
could confuse traffic with the red traffic light on the opposite
corner.
Mr. Thatcher was amenable to Commission suggestions and stated
he would come in with design for two-sided sign but wished some
staff guidelines. He was requested by Chairman Kindig to confer
with staff on new sign plans, and advised that the hearing would be
continued to August 27.
RECESS
There was a brief recess at 10:25 P.M. after which the meeting
reconvened.
6. SIGN PERMIT TO ERECT A GROUND SIGN WITH 124 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS
AREA IN AN M-1 DISTRICT TO:.IDENTIFY ARCO GAS/CAR WASH
Mr. T. T. Clausen of ARCO showed plans of the proposed sign to the
Commission. He noted that the actual sign area is 64 square feet,
the balance being made up of the brick pedestal which was added to
make the sign more attractive. The height of the sign is 14'„and
the price sign is 3' x 4' within the framework of the brick pedestal.
This is not a readerboard but a permanent sign and the lettering
would be in blue. The sign would be on the corner, at a right
hand turn. The driveway entering the car wash is at the other end
of the property.
The City Planner showed a slide of the present sign for comparison.
Mr. Clausen thought it was about 32' high in comparison with the
proposed sign of 14'. In response to correction, Mr. Clausen
indicated that possibly the present sign was 20' high.
There was no audience comment either for or against the sign, and
the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Cistulli liked the type of sign but was concerned
about the pedestal obstructing the view when a right hand turn is
to be made. He noted that fire equipment has to travel on Rollins
Road and make this turn. He stated he was in favor of lowering
the sign but thought it was dangerous on this turn. Commissioner
Jacobs suggested eliminating some of the pedestal. Commissioner
Cistulli was in favor -of that or the alternative of making this a
pole sign for greater visibility. Commissioner Sine suggested
reducing the height of the pedestal to 514" or 5'6" and the length
to 6'. Commissioner Norberg thought reducing the width of'the
pedestal would help.
There was considerable discussion, and Commissioner Cistulli
questioned if Mr. Clausen would be willing to reduce the pedestal
one foot on each side. Mr. Clausen indicated he would.
Commissioner Jacobs moved the Planning Commission grant this permit
for a ground sign, with the provision that the slump block base is
to be 6'0" wide and 7'4" high, the balance of the sign to be in
conformity with the drawings submitted. Commissioner Taylor seconded
the motion and it carried by unanimous roll call vote.
7. SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A POLE SIGN 47 FEET
IN HEIGHT AND A POLE SIGN 36 FEET IN HEIGHT IN A C-2 DISTRICT
AND SIGN PERMIT FOR A 36 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN AT 200 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE AND 1123 HOWARD STREET BY CUMMINGS & CO. OF CALIFORNIA,
INC. FOR ARATA PONTIAC
Mr. L. E. Goble of Cummings and Company displayed photographs of
- 10 -
the proposed signs as erected in other cities. Plans of the signs
were displayed on the bulletin board. There was considerable
discussion of size and locations. City Planner Swan projected slides
showing comparative signs on California Drive, and called to the
Commission's attention the various heights of the signs.
Chairman Kindig requested audience comment, for or against. There
was none, and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Cistulli questioned why the sign on the corner had to
be 47' high. The height of the building is only 24'. Mr. Goble
replied that in his opinion it was too high, but that was what the
dealership requested. The Commissioner added that in addition it
came right up against a lamp post, but his main objection was the
height.
Commissioner Sine stated he had no objection to updating the smaller
signs but the 47' sign was too high. He commented it might
be different for a new business to have a conspicuous sign but
Arata Pontiac had been well established in the community for a number
of years. He noted Mr. Arata's statement that a survey had been
conducted by General Motors several years ago and questioned why
they did not check with the City to determine what heights would be
allowable. Mr. Arata replied that the survey was made in 1969, and
this sign conforms with present signs used by General Motors. He
stated, however, he thought the height could be brought down.
Chairman Kindig disliked the height of the sign also, and suggested
submission of a lower sign at a future meeting. Mr. Arata stated
that anything lower than 36' would be lower than the present sign.
Commissioner Taylor questioned the sign area would have to be so
large and was informed by Mr. Arata that this is a standardized
sign by General Motors. Commissioner Mink suggested that if the
height of the sign were cut down the size should be cut down for
good proportion. He estimated submitted sign sizes as approximately
1/3 of the height. Chairman Kindig requested Mr. Goble and Mr.
Arata to confer with staff for the purpose of designing a sign that
would be more acceptable. Hearing was continued to August.27.
This was agreeable to both gentlemen.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AIR FREIGHT
TERMINAL IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1348 ROLLINS ROAD BY SFO EXPRESS
Mr. George Carter, SFO representative, told the Commission briefly
that his company, presently located at 1358 Rollins Road, had
grown and needed room for expansion. The building they wish to occupy
is owned by Mr. Whitt, and they had painted the building, put it in
better shape, and built a retaining wall in the front.
There was no response to Chairman Kindig's request for audience
comment for or against. The public hearing was declared closed.
Chairman Kindig questioned if the fence would remain between the
two properties. Mr. Carter said it would, and added that there
would be a very small sign on the building.
Commissioner Sine reported that he had examined the property and
thought the applicant had done a good job of upgrading the site.
There was no further Commission comment.
Commissioner Mink moved that the special permit to allow expansion
of the SFO Express air freight terminal at 1348 Rollins Road be
approved. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on
unanimous roll call vote.
9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR MR. FLORIN RHOADS, 1530 LA_ MESA DRIVE
Mr. Rhoads addressed the Commission, stating that he wished to bring
this illegal parcel up to code. The map now showed power pole easement
along the property line and private sewer easement. Everything
else is now up to code, including ample parking.
City Engineer Marr commented this is a matter of dividing one piece
of property into two parcels. This has already been done by the
County Assessor; however, Mr. Rhoads had never gone through the
City. On this present map there are included the two easements and
the power line easement. The final map had not been received, but
this tentative map could be approved and the final map could be
signed at a later date.
The City Planner pointed out the requirement to show where the
building site will be and where the drainage will go. There is a
requirement of a 50' frontage on a public street. This lot does
not have access to a public street. It is a proposed lot adjacent
to a common drive and Public Utilities Easement. There is now a
strip of land between it and the common drive. The owner must see
that a grant of easement is prepared prior to approval of a final
map.
There followed discussion of access to La Mesa Court.
City Attorney Karmel commented that a less than five -lot subdivision
such as this does not go forward to the City Council unless there is
an easement dedicated or public work done. The proposal for this
commission is to approve the tentative map and send it forward. He
stated this with respect to the dedication of the new easement. The
easement to be vacated would be under provision of the Government
code which provides that the Planning Commission shall consider the
matter of the vacation and report to the City Council prior to the
time they take action on the vacation.
There were no audience comments for or against this tentative map
and the public hearing was declared closed.
There was Commission discussion of the "dogleg" created in Parcel B
by the addition of the strip to provide access to La Mesa Court.
Commissioner Taylor questioned the City Planner if this map met the
requirements of R-1.
.City Planner Swan replied that there is a question of drainage
because this is not a level lot. Mr. Rhoads contended that the lot
had a gentle slope with plenty of room for a house and the drainage
would be along the lot line. In answer to question he stated
- 12 -
that the downhill side adjoined a creek and a canyon. He stated that
his soils engineer said it was in good shape with respect to slides,
being mostly original soil instead of fill. Commissioner Mink
advised that he would not like the lot developed with the problem
of slippage present. Chairman Kindig commented that since the
Commission seems to anticipate problems with this lot, it would be
best for Mr. Rhoads to confer with staff and submit a map in
accordance with their suggestions.
The City Engineer reported that actually this lot could meet all
the requirements of a legal lot; however, Mr. Rhoads could not
build on it without meeting the Building Inspector's requirements.
City Planner Swan again voiced his concern with the unstable soil
and future liability for the City of Burlingame. He granted this
parcel could be created as a legal piece of property and the Building
Inspector could approve a building permit. However with a driveway
which just has a toehold on the property and sloping land, he felt
there should be no approval unless a safe building site meeting
zoning regulations can be assured.
There was Commission.concurrence that consideration of this map
should be continued. Mr. Rhoads agreed.
10. TENTATIVE RESUBDIVISION MAP OF LOT 14 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 13
AND 15, BLOCK 8, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME LAND CO. BEING 519, 521,
525, AND 527 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY WM. A. BARTLETT FOR
DAVID A. NICOLAIDE S
Mr. Nicolaides addressed the Commission, stating he would like to
comply with City regulations and remove interior lot lines making
one parcel. He proposes to construct a 36 unit low-rise apartment.
The final map was to have been submitted at this meeting, but his
engineer did not have time to locate the corners, and it will be
transmitted in a few days.
The City Engineer received confirmation from him that the four
houses located on this parcel had been demolished. The City Engineer
then stated that he thought the Commission could take action at this
meeting pending the submission of the final map at a later date with
requirements of survey and corner marking.
The City Planner brought up the point that this is an L-shaped
lot and the Planning Commission may want to establish where the
front setback applies and where side yard applies. There was
Commission agreement that this could be an action independent of
this application.
Commissioner Mink moved acceptance of tentative resubdivision Map of
Lot 14, and portion of Lots 13 and 15, Block 8, Map No. 2,
Burlingame Land Company. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion
and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
11. SIGN PERMIT FOR NEW GROUND SIGN WITH 74 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS
AREA IN AN M-1 DISTRICT TO IDENTIFY AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER AT
1799 BAYSii_ORE HIGHWAY BY CAL -COAST SIGNS__FOR DOHEMAN & COMPANY
- 13 -
Cal -Coast Signs representative Jim Falvey told the Commission that
they wished to erect this sign because it is more in keeping with
the overall design of the building. The new sign would be bronze
anodized and 6' in height, with 48 square feet of copy area. This
contrasts with the existing sign which is 20' in height and has
approximately 64 square feet of copy area. The new sign would be
located centrally on the property. The existing sign is manufactured
of wood, the location is close to the Bay, and there could be future
maintenance problems. Mr. Falvey showed the Commission a photo
of the existing sign which will be removed.
Chairman Kindig questioned the setback requirements. The City
Planner advised there is a 15 foot setback line along Bayshore
Highway. The sign will be in the center of the Old Bayshore frontage
instead of on the corner.
There was no audience comment for or against and the public hearing
was declared closed.
Commissioner Sine noted that 30' in front of the building is patio
and asked if they proposed to move the sign to the south end?
Mr. Falvey replied that they did and stated "We are behind the setback."
He stated that this is a double-faced permanent sign, and referred
the Commission to a scale drawing of it. He agreed to comply with
Commission wishes on the existing landscaping.
Commissioner Sine moved the Commission approve the sign permit for
this ground sign at 1799 Bayshore Highway in accordance with the
sketch submitted by the applicant, conditional upon its being behind
the building setback line and approximately midway in the Old Bayshore
frontage, the old sign being removed, and the existing landscaping
to be left in. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it
carried on unanimous roll call vote.
12. 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)
Mr. McArdle told the Commission he had a double garage which could
not be used as such since it was too short. The buildings were
erected 35 years ago when automobiles were shorter. He wishes to
extend this garage 4' into the side setback so that it can be
utilized. He wishes to enlarge his house and needs this additional
room for the garage. The City Planner commented that the garage
probably isn't used at present, except as a storeroom. However, he
thought it would be better to redesign the entire house addition
including the garage.
There was no audience comment for or against this application, and
the public hearing was declared closed. There was Commission
discussion of the awkward location of a stairway inside the garage,
and the fact that this is an unattractive plan. Commissioner Mink
suggested the possibility of a new two -bedroom apartment by use of
this plan. Commissioner Sine suggested that the applicant confer
with staff to come up with a more acceptable plan. The Commission
agreed, and the applicant was so instructed by Chairman Kindig. Mr.
McArdle agreed to confer with staff.
- 14 -
13. SIGN VARIANCE FOR GRAPHIC DESIGN EXCEEDING 20% OF THE FRONT
AND SIDE WALL AREAS OF THE BUILDING AT 261 CALIFORNIA DRIVE IN A
C-2 DISTRICT BY IVAN CHIOLO
Mr. Ivan Chiolo represented the Penguin Lounge, and reported to the
Commission that the word "Cocktails" had already beenpainted out
of this sign and the "s" eliminated from"Penguin's" in an effort
to make the sign more subdued. He voiced his hope to continue
the penguin design around the side of the building fronting on the
City parking lot. In reply to Commission questions he stated that
building frontage is 36' wide and the side is 831. In response
to a remark that it was quite a flock of penguins, he said that
"Penguins don't bother anybody."
Commissioner Sine stated that in the light of the permit granted
Beardsley's, he would prefer that the side wall be left blank and
the front brought to within 20% coverage. The present graphics are
well over that with a coverage of 50%.
Mr. Chiolo protested that all other regulations had been complied
with, the sign had cost $900.00, and he paid $75.00 for the deletion
Of "Cocktails." He felt he was being penalized severely.
Commissioner Sine replied that the Commission had no desire to
penalize him but codes had to be adhered to. He pointed out that
in his experience if a mistake was made in business, it had to be
paid for. He felt that this should be rectified. If this sign is
permitted, many others of the same type would have to be permitted.
Commissioner Mink cited the temporary sign permit granted Beardsley's,
for examination by the Commission by February, 1974 to determine
community impact. The Beardsley sign comes with 180A of the coverage,
including the graphics, but not the excessive decoration. He stated
he would prefer that the Penguin sign not be extended to the side
and suggested the possibility of a temporary permit, subject to
review conditional upon the effect on the people in the community.
Mr. Chiolo stated he would agree to this.
Commissioner Sine protested he could not approve of this, and sign
coverage above 20% should be painted out.
Commissioner Taylor moved that the sign variance for graphic design
on the front wall of the building at 261 California Drive be approved
as modified by the elimination of the work "Cocktails" for a period
of six months, at which time the sign shall be reviewed by the
Commission. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR,KINDIG
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Malcolm M. Jacobs
Secretary