Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.11.25THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Kindig (excused) Asst. City Planner Yost Jacobs City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg Fire Chief Moorby Sine Councilman Cusick Taylor CALL TO O RDE R A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of October 30, .1974 were approved and adopted. Commissioner Sine stated that Item ll at the study meeting of November 11 was handled in the minutes as a study meeting item with generalizations, when in actuality it was an appeal of a decision and should have been handled as a hearing item with identification of speakers and their statements. He thought he had contributed useful expertise which should be included. Commissioner Jacobs also wished included her question regarding water running over sidewalks. The Chairman ruled that the minutes of the study meeting of November 11 are adopted with condition that a statement will be? drafted by Commissioner Sine with regard to Item 11, an appeal., and included as an addendum to the minutes. Also that the minutes should include the.fact that Commissioner Jacobs did request information from the City Engineer as to whether everyone had to drain storm water under the sidewalk and the answer was in the affirmative. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Chairman Mink acknowledged the presence in the audience of Councilman Cusick. 1. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Chairman Mink announced hearing on this City Council referral and requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner prefaced his remarks with quotation from City Council minutes of July 16 of the motion which states: "Councilman Cusick moved that this Council refer to the Planning Commission for hearing and report pursuant to the provisions of Government Code 65356.1 an amendment of Part III of the General Plan - 2 - as shown in the General Plan Studies Map so that Part III will be made identical with the present zoning code in those R-1 and R -II Districts where Part III of the General Plan now projects a higher density than that allowed by the present zoning code." Chairman Mink stated that the purpose of this hearing is to make report on this referral; that Part III of the General Plan is a map and the request is to make the map identical to the zoning map. Assistant City Planner Yost then referenced State Guidelines for General Plans for the distinction made between General Plans and Zoning Ordinances. The Guidelines define a zoning ordinance as a short range implementing device and the general plan as a body of long range public policy. The General Plan is intended to provide a broad base of policy for guiding decisions, while the zoning ordinance is a set of specific legal regulations. These distinctions made, the Assistant City Planner went on to review a previous referral by the City Council in February, 1973 for hearing on change to conform the General Plan to the present zoning code. He emphasized that the wording has been "conform" whereas present wording is "identical." The 1973 referral had culminated in the passage of Planning Commission Resolution 4-73 which found the zoning ordinance to be consistent with the General Plan. He noted that the Council agreed with this interpretation and they passed Resolution 42-73 which stated that the two documents are consistent. The Assistant City Planner stated that if more than consistency is desired, then a number of changes in the General Plan would be required. This is the purpose of the hearing since the referral mentions "identical" rather than "consistent with." Turning to wall charts, he explained one which showed the zoning map with an overlay of proposed densities of the General Plan. He went over the chart in detail, area by area. Some areas of proposed change were part of Burlingame Park; Corbitt Tract; Town of Burlingame near Peninsula Avenue; Rollins Road between Burlingame and Howard Avenues; Rollins Road from Oak Grove to Toyon; two areas near Broadway; several areas along E1 Camino Real; Quesada opposite Burlingame Intermediate; and an area on Skyline and Trousdale. This is a total of about 141 acres, involving approximately 672 lots. If these areas on the General Plan are made identical with the present zoning, it means a loss in future holding capacity of 4,500 - 6,200 additional people. Assistant City Planner Yost presented Commission alternatives in this matter as: 1. Deny Council request that the General Plan be amended, and reaffirm last year's Resolution 4-73. 2. Concur with Council request. 3. Effect a compromise which recognizes that there are certain problems with both the present zoning ordinance and the General Plan. That is, look for a way to meet the spirit of the referral, -3 - within a careful review of those lots on which developers have already built higher density dwellings. He pointed out that the City can no longer grant a use variance, and also the high risk the owner of a non -conforming structure incurs. He explained that a non -conforming use is a structure erected with a building permit, and sometimes a use variance, as opposed to an illegal use, which has no city sanction. Chairman Mink laid ground rules for audience participation, and requested comment from proponents of Council request. Mrs. John Barton, 734 Winchester Drive, was in favor. She noted that over a year ago many names had been collected for a petition to keep density down. Mr. L. C. Gunther, 333 Chapin Lane, approved, but stated he hoped that something could be done to recognize the special problems of apartment house owners already in these areas. Mrs. Robert Anderson, 113 Crescent, was in favor. She acknowledged there world be a problem with non -conforming apartment houses, but considered the needs of R-1 property holders in Burlingame Park was greater. She noted the number of illegal uses there, and considered the signatures on last year's petition to keep density low could now be doubled. Mr. Robert Ohlson, 211 Occidental, complimented staff on a clear and objective report. He believed the majority of the individual home owners in this community want to keep the city no larger in total than it is now. Mrs. C. Gordon Harford, 112 Crescent, stated she lived in apartments in Burlingame for a number of years; but now owns a house here and does not enjoy the people who live in apartments. Richard S. Nedwick, 1556 Cypress, stated he was in the construction business but would rather have a little less work and keep Burlingame residential. Marilyn Spadoni, 1557 Ralston, stated Burlingame was a little village, and questioned why it could not be kept that way. Debbie Sterner, 1565 Newlands, said that people in Burlingame Park do not want to be in the vanguard of the demise of residential areas. The following additional individuals voiced approval of making the General Plan identical with the zoning in R-1 and R-2. Their basic reasons seemed to be pride in the community and their enjoyment of living in Burlingame. Some negative impressions were voiced concerning apartment house dwellers and their apparent irresponsibility, transientism, and misconduct. Albert McMurray, 615 Howard R. E. Picton, 1576 Cypress Carl Gaither, 900 Linden Robert Fanucchi,,205 Dwight Mrs. J. Murray, 1525 Newlands Carolyn Richardson, 224 Stanley Goodley McKean, 837 Linden Claire MacNeil, 1411 Sanchez Susan Barberini, 1553 Drake Helen Rogers, 1575 Newlands Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Robert A. Vogel, 1585 Cypress Arnold Rodman, 905 Morrell Evelyn Hughes, 105 Howard Patricia Vogel, 1585 Cypress Vaughn Janssen, 121 Crescent Roy Sharon, 718 Linden Miss Thomas, 240 Stanley Clara Watson, 1561 Ralston Sheila Wilson, 232 Stanley Secretary Jacobs read a communication from Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Lansill, 344 Occidental Avenue, dated November 25, 1974 in favor of identity of the General Plan with zoning in R-1 and R -II. There was no response to the Chairman's request for comments in opposition to Council request, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commission discussion followed. Commissioner Jacobs asked the Assistant City Planner the usual length of time a city may use a general plan. The assistant City Planner replied that the time will vary from community to community. He thought a city should amend its general plan as soon as it is felt that it no longer reflects the feeling of its citizens. Commissioner Jacobs then questioned the City Engineer whether the General Plan or zoning is used as the guideline when major repairs are made to water and sewer system. City Engineer Davidson replied that repair work is done to conform to what is already there. If improvements are made, they are put in according to General Plan policy for future development. Commissioner Sine thought that if the R-1 Districts were kept as now indicated on the zoning map the main desires of the audience would be satisfied. However, he commented that changing the General Plan to conform to the zoning would cause no end of legal problems that would put the City in legal jeopardy for a number of reasons. As to absolute identity of the General Pian and the zoning map, he considered that would be possible only in a newly established city, and any subsequent permits would immediately destroy the identity. Commissioner Sine reaffirmed that he wished to keep the character of R-1 areas as it now exists in Burlingame, and stated that if rezoning to General Plan densities were to be discussed at this meeting, there must also be a discussion of changing the underground systems to conform to higher density. On the subject of apartments, the Commissioner noted that condominiums rather than apartments are the prevailing new developments in Burlingame. He thought.condominiums priced younger people out of the market, and would be purchased by middle-aged people and senior citizens which would sound a death knell to the city. He would prefer apartments over condominiums so that young people had an opportunity to live here. He auoted recent statistics which indicate that in 1960 Burlingame had a population of approximately 24,000, with 6,726 single family residences and 2,720 multi -family residences. October, 1974 - 5 - figures indicate population of approximately 28,000: single family _. residences 6,719; multi -family 5,714; which is an increase in a 14 year period of approximately 3,000 multi -family units. This indicates a trend which he found disturbing and he personally would prefer to maintain the City's single family areas as they now exist. However, he stated there is a problem on R-2 since! no duplexes have been built in over 8 -years. The -Commissioner's recommendation was that this matter be continued for further study in the R-2 areas, but that R-1 be retained as it presently exists. Commissioner Taylor commented that this present discussion pointed out changes in attitude and factors that were unavailable when the General Plan was adopted six years ago. It was adopted after a series of hearings based on evidence available at that time. He did not think anyone could have predicted recent change in attitude. He believed it is time the City reviewed the entire residential pattern of the General Plan and not just the R-1 and R-2 zones, and thought the Council was concerned about density in the whole community, not merely R-1 and R-2 districts. He noted his previous statement that identity of General Plan and zoning would create as many problems as it would solve, and stated that since the issuance of use variances is now illegal, the public concern about these variances of "spot zoning" is no longer valid. This issue has now resolved itself. He -stated there is an inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning map relating to density, and an attempt should be made to resolve it, although this will be difficult. Another consideration, he thought, should be the adoption of a method of dealing with non -conforming uses, and that the City must face the fact that people who have legal non -conforming properties do have a problem. He did not believe the General Plan could be amended until the City has solved that problem. He also thought there should be a study of methods to eliminate illegal uses. He noted prior suggestion at the Council level of an ordinance to deal with illegal uses by requiring a report on authorized use, occupancy, and zoning classification of a property prior to its sale. He felt he could not vote at this meeting in favor of a motion which would merely modify the General Plan without taking into consideration the very complex problem which the Planning Commission faces. On a question from Commissioner Jacobs, City Attorney Coleman stated he is presently pursuing several abatements until an official program is established. Commissioner Jacobs then requested that several areas such as the Corbitt Tract, be studied further. There was some further discussion. Chairman Mink then summarized the hearing. He thought sufficient evidence had been heard that whatever communication goes from Commission to Council, every effort should be made to bring the General Plan map into as close conformity as possible with the zoning in the following areas on the map exhibit: Sections R, S-1, S-2; and Q. In the following non -controversial areas which deal with existing uses, he considered that probably the zoning map should be made to conform with the General Plan map: Sections A, B, C, D, G, H, I, J, K, L, and T. Areas -to be further studi e d - 6 - individually he listed as Sections E, F, M, N, O, and P. The Chairman noted that of the approximately 672 :Lots considered in this total action, about 430 would be retained as R-1. Around 85 would be affected by bringing the zoning into conformance with the General Plan map and around 155 lots would be further studied for change in either the General Plan or zoning or both. He considered this type of report would deal with most of the testimony presented. He wished to caution the City Council that the City must deal justly and fairly with the non -conforming uses which were built in good faith. He suggested that the City Attorney advise the Council as to the course of this action. Chairman Mink also recommended that Commissioner Taylor's remarks concerning abatement be made a part of this report:. He questioned City Attorney Coleman as to the type of action to be taken at this meeting, and was advised that technically the action necessary is a report to fulfill Commission responsibility. The City Attorney repeated the three alternatives open to the Commission. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Planning Commission present to the City Council a report within sixty days including the testimony presented at this meeting as summarized by Chairman Mink and that it shall not include any denial of Council request for identity. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. RECONVENE After a short recess at 9:30, the meeting reconvened. 2. AMENDED SUBDIVISION MAP, PARK PLAZA 'POWERS, A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 110 PARK ROAD, BY FRAHM.EDLER.CANNIS FOR PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS. Chairman Mink announced consideration of this application and requested comment from City Engineer Davidson. The City Engineer stated that the original tentative and final subdivision maps had been approved by both Planning Commission and Council. This amended map is for the purpose of delineating changes in the as -built construction. Basically, these changes show the four units which were chanced from two story to one story, and the map is technically correct. At the Chairman's request, Mr. Duncan of Frahm.Edler.Cannis addressed the Commission and repeated that this map is for the purpose of demonstrating construction changes. He requested it be approved so that it could be recorded. Chairman Mink asked that the City Engineer verify that while this map was technically correct, it was not in conformance with the determination of the City Council that the developer change his construction back to the original plans. The City Engineer confirmed this statement. City Engineer Davidson exhibited the map to Commission members and explained changes. -7 - Commissioner Taylor remarked that the Commission is being asked to receify the developer's decision to amend a contract with the City, and the City Council had not accepted this amendment. Commissioner Francard asked if the work of actual revision was completed, and was informed it had been stopped by the Building Department. Commissioner Sine moved that the Planning Commission deny the request on the basis that any other action would be contrary to previous Council action. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 3. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION INTO ONE IAT OF A PORTION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 7, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY MAP NO. 2 RSM D/38 (APN 029-100-140/150) 619-23 ANSEL AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY WM. JAY HAMMOND FOR ROBERT AND KATHERINE BERRYMAN. At the request of the Chairman, City Engineer Davidson reported that this map in its tentative form had been approved by both the Planning Commission and the Council. An error was discovered on the front property line and it is changed to 123.00' from the 126.37' shown on the tentative map. The City Engineer commented there is a single family residence on each of the two lots involved. The subdivision map will result in two houses on a single parcel which is permitted in this R-3 zone. He pointed out, however, that these houses are not separated by the required 20'. The map meets all other requirements. On a question from the Chairman, he recommended that the map be approved, but the signatures withheld until the building or buildings are removed. Mr. Berryman addressed the Commission and agreed to this condition. He declared his intention of erecting an apartment. building on this property and stated that no variances would be necessary. Commissioner Taylor moved that this final parcel map be approved subject to the signatures being withheld until building code requirements are met with the removal of a building or buildings from the property. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 3, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 1 (APN 024-403-370) PROPERTY AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1, BY BRIAN, KANGAS, FALK AND ASSOCIATES FOR ALBERT HOOVER & ASSOCIATES {ARCHITECTS) AND CAROL J. FLYNN (OWNER) . City Engineer Davidson distributed copies of this map and explained it combines three lots into one parcel of 1.195 acres. This map meets all the requirements of the map act, and he recommended it for approval. The applicant's representative had no comment to the Commission. There was little discussion. Commissioner Sine moved that this tentative and final parcel map be approved. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1755 BAY SHORE HIGHWAY BY ALBERT HOOVER & A S SO C I ATE S Chairman Mink announced Commission consideration of this application and requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner told the Commission this is a project; to build a 29,743 SF office building in an M-1 zone. It will be 3 floors with a parapet height of 461. 99 parking spaces are furnished as required; however, seven of them are compact spaces. Average front setback is 25' plus, but in one corner it is only 15'6" because of the slanted street. He introduced Mr. James O'Neal, the applicant's architect. Mr. O'Neal presented colored renderings of front and side elevations and floor plans. He explained that the compact stalls are full length but only 8' in width. He noted that space for trash collection had been relocated since the study meeting, so that collection does not interfere with parking. Chairman Mink questioned if the developer intended to landscape. Mr. O'Neal stated it was intended to landscape as it appears on the plans, and noted the number of trees in -the parking area had been reduced to six with 6' wide area allotted to each tree. He explained other details of the landscaping and showed slides of the proposed development. In response to a question he stated the trash area would not be covered. Commissioner Francard questioned the scope of the :landscaping, and at the request of the Chair Assistant City Planner Yost reported that John Hoffman, Park Director, had reviewed the plan and judged that the landscaping appeared to be adequate and that the trees could survive with the 6' distance in the planting areas. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. Amerigo B. Nuccetelli, 1614 Sebastian, spoke in favor as owner of the property. There were no negative comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Francard stated he would like to have clearer landscaping plans. Chairman Mink remarked the permit could be conditioned that landscaping plans be reviewed by the Park Director., Commissioner Jacobs questioned how the setbacks would compare with proposed code for M-1. The Assistant City Planner said they would be consistent, noting the project's average front setback of 25', a technical departure from code required by the skewed front line. Commissioner Sine established that the proposed sign for the development would not be included in this application. He commented that the spaces for the trees in the central: parking area would cut 2' off the parking spaces and'protestedthat compact cars probably would not use their allotted spaces at the south side of the lot, but would use the regular spaces to get as close to the building as possible. He would prefer to have the building properly designed to fit the site. He considered the overall parking would be shorted by these seven compact spaces. Chairman Mink asked for comment on these objections. Mr. O'Neal stated that deeper stalls than ordinary had been provided in the parking lot, and actually gave about 2' extra, for trees. Also, no space was taken away for bumper overhang, since this overhang will not interfere with the tree. Commissioner Sine stated that the regular spaces on the sketch submitted scale out to 20' long; therefore the spaces abutting the planters would be shorter and less than standard. Mr. O'Neal said that the tire bumper is shown on the plans. The car will overhang into the tree area approximately 11. Commissioner Sine thought the City would be penalized by having substandard parking spaces and that it was not getting the 99 required by code because of the compact spaces. Commissioner Jacobs thought it looked like a small, building for such a large amount of parking. Assistant City Planner Yost stated that the required parking is 99 spaces, which results in 68.6% of the lot in paved area. Mr. Nuccetelli interjected the comment that it appears everyone will be driving compact cars in a few years. Commissioner Taylor was concerned whether the landscaping meets the proposed code restrictions. He was informed that the surface landscaping was 12.6% with 5.3% planting under the second floor of the building. Mr. O'Neal commented that the areas of car bumper overhang are not included in the percentage and that there are no requirements for trees in the parking lot; furthermore, current zoning has no landscaping requirement. There was some further discussion. Commissioner Norberg stated he agreed with Commissioner Sine that these plans for parking do not conform to City code and should be made to comply. Chairman Mink gave the developer the option of withdrawing the application pending resolution of parking. However, the applicant desired a vote at this meeting. Commissioner Taylor moved that the special permit for office building as detailed in drawings submitted be approved with the condition that the sign is not a part of the application. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion with the understanding that he would vote against his second. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,NORBE RG,SINE,TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG - 10 - 6. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-31P, FOR FLORIBUNDA f GARDENS PROJECT AT (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) 545 ALMER ROAD, BY HISATA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS, INC. Chairman Mink announced that this EIR and draft addendum dated November 20, 1974 had been received. These documents were prepared by Hisata Design Associates, Inc. of Palo Alto. rehe Chairman requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost.. The Assistant City Planner briefly reviewed this EIR as describing a condominium of 36 units, price range of $150,000 to $210,000. The proposed use and density are within the limits of the present zoning code in this R-3 area. No variance will be required with the exception of one for the height of the building. However, the question of height is to be considered as a separate agenda item. He stated that in staff opinion the EIR and the addendum are technically and legally complete. If the draft report is recommended by the Planning Commission, it will be sent on to Council for consideration. For the benefit of the audience, the Chairman remarked that the purpose of the hearing is to determine the validity of the draft EIR, and not to determine if the project is to receive a variance. At the Chair's request, Dickerson McAfee, Vice -President of Hisata Design, addressed the Commission. He identified himself as the author of this EIR, and stated he was available for questions. He reported that a continuance will be requested on the height variance, so the EIR only will be considered this evening. Chairman Mink requested Commission questions. commissioner Sine questioned if there would be a fence completely across.the rear of the property. Mr. McAfee replied there would be with the exception of an open fire lane on the left of the site. He added that the pool would serve as an auxiliar)7 fire fighting device. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the setbacks of 15' front, 8' side, and 20' rear proposed for 4 -story alternative in the addendum were routine for R-3. Assistant City Planner Yost replied that they conform, and Mr. McAfee added that the present project has a proposed front setback of 50'. Commissioner Sine questioned statement on A-4 of addendum that since this alternative would be wood frame it would be less fire safe and place more burden on the Fire Department. He considered it also must be 100% fire sprinklered. He considered that there would be no difference in fire potential between a 100° sprinklered wood frame and a concrete structure. Fire Chief Moorby agreed that the four story building must also be 100,6 sprinklered. He said that if the sprinkling system worked there would not be a fire in either building of enough consequence to get the structural part of the building involved in fire. However, if the system did not work, there would be a difference in damage between the steel frame and the wood frame. Commissioner Sine thought the EIR statement should be deleted as being misleading. Mr. McAfee stated it had been included because of the fire access provided on both sides of the c story building. Commissioner Sine considered statement on A-5 that the project would add $1,375,000 assessed valuation to the City was misleading since it did not take into account the present valuation of the site. Mr. McAfee stated he would change this statement. Commissioner Mink stated that the reference to wood frame construction on A-4 was predicated on large lot coverage and requested Mr. McAfee to delete. He agreed. Commissioner Sine established that the amount of $120,000 property tax on this site was not broken down into amount:paid to City and amount paid to County. He thought it should be. Commissioner Jacobs questioned statement on A-1 regarding experience with luxury condominiums which gives figures of one teenage resident to every ten units and references the Mounds in San Mateo. She questioned the price and the number of apartments still unsold in this condominium. Mr. McAfee gave price range of $90,000 to $130,000 and 18 units out of 80-90 as still unsold. Commissioner Taylor thought statement on A-2 that these teenage residents would probably go to private schools was wholly conjectural and should be deleted. Chairman Mink requested Mr. McAfee to delete. Chairman Mink opened the meeting for public discussion, cautioning that the purpose of this hearing is to determine the accuracy of the EIR and was in no way concerned with the height variance. Arnold Rodman, 905 Morrell, considered the EIR was inaccurate in its statement that visual impact was a matter of :subjective judgment and that the EIR does not stress strongly enough the fact that this building will be obtrusive. Chairman Mink referenced the entire paragraph 3.28 which qualifies its opening statement of subjective visual impact with statements of fact. The Chairman considered that the Commission would agree with the statement that the visual impact was subjective. At the Chair's request, Mr. Richard Elmore of Hisata Design, showed slides of the project's floor plan; map location; and views of the building superimposed on photos of the neighborhood. He explained these slides, and remarked that in the present world people must realign their thinking about height, and questioned if it's bad when viewed in terms of open area saved and savings of energy in maintaining such buildings. The Chairman summarized that the slides did show, contrary to the statement in the EIR, that this is a prominent structure as seen from the local neighborhood. He suggested revision of the following sentence in Section 3.28 "While its height will make it prominent when seen at a distance from higher elevations, this will not be the case within the local neighborhood," to "Its ILeight will make it prominent when seen from higher elevations and within the local neighborhood. " Vaughn Janssen, 121 Crescent, questioned the shadow pattern - 12 - on the neighborhood. Chairman Mink read portions of A-2 and A-3 of addendum which refer to shadow pattern. John McCloskey, 535 Almer protested that the shadow of this building when the sun is going down would block everything in the neighborhood, and also stated that no trees would, as stated in the EIR, substantially hide the building up to the 3rd floor. The Chairman requested staff to make certain that the EIR contains specific reference to effects of shadow pattern on other buildings in the area. Mrs. Bonita Schafer, 1517 Floribunda, stated her property would be between the project and the apartment building on the corner of Floribunda and E1 Camino, and would be completely overshadowed. Mr. J. Malmquist, 1443 Floribunda, questioned the effect of earth- quakes on this building. He was informed by the Chairman that the building would have to meet building codes and requirements which entail provisions for seismic protection. Robert Craig, 157 Occidental, wanted to know how the EIR could be considered without considering the building itself. The Chairman agreed this was confusing, but stated that the law provided the EIR should be considered first. Florence Dickie, 1445 Occidental, also mentioned the fact that trees will not conceal much of this building. Commissioner Taylor at this point observed it was obvious that discussion on this EIR could not be resolved at this meeting. He moved this item be continued to the next regular meeting of January 27, 1975; Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it carried on voice vote. Chairman Mink informed the audience the City would not renotice this application and they should keep this date in mind or call City Hall. 7. VARIANCE TO EXCEED HEIGHT LIMITATION IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 545 ALMER ROAD (FORMERLY APN 029-111-030/040/050) BY PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS, INC. Chairman Mink questioned if the applicant wished this item continued to the same meeting of January 27, 1975. The answer was affirmative. 8. SIGN PERMIT FOR 40 SF GROUND SIGN FOR AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER AT THE CORNER OF ADRIAN ROAD AND ADRIAN COURT, BY LAVENSTEIN & COMPANY Assistant City Planner Yost referenced diagram6f sign distributed to Commission, stating the sign was in the side setback according to deed restrictions, but in the absence of City setback requirements the application is technically correct. However, Code Section 25.78.048 prohibits fences on corner lots to be higher than 3' because of interference with sight lines. He thought the sign would also interfere with sight lines, and considered it should be relocated. The Chairman questioned if the applicant was willing to relocate the sign. Mr. Lavenstein agreed. - 13 - Commissioner Sine questioned if the existing structural sign on the property would come down. Mr. Lavenstein said it would and that the only other signs on the property would be tenants' signs on the building which would be limited to 6SF each. There would possibly be 10 or 11 of these small signs. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved that this sign permit be? approved subject to the relocation of the sign as recommended by the City Planning Staff and subject to the limitation'of the tenants' signs to 6 SF each on the face of the building along Adrian Court. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 9. SIGN VARIANCES FOR 46 SF GROUND SIGN FOR SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANIES AT 1720 EL CAMINO REAL, BY FEDERAL MGN AND SIGNAL CORPORATION Assistant City Planner Yost explained sign plans to the Commission, noting that three variances are required: 1. Variance from setback requirements 2. Variance from height limitations. Ground sign is not to exceed 12'. This sign is 12'6". 3. Variance from ground clearance requirements. Brick planter base for sign is already in place. Willard Hill, representative of Federal Sign, had nothing to add to the Assistant City Planner's comments. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor thought the sign appeared to be modular and could be modified to meet requirements. Commissioner Sine questioned how this sign got by plan inspection and was incorporated in the initial bid documents. He saw no reason why the Planning Commission had to accept it. Chairman Mink questioned if there was any unique character of this property that would require these variances be granted. Mr. Hill stated that at the time he got the project the pedestal was already erected and he was told to request the variances. He stated this is a non -illuminated sign with no impact on traffic. The service road is a one-way street going north. The sign will not obstruct view of traffic. By inquiry of the City Engineer, the location of the sign, ground level of E1 Camino, and the top less than 12' above curb level. because it is separated from the unplanted strip, and questioned a setback variance. the Chairman established that at level is about a foot below the of the sign would appear to be He stated this is a unique property main thoroughfare by a small if that is sufficient cause to grant - 14 - Commissioner Jacobs thought the sign should be moved back. Commissioner Sine questioned if the applicant would be willing. Mr. Maddux, an employee of Safeco, stated that the Home Office would have to make that decision. Commissioner Taylor moved that variances from height limitations and ground clearance be granted for 48SF sign,and that variance from setback requirements be denied. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG 10. SIGN VARIANCE FOR EXISTING 42 SF AWNING FOR SNAPPY FOTO SHOP at 1212 BROADWAY, BY GUS HAAG. Assistant City Planner Yost reported that the applicant had been directed to submit scale drawings for staff review. However, these had not been received until this evening and he had had no opportunity to review. Lettering on this awning sign is over 8" in Yieight and there is another sign over the top of the awning, which brings the total signage over 32 SF. City Attorney Coleman remarked that the sign is now up and in violation of the code. In his opinion, he would prefer to pursue abatement. Mr. Gus Haag read a statement setting forth the excellent services that these Snappy Foto shops offer; the fact that the shop on Broadway is one of the most attractive on the street; and the considerable value of its inventory. Mr. Haag stated he did not believe there was a single awning on Broadway that was not covered with advertisements, and he was unaware that the lettering on the awning would be included in the 32 SF restriction for signs. He noted the Burlingame Avenue store awning has lettering and there have been no objections. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Mink noted the presentation of colored drawings and color photos of this installation and asked for proof of hardship that would require a variance be granted. Mr. Haag stated -there would be hardship involved if he could not get business because of lack of advertising. He also cited the cost of the present sign and awning. Commissioner Jacobs commented she did not see how the Commission could grant this variance and abate the Pro Ski and Sports sign. She moved that sign variance for this sign, which already exists, be denied. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and the motion carried on unanimous roll call vote. 11. SIGN PERMIT FOR 47 SF WALL SIGN FOR SIMPSONS, ]STD. AT 1294 r3URLINGAME AVENUE BY COAST/QRS SIGNS. Assistant City Planner Yost revs PGJPtl .. __ - 15 - it has interior neon illumination and meets all requirements of the code. He recommended approval. Mr. Terry Long of Coast/QRS signs had no additional comment. There was no.audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine moved this sign permit be approved. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 12. SIGN PERMIT FOR PRO SKI AND SPORTS AT 1247 BROADWAY Chairman Mink informed the Commission this item had been placed on the agenda at the request of the City Attorney, and requested comment from City Attorney Coleman. The City Attorney reviewed the history of this sign permit. In January of 1974 the Planning Commission had considered the application of Pro Ski and Sports for a sign permit at their :Location on Broadway for an existing sign consisting of central sign over entrance door and two side "fins" or "wings." At the time of the hearing the Planning Commission denied the two sic;ns on the sides and gave a permit for the sign at the front. The two side fins were to be painted out. After the passage of several months, inquiry was made at the Planning Commission as to why the sign "fins" had not been removed, as agreed; staff was requested to communicate with the applicant. This was done by both the Planning Department and the Building Inspector. However, the "fin" signs still remained; and City Attorney Coleman in early November filed an Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction. On November 19, 1974 there was a hearing before Judge Miller of the Superior Court. After considerable discussion, Judge Miller determined that he would give Mr. Beatie a chance to re -apply for some kind of a sign permit from the Planning Commission. The City Attorney told the Court he would attempt to list this on the forthcoming agenda, and advised Mr. Beatie to submit his proposal to the City. Assistant City Planner Yost displayed to the Commission material which Mr. Beatie had submitted as a revised design, remarking that it did not actually define changes to be made. Chairman Mink requested the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Len Beatie appeared for his son, Steve Beatie, who had made the original application. Mr. Beatie Sr. told the Commission modification of this sign as originally stipulated would definitely cause a hardship on the business. He said this store is recessed about 5' from the sidewalk, and is the only building on Broadway which is so recessed. Because of this fact, going east down Broadway the building cannot be seen until you are directly in front of it. Hence the value of the side fin which defines its location. He went on to say the store has four employees, considerable money invested, and it caters to many out of town clients, such as sports organizations and schools, who must =T:W search for its location. He noted interference by a projecting neon sign at neighboring Baleri's Grocery, and the fact: that there had been signs previously in the same location as his now are. He considered this store has a very special problem. Commenting on Building Inspector Calwell's suggestion that sign borders could be painted out and several words deleted, he stated tie would be willing to thus modify. Chairman Mink requested he specify exactly what wets to be taken out on both sides. Mr. Beatie told the Commission he would change by deleting the border on the east fin, retaining copy and border on the center sign, and deleting border on west sign, as well as the word "tennis" and the snowflake design. Commissioner Sine protested that a study meeting was being held rather than a public hearing. City Attorney Coleman remarked that the Court gave the applicant an opportunity to present a modification to this Commission. However, he did not believe the Court intended a negotiating session. Chairman Mink reviewed Mr. Beatie's proposed modifications for the. benefit of the audience, and requested audience comment. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine remarked that it takes from February to November to get the applicant in, and then a study session is held at the public hearing. Chairman Mink pointed out that the item was on the agenda at his request, the request of the City Attorney, and of the Court. There was Commission discussion, following which Commissioner Jacobs moved to deny the application and affirm the decision of last January. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it tied on the following_ roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,SINE,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,NORBERG,MINK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG Commissioner Sine then moved that the sign permit be approved with changes agreed to by the applicant at this meeting. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it tied on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,NORBERG, SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,TAYLOR,MINK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG Chairman Mink informed the applicant that his request far permit was denied, and noted the possibility of appeal to the City Council. - 17 - City Attorney Coleman stated the matter of appeal was uncertain because the decision of the Planning Commission must now be brought back to the Court. CITY PLANNER REPORT: Assistant City Planner Yost reported that EIR-29P dealing with code amendments t -o Title 25 would be set for Council hearing December 2. EIR 30-P, covering further code amendments to this title had been transmitted to Council. He further reported that: The City Council has authorized an agreement with Howard Donley & Associates for a geotechnical study, at a cost of $4,900.00. Their report should be received by January 31, 1975. The City Council introduced at their November 17 meeting Ordinance #1023 for first reading. This ordinance contains revised definition of roof signs and methods of prohibition. Copies were available for Commission review. The appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission denial of the Putnam Dodge sign application was withdrawn upon receipt of letter from Putnam Dodge offering to limit height of sign to not more than 31'. The City Attorney was authorized to begin abatement proceedings for Kohlenberg Ford fence. Planning Department has received confirmation of two reservations for the Growth Management Seminar at Berkeley. DRAFTING COMMITTEE FOR ANZA SUMMARY REPORT Chairman Mink reported it was expected the final Bigelow Report would not be received before the December Council study meeting. However, he would like a communication to go to Council for this meeting indicating the purpose of the Planning Commission to make a summary of material gathered from the Anza Master Plan hearings. He reported Commissioner Jacobs had volunteered to work on this committee, and requested other volunteers. Commissioner Taylor indicated he would also serve on the Committee. The Chairman _requested that Committee members agree on tentative dates to meet. Chairman Mink reported as a matter of record the :receipt of a letter from Marilyn Horgan, 471 Cumberland, requesting the Commission deal with a report on the Anza Master Plan. The balance of the meeting dealt with the scheduling of the December hearing meeting. After discussion, it was decided this would be held on the regularly scheduled date of December :23. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting regularly adjourned at 12:00 M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs, Secretary