Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.03.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor ROLL CALL Francard (excused) The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Engineer Davidson City Attorney Coleman A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of February 24, 1975 were approved and adopted with the following corrections: Page 4, last paragraph, changed to read: "On a question as to appeal, staff advised the public to check City Council meeting dates." Page 8, first paragraph, add after fourth line: "Commissioner Sine stated that twice during his tenure on the Commission, conditioning of permits has included the underground, contingent upon its being a finalized contract with the City Council." 1. RESOLUTION (2-75) : RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-32P, FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF TEN LOTS FROM R-1 TO R-3. Chairman Mink announced this resolution for Commission consideration and action. Commissioner Sine moved the Planning Commission approve the reso- lution; Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG, SINE,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD 2. RESOLUTION (3-75) : RECOMMENDING RECLASSIFICATION OF SEVEN LATS IN BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 FROM R-1 TO R-3. The Chair presented this resolution for Commission consideration and action. Commissioner Sine moved the Planning Commission approve Resolution 3-75. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBERG, SINE,TAYLAR,:,4INK NAYES: COMAISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD - 2 - 3. RESOLUTION (4-75) : RECOMMENDING RECLASSIFICATION OF THREE LOTS IN EAST BURLINGAME FROM R-1 TO R-3. Upon the Chair's announcement of this resolution for action, Commissioner Sine moved the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 4-75. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD 4. COMMISSION REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS IN M-1 DISTRICTS Chairman Mink acknowledged Commission receipt of draft Ordinance 1031 for study, and requested report from City Planner Swan. The City Planner reviewed that the M-1 regulations had been patterned after Millsdale Industrial Park deed restrictions and had been referred back from City Council for Commission rewording. In accordance with suggestions at February 24 Commission meeting, reference to Millsdale Industrial Park has been deleted from Section 25.42.055, Coverage and Setbacks. He discussed minimum setbacks, noting that signs are excepted from consideration even though pole signs are structures. Minimum setbacks are 15' from all streets except 25' setbacks from Bayshore Boulevard, Airport Boulevard, and the west side of Rollins Road from the northwest city limits to a southern point to be determined. He suggested the Commission address itself to determination of this point. Suggested points had been Mills Creek, or a point approximately 470' south of Mills Creek to include a large undeveloped parcel known as the Christiansen property, a portion of which extends to the S.P. track. Considerable Commission discussion followed of the effects of the 25' setback on some of the more shallow lots, especially those going through to two streets, thereby having a 15' setback in the rear. Also discussed was the effect of no side and rear yards. Commissioner Sine cautioned that developers could have difficulty with party footings on the property line, precluding the use of tilt -up construction; and questioned the City's liability in future property disputes. City Attorney Coleman considered the City would have no legal liability. This would be a problem of the developer and the purchaser. Commissioner Taylor generalized the provisions of Section 25.42.055 and Section 25.42.070 as being 70/ lot coverage, 10 landscaping, no rear yards, no side yards, 25' setback from certain streets and 15' from the balance. Commissioner Kindig moved that the Planning Commission approve and recommend adoption of proposed Code Section 25.42.055 - Coverage and Setbacks - with a specification that the 25' setback on the west side of Rollins Road extend from the northwestern city limits to Mills Creek; and Section 25.42.070 - Landscaping and Design reaui.r.ements. - 3 - Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 5. SIGN PERMITS FOR TWO ILLUMINATED WALL SIGNS OF 56 SF EACH AT 1301 BROADWAY (CORNER OF BROADWAY AND PALOMA) BY COAST -QRS FOR FIDELITY SAVINGS. At the request of the Chair, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application for two wall signs. Plans and a colored illustration were exhibited. The Assistant City Planner stated the sign on the Broadway side will cover 7% of the wall elevation; side elevation coverage would be 5/. He noted the application meets requirements of the sign code and introduced Mr. Stansbury of Coast -QRS Sign Company. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Stansbury indicated the institution would have standard banking hours; background of signs is opaque and illuminated letters are less than 32 SF on each side. He agreed to have the Broadway sign illuminated and the Paloma sign unlit; and in response to a question from Commissioner Sine as to why the owner was not present, stated the sign company was the authorized representative of the owner. City Attorney Coleman confirmed this was an acceptable arrangement, but Commissioner Sine indicated dissatisfaction in dealing with sign companies without owners' presence. Discussion followed of the complete signage program, with a suggestion by Chairman Mink that it be limited to these two signs and the emblems required of banks by law. Mr. Stansbury indicated banking requirements are satisfied by a li SF trade symbol in the window. Commissioner Jacobs moved the Planning Commission approve this application for two wall signs of 56 SF each; sign on Broadway to be illuminated; the sign on Paloma to be non -illuminated; and other signage to be restricted to that required by law. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 6. SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR EXISTING GROUND SIGN OF 400 SF AT 90 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (CORNER OF CALIFORNIA AND BAYSWATER) BY KOHLENBERG FORD At the request of the Chair, Assistant City Planner Yost presented facts on this sign. He stated the application is to maintain an existing sign which is not be changed from its present dimensions. It is 4' high, 100' long, plywood, and mounted on top of a fence 11'6" high, which brings the total height to 15'6". An exception is needed for this sign, since ground signs are limited to 12' in height, and should be of incombustible material. City Attorney Coleman added that this sign was discovered to be over height limits when the nearby Putnam Dodge sign was considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fred Kohlenberg addressed the Commission, stating the City Council had made a compromise with Putnam Dodge in limiting the Putnam sign to 31' predicated on the lowering of the Kohlenberg gence 3;1' from its present height. He noted noticing procedures which left him uninformed =M of the Putnam hearing because he was not an adjacent property owner. He summarized his operation of the business since 1974, and stated the rationale of the fence was an effort to contain auto row from the rest of the community down Bayswater. He stated an architect had been retained to design the fence; a building permit had been obtained by the architect; he had not seen the building permit; and the first time he knew he was in violation of ordinance was when he was recently informed by the City Attorney and the City Planner. He stated he would cooperate with the decision of the Planning Commission, whatever it was; however, he considered it a hardship since the issue is the Putnam sign. If this sign goes up 31, the fence can stay where it is; if the Putnam sign is lowered, the fence must be lowered. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. Mr. Carl Windt of Putnam Dodge responded. He told the Commission the new pole sign for Putnam Dodge had been reduced to 31' with the under- standing with the Council that the Kohlenberg sign would be lowered to 12' in order to give the pole sign visibility from California Drive. Chairman Mink reminded him the present issue is not visibility of his sign, but the legality of the Kohlenberg sign or structure, noting the Commission is focusing on getting sign compliance throughout the city. He told Mr. Kohlenberg this was not directed merely at his sign, since it was understood his violation was inadvertent. City Attorney Coleman remarked that the original pole sign for Putnam Dodge which was to have been removed is not yet down. He added that the Building Department did not have authority to issue a permit for the Kohlenberg Ford sign to exceed the 12' limit of the ordinance, since any exception must come before the Planning Commission. Commission discussion followed during which Commissioner Taylor remarked that the Putnam sign at present seems to be visible from the corner. He saw the problem with the Kohlenberg sign but thought it was a better sign than others that could be erected without an exception from the Commission. Commissioner Kindig remarked on the efforts of the Commission to conform signs in all areas. Commissioner Sine commented that the Planning Commission approved the Putnam sign at 33'9" and it was appealed to Council so that could not be used as a Planning Commission guarantee. He also noted that the Kohlenberg sign was erected as a result of staff error three years ago. Commissioner Norberg agreed, stating it seemed unfair to act against Kohlenberg, since they had acted according to permissic they had been granted three years ago. Commissioner Jacobs commented that, when the Kohlenberg sign was first discussed it was not known by the Planning Commission that a building permit had been issued, and she thought the only thing to do was to allow it to remain. Chairman Mink again reviewed the violations of the Kohlenberg sign. After further discussion, Commissioner Taylor moved that the sign exception for the existing ground sign for Kohlenberg Ford be approved. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYE S: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBERG, SINE, TAYLOR NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: MINK ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD - 5 - 7. UPGRADING PROGRAM FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS City Planner Swan outlined objectives of this program, prefacing his report with the observation that although the Planning Commission had recommended amending the General Plan and reclassification in two neighborhoods, the problem of code enforcement has not been solved. Objectives include: Assistance to property owners in evaluation of their property. Encouragement of conservation, rehabilitation and improvement of housing. Protection of property values and slowing of deterioration. Compliance with zoning code regulations. Compilation of data so that future zoning and General Plan amendments can be made with knowledge of existing conditions. Because this is a sensitive type of activity, he stated this is a method for the Planning Commission to consider, determine their commitment, and report to City Council. Only after a commitment from City Council would any further steps be taken. City Planner Swan and Assistant City Planner Yost explained this program could include: The establishment of a four -man inspection team consisting of Assistant City Planner, County Health Department official, City Building Inspector, and Fire Department inspector. Letters to property owners requesting appointments for inspections. Inspections, with some Saturday and Sunday work essential because some property owners are not home on weekdays. Report to property owner of conditions to be corrected. Re -inspection, with possible public hearing and court action if conditions are not corrected. Obtaining of inspection warrants for property owners who have failed to respond or refuse to comply with voluntary inspection. Subsequent inspection and report on their property. Report to Planning Commission on findings in area under study, with review and approval by City Council. Implementation of program desired for the area, whether General Plan revisions, zoning amendment, financing for rehabilitation, undergrounding, etc. Exhibits for Commission inspection included draft of letter to property owners, Section 1822.50-1822.57 of California Government code, and a list of information required for the program. - 6 - It was emphasized that the difficulties of this program needed to be thought through, and that.the Planning Department saw this as a positive step defensible as a city-wide policy, not just for one district. Priorities for districts should be established, and it was suggested that a start be made in the older districts, or problem areas such as the Corbitt tract. Statistics could be prepared on lot ownership, present tenants, etc., and guidance would be needed as to thoroughness of survey, whether it should be 100/ or not. It was suggested that the Corbitt tract might take 4-6 months. City-wide completion was difficult to estimate and would depend on staff resources and budgeting of time. Both the City Planner and Assistant City Planner spoke of recent inspections in R-1 areas which uncovered violations such as 3 kitchens in a single family house, eleven units on an R-1 lot. They made the point that these violations are not evident from the exterior, and require an interior inspection. Commission discussion of the program followed. Commissioner Jacobs thought that obvious problem areas such as Burlingame Park should be considered first. City Attorney Coleman stated that Burlingame Park complaints are steadily received and are being. processed. Commissioner Taylor wondered if this was part of the Commission's official commitment; and both he and Commissioner Sine wanted Council direction before any further steps were taken. City Planner Swan remarked that the program had been outlined as a response to Council questions of why certain problems were not solved. This is a method of solving some problems, and every person can look at it and evaluate whether or not he wants this for his community. Chairman Mink questioned the City Attorney if he considered that the requirements of Code Section 1822.51 were satisfied with General Plan and zoning code amendments as cause. The City Attorney replied in the affirmative. Mr. David Keyston questioned if the City wanted to instigate this program. He stated he had no objections to following up on citizens' complaints, but this program might cause complaints, and it could cause turmoil. Commissioner Taylor thought the Planning Commission had an obligation to seek out propertyholders who cheat other taxpayers with their violations. He approved sending this program to the Council. Commissioner Kindig questioned if the Planning Commission actually initiated this program since it is designed as an answer to Council request for certain actions. He agreed it should go to Council. He suggested it be considered for all neighborhoods, not just "older neighborhoods" as specified. He objected to the use of the word "search" in Exhibit C and suggested the substitution of "inspect." Chairman Mink stated he was convinced there were a number of illegal uses in Commercial areas also, and suggested a long term program of con- tinuing inspection. He reviewed the objectives of the program, and said he could accept the consideration of the General Plan as sufficient cause, but his main interest was in the continuity of life in the City. He also thought the Commission had an obligation to present this progra!-z to the Council. He did not feel this program would lead to problems in - 7 - the punitive sense, and was optimistic that people in the city would attempt to upgrade their properties. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if these 32 steps could be put in a time frame, but the City Planner indicated this was not possible. Commissioner Kindig thought that, overall, the program would gain support; while Commissioner Norberg considered it was a touchy issue. Commissioner Jacobs again suggested abating illegal uses in Burlingame Park. There followed a discussion of the immediacy of considering the Corbitt tract. Commissioner Sine noted this tract contains the worst land useage in the city. After further Commission discussion, Commissioner Taylor moved that the upgrading program -be transmitted to the City Council for their direction with the provision that it be for all residential neighbor- hoods, not "older" residential neighborhoods, and that the word "search" be deleted from Exhibit C. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. RECESS: After a short recess at 9:15, the meeting reconvened. Chairman Mink announced he would be unable to attend the Commissioners dinner and that Commissioner Sine would attend in his place. There followed discussion of the March 24 meeting date since several Commissioners will be unable to attend. However, it was decided to hold it as scheduled. At the close of this discussion, Chairman Mink excused himself from the meeting because of illness and Commissioner Sine chaired the balance of the meeting. 8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 AND 3, CREEKSIDE. RSM 48/13, 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME AT 1521 AND 1523 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 025-224-040/050) ZONED R-1, BY LOUIS_ A. ARATA FOR ALEXANDER A. RALLI AND FLOYD R. PANCIERA Chairman Sine requested report from City Engineer Davidson. The City Engineer distributed copies of map and stated it was necessary because the previous owner of Parcel 3 had inadvertently constructed part of an accessory building in his rear yard on part of his neighbor's property. The map abates the property line that goes through the accessory building. He noted a request from the building inspector that the use of the acces- ory building be definitely determined. If it is to be a rumpus room or a recreation room, it must be built to code and the existing building has wooden foundations on the ground. If it is to be used as a storage room then plumbing must be removed. With these conditions, the City Engineer recommended it be set for hearing. Mr. Louis Arata was present. He stated he did not know the intended use of the building, but would write Mr. Ralli, who is in Maryland. Upon the Chair's suggestion that both owners be present at the hearing, the City Engineer suggested that Mr. Arata could get a letter authorizing him to represent the property owners rather than have Mr. Ralli travel so far. The City Attorney also suggested that the parcel map not be released until the plumbing is out. Mr. Arata noted Mr. Ralli had been corresponding with the City Attorney and the Building Inspector. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing March 24. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO PARK CARS IN C-4 DISTRICT, ANZA AIRPORT PARK, UNITS 1,2,4,5 AND 6, BY DAVID H. KEYSTON FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORP. City Planner Swan told the Commission this application is for automobile parking incidental.to commercial uses existing. However, he thought not enough detail had been presented as to the scope of parking - the number of cars, which areas, etc. and requested explanation from Mr. David Keyston. Mr. Keyston reviewed previous parking permits in all of these sub- divisions over the years and stated this application was instigated because an arrangement with Ramada Cars had failed because the City had informed. the prospective tenant that Anza had no permit to park cars in the contemplated area. Mr. Keyston stated his desire was to use certain areas for parking until tenants had been found for the buildings. For instance, if Anza Pacific was able to lease 2-3 more office buildings south of Airport Boulevard, parking areas might be located north of Airport Boulevard. He did not anticipate parking cars -in front of the drive-in theatres; and on a question as to State lands, said there were two State lots south of Airport Boulevard. He mentioned a four-year lease remaining with the auto auction company. He discussed previous arrangements such as the parking of buses. He stated he was uncertain as to the status of his present permits - hence this request for permit to consolidate all areas involved. There was Commission discussion concerning the uncertainty of parking area location and especially of future areas of use. Upon inquiry the City Planner expressed the belief that an EIR would be necessary. Mr. Keyston agreed to an EIR, and stated he would submit a map outlining areas and limitations to be used in the present and future phases of the development. He noted 95% of previous parking had been for storage, vehicles remaining in the area for 30 - 120 days and going in and out only once. This application was set for hearing March 24 contingent upon. Mr. Keyston's submittal of more detailed information. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR VEHICLE LUBRICATION SHOP IN M-1 DIST,ICT AT 1049 BROADWAY (APN 026-233-010) BY BARTON COX AND CLIF OT,D Li: CLAIREE FOR C&P SERVICE,INC. Assistant City Planner Yost distributed and explained plans for thi. vehicle lubrication shop. The remodeled building will 'nave five bays and stacking room for autos behind the pits. Cars will enter and exit onto Carolan, with a secondary entrance from Broadway. There will be two employees plus the manager, and servicing is estimated at 36 cars pe-- day. 'I'he Assistant City Planner czestioned if the remodeled building couIC f adequately accommodate vehicle turning movements because of t -he column. - inside the building. He felt circulation problems had :got bccTz -esclveu-'. He also questioned plans to accommodate trucks. Mr. Barton Cox then addressed the Commission and presented revised plans which eliminated one pit and moved the other four forward, thus giving more turning radius. He stated large trucks will not be serviced, just small trucks up to 1� tons and campers. Noting this will be a low- volume business, he said one pit could take care of 36 cars per day but the other three pits were necessary if 3-4 cars came in at once. There would be no gas pump. After some discussion, this item was set for hearing March 24. Chairman Sine cautioned the remodeling must be in conformance with codes of Building and Fire Departments, and the existing sprinkler system must remain. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HOBBY ROOM IN GARAGE AT 121 BANCROFT ROAD (APN 029-283-090) ZONED R-1, BY ROBERT J. FERRAND. Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission this project was to build a room 12' x 16' on the rear of an existing garage. Below the room, in a space 4'7" high, a boat would be parked; the upper area would be a hobby room, containing drafting table, film storage area, etc. There would be no plumbing in the addition, and electrical service would be connected from the garage. He thought this addition would upgrade the present structure and would conform to code. It will have a fireproof wall on the property line. Mr. Robert Ferrand told the Commission he wanted this room for storage of .his racing dinghy, a rare boat of its type, "the Ferrari of the boating world." He stated satisfactory boat storage facilities are difficult to find. This applicatirn was set for hearing March 24, with a comment from the Chair that it must satisfy fire and building codes. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A STRUCTURE MORE THAN 35' HIGH(PER ORDINANCE NO. 1025) IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 33 PARK ROAD (APN 029-223-010/020/100/ 110/120) BY SIDNEY BADGER FOR BURLINGAME CONDO ASSOCIATES. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A 22 UNIT CONDOMINIUM (PER ORDINANCE NO. 1015) in R-3 DISTRICT AT 33 PARK ROAD BY SIDNEY BADGER FOR BURLINGAME CONDO ASSOCIATES. City Planner Swan stated a new set of plans had been received, and explained a wall diagram which drew attention to some of the problems of construc- tion on this unusual lot. He presented Mr. Sidney Badger. Mr. Badger spoke of the difficulties of fitting this new plan to the property, and stated he wished to withdraw it and revert to consideration of the original plan. He voiced appreciation for the cooperation of staff and Commission. The Commission agreed he could withdraw this application without prejudice, and that application for a condo permit and condominium parcel map could be submitted at a subsequent study meeting. CITY PLANKTER REPORT The City Planner presented for Commission discussion mean- from the City Engineer relative to homeowner at 1543 Vancouver T,yho proposes to construct - 10 - a windmill to generate power to operate his single family residence. There was discussion of how to deal with this type of application in the light of possible neighborhood reaction. Mentioned were code restrictions applying to radio and TV antennas, or architectural review. It was decided the Commission would like to review such applications. City Planner Swan noted that the sign and fence exceptions ordinance gained first reading approval from the City Council, and that fees for planning applications and procedures for minor permits were on the Council study agenda. City Attorney Coleman reviewed code requirement that the Planning Commission find that all properties being considered for purchase by the City are within the provisions of the General Plan. He mentioned the recent acquisition of the Barnett property, the proposed purchase of two lots on Carolan and one lot in the Mills Canyon area; and stated he would appreciate having these matters on the next agenda for action. This is a matter of making a finding. The City Planner suggested Planning Commissioners attend future Council hearings on the General Plan revisions and zoning map revisions. He noted that Casa Amigo and the American International sign had been appealed to Council. Both matters are scheduled for hearing April 7. The City Planner urged Commission attendance at the Planning Institute scheduled for July 30 - August 1 at Coronado and next spring in Burlingame. He mentioned Commissioners' dinner to be held at Beardsley's Restaurant on March 13. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully .submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary