HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.08.11THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
August 11, 1975
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
POT.T. rAT.T.
The above named members were present.
CALL TO ORDER
City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner Yost
City Engineer Davidson
Chief Building
Inspector Calwell
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of July 28, 1975 were approved as written with
the following revisions: on page 8, under item 8, insert "whichever
comes first" at the end of Commissioner Jacobs' motion following the
words "sale of the property." Commissioner Jacobs also requested her
concern about the safety of electrical signs that are less than 10 feet
above the sidewalk be mentioned in paragraph 3, page 10, item 10.
Chairman Sine noted that Commissioner Mink was absent at the start of
the meeting but was expected later, and that the Commission was operating
without the benefit of the City Attorney for this evening. Any legal
problems would therefore have to be continued.
1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-34P, FOR GLENCO TRUCK LINES'
PROPOSED PROJECT: TRUCKING TERMINAL AND WAREHOUSING OF PRODUCE
IN M-1 DISTRICT, BY DAVID H. KEYSTON OF ANZA PACIFIC CORP.
(CONTINUED FROM JULY 28, 1975).
2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCKING TERMINAL AND WAREHOUSING OF PRODUCE IN
M-1 DISTRICT AT 330 BEACH ROAD (APN 026-332-080/090) BY ANZA
PACIFIC CORP. FOR GLENCO TRUCK LINES (CONTINUED FROM JULY 28, 1975).
Chairman Sine announced that the first two items on the agenda had been
withdrawn by the applicant.
3. SIGN PERMIT FOR 14 SF WALL SIGN AT BROADWAY ARCADE, 1050/60 BROADWAY,
BY B. C. MENICUCCI OF APOLLO TRAVEL (CONTINUED FROM JULY 28, 1975).
This item was announced by the Chairman who requested Assistant City
Planner Yost review this application. The Assistant City Planner
-2 -
reported two parts of the application requiring Commission attention:
(1) compliance by the property owner with the conditions of the sign
permit approved in October of last year, and (2) approval of a new wall
sign. At the July 28 meeting action was continued to allow Mr. Crisafi
to comply, and today's inspection indicates four of the six items have
been corrected. Two oversize street numbers have been completely
removed; the Print & Copy sign is down; Polygraph Examinations sign is
gone. However, the K-9 Trim Shop sign is still in the window as well
as the Farmers Insurance sign.
Mr. Crisafi commented on the two signs, Print & Copy and Polygraph,
which he said were put up without his permission. He also advised that
letters were sent to Farmers Insurance and K-9 asking them to take their
window signs down and use the blank sign panels provided over their
doors, which they have refused to do. It was established in answer to
questions from Commissioner Jacobs that Mr. Crisafi bought the building
and assumed the existing leases. Commissioner Taylor noted that he did
not want to penalize Mrs. Menicucci but felt the only opportunity the
Commission had was control over the situation at the present time; if
Mr. Crisafi is not required to comply with the previous permit, Commission
would have no way to get subsequent compliance. Commissioner Kindig did
not believe abatement of window signs could be accomplished, but
suggested when the leases were renewed Mr. Crisafi could insist the
signs come down before renewal. This point could be referred to City
Attorney when he returns.
Commissioner Mink arrived at this point in the meeting. In answer to
a question from Commissioner Taylor, Assistant City Planner Yost advised
that the signs on the building were now substantially in compliance with
the previous Commission approval, with the exception of the two previously
mentioned window signs. Chairman Sine believed the Commission could act
now on the sign for Apollo Travel. Commissioner Jacobs said she was
not willing to pass on a sign this size that included telephone numbers.
There was further discussion regarding the size of the sign, the copy
to be included, the fact that Apollo is a retail business and needs
identity, and the advisability of separating the remaining sign
violations at this address from the present sign application.
Commissioner Jacobs moved that the sign permit for 14 SF wall sign at
1050/60 Broadway for Apollo Travel be approved with their logo, with
the provision that the sign include the copy "Apollo Travel" only and
the colors as specified in the application. Commissioner Kindig seconded
the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, NORBERG, TAYLOR, SINE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: MINK
4. AMENDED SIGN PERMIT FOR FOUR WALL SIGNS INCLUDING 49 SF ILLUMINATED
SIGN ON REAR WALL, BY COAST QRS SIGNS FOR THE DIP STICK, INC. AT
1049 BROADWAY (CONTINUED FROM JULY 28, 1975).
Chairman Sine announced this application for consideration and requested
review by Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant Planner advised
that since the last meeting this sign application had been amended by
the addition of a fourth sign. There are now two non -illuminated signs
- 3 -
facing Carolan (Signs A & B), one non -illuminated sign facing Broadway
(Sign C), and one illuminated sign on the back side of the building
facing Rollins Road (Sign D, a new sign). Sign A has not been changed
from the original application; on Sign B the words "Dip Stick" in
channel letters have been replaced by non -illuminated thin plastic
letters 18 inches high; Sign C has similar treatment for the words
"Dip Stick" and is also non -illuminated. Both Signs B and C require an
exception from Sec. 22.32.020 of Title 22. The new sign is described
as an existing sign cabinet and the proposal is to change copy.
The applicant spoke to the Commission stating that the existing sign
cabinet with new copy would be seen when coming off the freeway; the
background will be opaque with only the lettering lighted. They did
consider the Commission's recommendation at the last meeting to go to
12 inch letters for the words "Dip Stick," but did not feel it would
give legibility. Further discussion determined the building will be
painted white, the property owner will have the roof redone, and the
overhang on Carolan will be taken off. Commissioner Jacobs felt there
was too much painted signage covering the building. Several Commissioners
agreed it was a lot of signage but liked the plans for cleaning up the
building.
Commissioner Taylor moved that the amended sign permit for 4 wall signs
including 49 SF illuminated sign on rear wall, by Coast QRS Signs for
The Dip Stick, Inc. at 1049 Broadway, be approved in accordance with
the plans as presented. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it
passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, KINDIG, NORBERG, TAYLOR, SINE
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MINK
Chairman Sine advised the applicant these signs are subject to appeal
to the City Council; otherwise, the permit will become effective
Tuesday, August 19, 1975.
5. FENCE EXCEPTION FROM 5' HEIGHT LIMIT IN FRONT SETBACK AT 1109
JUANITA AVENUE (APN 026-092-200), ZONED R-1, BY HUGO AREVALO.
Chairman Sine announced the next item on the agenda and requested review
by Assistant City Planner Yost. Mr. Yost explained that this fence is
rather unusual in that it is set back 13 feet behind the property line.
It might be called a free-standing screen which shields a portion of
the front of the house. The main body of the screen is only 5 feet high
and within code; however, lattice work was added that raises the top
of the fence to 6 feet, with posts that extend another 18". Three
neighboring property owners have submitted letters in support. Staff
felt this petition is a minor exception and the City Attorney had
advised that action could be taken at this meeting.
It was brought out in discussion between the Commissioners and the
applicant that the fence was put up about three months ago; and
the posts being used are old railroad ties. Chairman Sine
questioned the three posts substantially over 6 feet in height and
-4 -
felt, in reality, the applicant was asking for a variance for an 8 foot
fence. The Chairman objected to this. Commissioners Taylor and Mink
felt the posts added charm to the fence. Commissioner Taylor also
commented that this property is the last residential property on the
street and without the fence the applicant's living room would look
into two parking lots.
Chairman Sine requested the wish of the Commission. Commissioner Mink
moved that the fence exception from a 5 ft. height limit in front
setback at 1109 Juanita Avenue, zoned R-1, be approved as constructed
and indicated by the photographs received. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Taylor and approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE
Chairman Sine advised the applicant this item had been approved and
is subject to appeal, adding that his only objection was the 8 ft.
posts.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 13-75 APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY
SLEEPING QUARTERS AT 225 STANLEY ROAD.
City Planner Swan explained this resolution confirms and establishes
findings of the Commission at their July 28 meeting.
Commissioner Jacobs moved the adoption of Resolution 13-75 Approving
Special Permit at 225 Stanley Road. Commissioner Taylor seconded
the motion and it was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, NORBERG, TAYLOR, SINE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MINK
-5-
7. DRAFT NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN: REPORT BY EARTH METRICS
INCORPORATED.
Chairman Sine introduced this item and asked for comments from City
Planner Swan. The City Planner introduced Don Lauritson of Earth
Metrics Incorporated, and distributed the preliminary policies and goals
just received. He suggested the Commission address itself to the issue
of noise and noise control at this meeting.
Mr. Lauritson then discussed noise level definitions and recommended
levels of exterior noise to protect the public health and welfare. He
also mentioned interior noise levels and ways to reduce noise as a
result of various building materials. The City Planner stated the
Noise Element will highlight problems of interior noise. Implementation
of the State law regarding interior noise levels will assure that EPA's
indoor activity interference and annoyance levels are met. City Planner
Swan noted that noise abatement and control programs are outlined in
the draft, which suggests that noise levels in Burlingame can be reduced
by controlling (1) the source of the noise, (2) the path the noise
travels, and (3) the receptors of the noise (people). The draft presents
tables giving State noise standards for motor vehicles.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Lauritson advised
that the EPA has put out a document which suggests maximum allowable
noise levels. City Planner Swan commented that the material distributed
at this meeting was based in part upon the results of Burlingame's
Noise Questionnaire, and then asked that Mr. Lauritson continue the
discussion. Chief Building Inspector John Calwell arrived at this point
in the meeting (8:30 P.M.) .
Don Lauritson addressed the Commission, saying that basically he wanted
to listen to their feelings on the preliminary policies and goals and
their views as to how tough Burlingame wished to be in reducing noise.
Discussing the City of Burlingame Noise Questionnaire, he stated motor
vehicle noise had first priority in Burlingame, second priority was
domestic animals (barking dogs), and the third source was aircraft noise.
The questionnaire showed interest for limited to strong control, and
that people would approve police action.
Mr. Lauritson stated the Noise Element goals are fairly general but would
improve the noise climate of a city. He listed them. (1) Preserve
peaceful conditions where they do exist. (2) Reduce annoying levels of
noise for existing situations: aircraft, motor vehicle and domestic
animal noise. (3) Achieve a peaceful acoustic environment in portions
of the city to be developed. (4) Make maximum use of existing city and
inter -governmental processes to accomplish noise control.
Replying to Chairman Sine's question regarding guidelines and require-
ments on sound insulation for houses, Mr. Lauritson stated these
requirements are now State law. Chairman Sine remarked he was speaking
of older homes which are prevalent in Burlingame. There is no way the
exterior walls can be insulated in many of these homes, but it is
relatively inexpensive to insulate the attic. Discussion followed
concerning the fact that motorcycles are allowed by State law to be
louder than automobiles.
aM.
Commissioner Mink spoke about the way sound decreases by distance from
the source. He suggested consideration should be given to larger setbacks
along large traffic arteries, and commented that the City could control
which streets trucks use. Mr. David Keyston of Anza Pacific Corp. said
he understood sound attenuates in a geometric way instead of linear.
Mr. Lauritson agreed this is more accurate.
With regard to airport noise, Mr. Lauritson advised the airport is
trying but probably isn't doing as much as promised. Commissioner Kindig,
a member of the Airport Land Use Committee, stated aircraft noise is
being mitigated, but on a national scale. Some discussion followed
regarding aircraft related noise. Chairman Sine wondered if the
consultant had reviewed a noise element from City of Sunnyvale which
has the problem of both prop driven and jet planes. Mr. Lauritson had
not, but was familiar with that city's noise problems. In reply to a
question from Commissioner Francard, Mr. Lauritson advised that
landscaping is the least effective measure in abating noise - it may do
psychological wonders but that's all.
The consultant suggested the Commission decide which noise sources are
the most annoying to the largest number of people. Commissioner Jacobs
thought the policies and goals were too general. Mr. Lauritson indicated
that guidelines can be precise, e.g., Table 4-2 lists suggested maximum
outdoor noise levels for various activities. It is up to the Planning
Commission and City Council as to how strict they wish to be, how high
they wish to set their goals. Commissioner Jacobs felt the Commission
must be realistic. The consultant suggested it would be possible to be
more strict for new buildings. Those that are already built could be
corrected over time.
Chairman Sine expressed his belief that strict requirements would be
expensive and could be enforced in the commercial and industrial areas;
however, in the residential areas this would not be possible.
Commissioner Kindig believed it would not be feasible to force people
to spend money on something that is already built, and didn't feel the
Commission should get into abatement. Commissioner Jacobs also felt
that the citizens could not afford such measures.
City Planner Swan presented the County's ALUC map showing CNEL. Aircraft
noise patterns have the most impact on Burlingame during winter storm
weather conditions. Commissioner Mink inquired about the possibility
of putting in some stipulations for schools, hospitals, public buildings,
professional offices, and the like, specifying an interior maximum CNEL
(perhaps a constant of something like 50 CNEL). On "restaurant row",
for instance, the City could require that new construction reduce
interior noise levels. Regarding clinics, hotels, motels and other
professional offices, interior noise levels should be regulated.
Exceptions could be made for things such as rock music.
Commissioner Taylor expressed his belief that the sources of exterior
noise are one of the worst problems in Burlingame, particularly motor
vehicles; he found that type of noise equal to the problem of indoor
noise. Commissioner Jacobs suggested a different approach: -trucks
could possibly be made quieter, for instance, through State law.
Mr. Lauritson said that normally industrial areas are allowed louder
-7 -
noise outdoors than residential. He also stated that enforcement is
really the key to getting noise down to a reasonable level. Palo
Alto has had success with enforcement using monitoring equipment.
Commissioner Mink told of hearing about a small city in Southern
California which paid for its monitoring meter equipment in 1-1/2 days
with the fines received by using this new machine.
Consultant Lauritson asked, at this point, if there were any concerns
of the Commission. Commissioner Mink stated the goal statements were
not as important in his view as implementation statements which will
follow. He would prefer the implementation statements being the more
important part of the document. Mr. David Keyston wished to state
that he felt, under the Declaration of Policy, ". . . a policy of
excluding and prohibiting all annoying, excessive and unnecessary
noises" was a little bit strong. Commissioner Taylor would like to
see zoning, use permits and variances referred to as implementation
in an affirmative manner. Commissioner Kindig agreed that some imple-
mentation guidelines were necessary but preferred to say "suggested"
implementation. Commissioners Taylor and Mink commented that these
implementation suggestions would be guidelines to the developer and to
the Commission.
Chairman Sine noted that there seemed to be adequate information for
study. With the consensus of the Commission, he scheduled the Draft
Noise Element for public hearing August 25, 1975.
RECESS
Chairman Sine declared a recess at 9:30 P.M. after which the meeting
resumed at 9:40 P.M. The Chairman deferred discussion of Item 8,
"Procedures and guidelines for the review of signs and sign code
amendments," until later in the meeting since applicants for study items
were waiting.
9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 12, 13 AND
14, BLOCK 21, TOWN OF BURLINGAME AT 234/236/238 MYRTLE ROAD
(APN 029-215-220/230), ZONED R-3, BY MAC KAY & SOMPS FOR
WARREN P. HOUCK.
This item was announced by the Chairman who ascertained that a
representative of the applicant was present. He then asked City
Engineer Davidson for comments. The City Engineer stated this was a
parcel map for the Casa Amigo project which had been approved by the
Planning Commission a few months ago. It combines two lots by
eliminating a property line; the setback dimensions should appear on
the map. The Engineer was concerned that the applicant had submitted
a 7 month old title report as the County will require a current title
report. He suggested the applicant have this prepared as close to the
hearing as possible. Otherwise, the tentative map appeared satisfactory;
it could be considered a final map if the applicant wished to do so,
in which case the map would need a few other certificates. Ben White
of MacKay & Somps spoke at this time indicating that BJM Company is
buying the property from the present owner, and it was not their
intention to record the parcel map until they actually acquire title.
In further discussion, Chief Building Inspector Calwell confirmed that
according to the plans all -present buildings are coming down and the
plans fully cover both parcels. City Engineer Davidson indicated he
would want that as a condition of approval of the parcel map. City
Planner Swan stated they would have 18 months after approving the
tentative map for approval of the final map. The applicant informed
the Commission it might be 30-60 days before the actual sale takes
place, and they would agree to conditioning of the final map as
discussed. Commissioner Jacobs inquired about the applicant's prior
agreement to contribute a certain amount of money to improve the
sanitary sewer. This was confirmed by the applicant, commenting that
$10,000 is to be paid prior to recording the final parcel map.
Chairman Sine requested any further comments or questions from other
Commissioners and the wish of the Commission. There was nothing further.
The City Engineer added he would prefer going tentative with the map;
and Chairman Sine scheduled this tentative parcel map for hearing
August 25, 1975.
10. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 40 AND Nally
1/2 OF LOT 39 AND SEly 1/2 OF LOT 41, BLOCK 58, EASTON ADDITION
NO. 7 AT 1348 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD W. BACCA FOR
JOHN AND NOREEN DEVINE.
Chairman Sine introduced this item for study and asked for review from
City Planner Swan. The City Planner commented that the property was
the subject of some concern when the application for a variance was
submitted in 1972; this was denied in July 1972. In August 1972 a
tentative parcel map was submitted to create two 50 ft. wide lots.
Approval of this tentative parcel map was conditioned to ensure that
the existing house would be remodeled. He stated the present parcel
map was to create a lot narrowed to provide a yard for the existing
house which wouldn't be remodeled. The rear portion of the lot would
be 46 feet wide. The City Planner felt there may be reason to justify
this subdivision. Half the property is vacant and the applicant wishes
to construct a house and put it on the tax roll.
City Engineer Davidson stated the applicant would have to come to an
agreement with the City Council to install water and sewage service to
the unimproved lot; some accommodation would have to be made as part
of the approval of the map tc prevent drainage from Parcel A to Parcel B;
and he would recommend it be set for hearing.
Chairman Sine determined that Mr. John Devine was present at the meeting
and asked if Mr. Devine had found it too expensive to cut off part of
the existing building. Mr. Devine replied it wasn't the cost but that
in his opinion it would ruin the dining room. Further Commission
discussion established the minimum R-1 lot size as 5,000 SF in this
area. Commissioner Mink asked the City Engineer if he would prefer
to have some statement of conditioning made regarding possible public
improvement and drainage problems. Mr. Davidson indicated he would
like to see it a condition of the approval that necessary improvements
be submitted to the Engineer's office for approval and the necessary
agreements be made with City Council within a certain period of time
regarding sewer, water and land drainage.
Planner Swan commented that the previous application for a variance
had opposition and wondered if the neighbors' attitudes had changed.
Commissioner Kindig was inclined to let this application go to hearing
on its own merits and forget what had happened in the past; Chairman
Sine agreed. Commissioner Francard warned the applicant that if he
were planning to build on this lot the three existing trees might give
him a problem.
Chairman Sine set this item for hearing on August 25, 1975.
11. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LANDS
OF KATHLEEN DORE AT MARSTEN AND ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-134-100),
ZONED M-1, BY WILSEY & HAM FOR BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA (TRUSTEE)
AND KATHLEEN DORE (OWNER).
In announcing this item for study, Chairman Sine ascertained that three
representatives of the applicant were present: Messrs. Lou Arata,
Bill Wright and Don Yarbrough.
The City Engineer stated this parcel map was submitted to the Commission
many years earlier; the applicant is proposing to divide a single parcel
into four separate parcels. He pointed out that much discussion has
been held regarding ingress/egress, providing water for fire protection
purposes, and providing a loop from Marsten Road. The Engineering
office received improvement plans on Friday, August 8, but had not
studied them yet; the Fire Department had seen these plans, but the
Water Department had not seen them. Mr. Davidson commented that the
Engineering office and other City officials discussed with the applicant
the odd configuration of Parcel 4 with the suggestion that this be
divided up according to its existing use since the Subdivision Map Act
calls for a parcel map for all leased parcels. The building on Parcel 2
has 5 ft. setbacks from property lines. The building on Parcel 3 is on
the property lines and would require closing any openings such as windows
or doors.
City Planner Swan stated that from the standpoint of zoning, each parcel
should be self-supporting and be capable of meeting all zoning regula-
tions, including off-street parking. The Planner asked the Commission
consider whether there can be adequate parking for each of these lots,
for the present and for any future tenants. Mr. Bill Wright, previously
associated with Wilsey & Ham, stated this particular configuration
evolved from discussions between the Bank of America, George Marr and
George Mann, starting in 1968. It is proposed that existing window
openings on the SW side of Parcel 3 be closed. Regarding Parcel 4,
there is some question concerning the provisions of the new Subdivision
Map Act. He believed, regarding property zoned commercial or industrial,
there is a provision which states there need not be division of the
lands for leased portions. He further stated that off-street parking
for Parcel 4 is supposed to be handled through a parking agreement
with the owner of Parcel 3. PG&E has an easement through there, and
the applicant proposes to eliminate any parking on the access easement.
He said it would be easier for the Bank of America and the Dore Trust
if this were made a condition of the approval; further, that this is
a building lease alone, there is no land leasing involved.
-10 -
Commissioner Francard was advised by the applicant that the easements
were reciprocal and it is not the intent of the owner to dedicate the
easements to the City. City Engineer Davidson advised this had been
discussed with the City Attorney; there are provisions in the
Burlingame code to enable private property owners to post tow -away
zones and tow -away on the basis of Burlingame's regulations. The
City Engineer was confident the parking would not be abused and could
be enforced. It was agreed with the applicant that "no parking on the
easement" could be made a condition of approval of the parcel map.
Commissioner Norberg suggested the use of skylights if the windows
are closed up. Commissioner Kindig felt that generally this map would
be quite an improvement over the present condition. Commissioner Mink
stated his belief that the big problem is one tenant can park wherever
he wishes, unless the Commission is aware of the arrangements by the
property managers; he didn't think the City should be obliged to
police whose cars can be parked where. He felt each tenant should be
able to support his own parking. Commissioners Taylor and Mink expressed
their belief that each tenant should explain how he is going to comply
with Commission requirements.
The City Engineer added that although this was a private ingress/egress
easement, the Fire Department had asked it be given a name for their
identification. The Engineer's office preferred, where possible, not
to have the same name as neighboring jurisdictions.
Chairman Sine scheduled this item for public hearing August 25, 1975,
stating he hoped the three gentlemen present at this meeting would be
present at that time and give pertinent information to staff in advance
of the meeting.
12. FINAL PARCEL MAP OF 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4,
BLOCK 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (RSM VOL. 70/33), ZONED
C-4, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORP.
City Engineer Davidson told the Commission this parcel map is merely
a formality, a final map. It basically eliminates interior lot lines
on the property where Kee Joon's is located. There being no discussion,
Chairman Sine scheduled this tentative and final map for public hearing
August 25, 1975.
13. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN M-1 DISTRICT AT
897 HINCKLEY ROAD (APN 026-321-340) BY LOUIS J. KEARN (OWNER) FOR
COIT DRAPERY AND CARPET CLEANERS, INC.
The Chairman asked for a review of this application, and Assistant City
Planner Yost distributed maps, stating that Coit Drapery desired to
double their office area and add some extra storage space in their
plant. The existing building has 2438 SF of office area and 6240 SF
of shop area. A building permit had been issued for the office
expansion, and they now want to expand the shop area. This addition
will extend into the parking lot and remove one line of cars. Plans
had been prepared and two modifications had been looked at by the
architect: one plan gives 22 car parking spaces and the requirement
is 25; the second plan was for two compacts and 21 full size cars for
a total of 23, which would be a deficiency of only 2 spaces. The
applicant's E-2 Form lists 25 employees at present, 26 expected in two
years and 28 expected in 10 years.
-11 -
The Assistant City Planner stated the amount of landscaping, setbacks
and lot coverage meet regulations. The only deficiency would be parking.
Mr. James L. Gerlach, Controller, Coit Drapery was present and was asked
for his comments regarding this application. The applicant told the
Commission that the expansion upstairs was generated because of the
need for additional display area downstairs. It would add one
functional office with no change in number of employees. Further
Commission discussion disclosed that Coit's main occupation at this
location is cleaning of draperies; sampling of draperies for customers
is done in the customers' homes. Essentially it is a dispatch office
for sales personnel; there are very few walk-in customers. There is
on -street parking at Coit's location.
Commissioner Norberg suggested building over the present parking area
and leaving the parking as is. The applicant doubted this would work
as they have a conveyor system and everything is cleared for a one floor
level operation. Mr. Gerlach stated the parking area would have enough
space for all employees cars. There is car pooling, and many of the
employees do not utilize the parking space they presently have. Working
hours were stated to be: boilers turned on from 7:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.;
sales personnel and office personnel from 8:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. They
utilize radio dispatched trucks. Mr. Gerlach added that Coit did not
propose changing the use, merely expanding the present use.
Chairman Sine set this item for hearing August 25, 1975.
14. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHERATON INN IN M-1 DISTRICT
AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (APN 026-290-310) BY RUDY RAUSCH FOR
SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MOTEL COMPANY.
City Planner Swan introduced this item at the request of the Chairman.
He stated Mr. Rausch's letter had been circulated with information
about the proposed improvement, which was an unusual request. The City
Council had approved plans for this location seven years ago; with
respect to code requirements, the Sheraton is in an M-1 District and
does not require review of parking for specialty restaurants. They
now have 33 parking spaces on the north side under the existing
restaurant and 29 parking spaces on the south side under the California
Room, etc. The driveway is at present also being used for parking.
They propose interior alterations to add 5040 SF of floor area on the
lower level for meeting rooms. The City Planner continued, stating
that Sheraton has found it cannot move people in and out of their
dining area, and desire flexibility to take care of a conference or
a small convention. The present parking has not been utilized and they
would like to convert some of this space to other uses. He felt the
Commission must evaluate on conceptual approval at this present time,
and suggested they treat the proposal on its own merits today.
Mr. Rudy Rausch was introduced by the City Planner and addressed the
Commission. He stated Sheraton has had problems serving large
conventions (300 to 400 people), providing meeting rooms and serving
food at the same time. They have five such conventions tentatively
scheduled for next year, and need more space. He claimed they presently
-12 -
have 306 rooms and 433 parking spaces. The applicant said he had taken
some surveys of the parking situation and that the average total cars
at midnight was 174. This evening (August 11) there were 189 parking
spaces filled, of which 40-50 might have been employees; on weekends
the count would go up to 200 or 210. He felt a parking variance for
the proposed use would bring in additional revenue both to Sheraton
and to the City, and stated in his experience of managing airport hotels
(approximately 15 years) most of them have a ratio of 3 to 1.
Chairman Sine commented that Sheraton currently had roughly 1/3 of its
rooms rented to Burroughs Training Center and airport personnel, the
remainder being transient population; the Chairman suggested that as
time goes by and business continues to be excellent with the transient
trade, Sheraton might find ways to cancel out discount people. In
consequence the parking needs would increase. Mr. Rausch stated his
feeling that an airport hotel always has to attract air travelers and
that the Chairman's suggestion was not necessarily a truism. Chairman
Sine requested that the applicant take a count of the cars at the
12:30 lunch trade and between 8-9:00 P.M. Commissioner Jacobs commented
on the fact that there was no on -street parking available at the
Sheraton. Further discussion established that the applicant would be
agreeable to conditioning the variance for a certain period, such as
five years, in case the Commission needed to request a change later.
Chairman Sine scheduled this variance application for hearing
August 25, 1975.
8. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF SIGNS AND SIGN CODE
AMENDMENTS.
City Planner Swan began this discussion recalling words and ideas the
Commission had talked about a month ago. Goals were requested for a
better and more consistent sign permit process. The Planning Department
needed Commission thoughts as to responsibility for signs, who handles
sign review, how much Commission time should be spent on signs, and the
work load by staff for effective sign enforcement. Chairman Sine had
requested staff consider all the suggestions brought up at that time
and submit a report.
Mr. Swan stated the Planning Department's focus is on three areas:
administrative procedures, general policies for review, and specific
regulations (staff would like to postpone consideration of this to a
later time). He mentioned his two previous recommendations: (1) There
be a comprehensive revision of the sign code. Charles Eley, a summer
intern, had spent three months preparing a new sign code in the summer
of 1973. This was done after the Commission realized it was difficult
to review signs, i.e., Beardsley's and the Penguin signs. Staff work
completed in 1973, however, did not result in a review procedure or
sign code amendments.
The City Planner's recommendation (2) was to consider rescinding
Ordinance No. 979. Recommendation (3) would be a composite of present
conditions.
-13 -
It is important for staff to know clearly when a sign permit is
required, what information is needed, and who does what. He mentioned
the persons involved are the applicant, building inspector, city
planners, planning commission, city council, as well as the public.
Mr. Swan ended his statements with the wish that there were a public
which really cared to beautify Burlingame.
Assistant City Planner Yost suggested discussion be centered on pp 1-5
of the sign review report mailed to Commissioners. He noted there is
confusion about the intent of Ordinance 979 when more than one tenant
is in a building. He suggested a solution might be to agree on a
standard of sign area per foot of street frontage, or perhaps gross
floor area, a formula that would answer the need of one tenant without
involving the property owner. Also, the agreement of a checklist of
sign features would enable a more systematic staff input to the Planning
Commission. However, no design policies have been established to enable
a sign company to bring in an application with any degree of confidence
of what might be approved. Assistant Planner Yost commented on the
quotation in his report to Commission regarding the need for an
"educated observer" and suggested that the Planning Commission is that
educated observer.
Commenting on the chart of a suggested Sign Review Process included in
his report, he advised most of the boxes indicate procedures now being
followed by staff. Some steps not in use were enumerated such as
Box 11 "Routine sidewalk inspection of signs in commercial and industrial
districts," Box 26 "Staff report prepared" for Commission use at the
hearing, and also Box 47 "Planning Department inspection" after a new
sign is installed. Mr. Yost ended his discussion with the question:
Does the Commission wish the Planning Department to take a more active
role?
City Planner Swan remarked on the problem of enforcement, having spent
three days in court in one such instance. He informed the Commission
that the sign code itself appeared to be on trial, not the violator of
the code. Commissioner Jacobs believed the simplest most precise plan
would be to agree on a machanical formula. She also indicated the
information she felt she needed in order to make a decision: sign color,
material, possible code violations, square footage, percent of building
surface covered. Commissioner Norberg suggested that signs be confined
to only the ground floor.
Commissioner Mink said the notion of no signs at all is not workable
because of the basic concept of fairness; signs reinforce the use concept.
He felt the Planning Commission did owe to the public some definite
policy guidelines, and that there was validity in the linear footage
concept. He had several suggestions: reduce the size of signs moving
up the building (vertically), put a maximum height on signs, require a
reasonable sight line, limit the number of items of information allowed
in one sign. He would like a staff report to'ir_dicate hours of
illumination also. His remarks stressed the importance of specificity;
Commission would be of more service to the City if there were a
functional sign ordinance that staff could administer.
Discussing the unique development in the C-4 District, Mr. David Keyston
thought that perhaps this was an area where small multiple signs could be
-14 -
permitted without coming to the Planning Commission, with one large
sign for each larger building being permitted. Chairman Sine commented
on an area in Palo Alto which has office buildings only. These buildings
have only a numeral sign in front, one central directory at the rear
(roughly 12 or 15 SF in size), and everything above the first floor
is limited to this central directory. He felt this was an ideal policy.
There appeared to be a consensus that the Planners prepare more precise
information, using a concept of linear footage, for presentation to
the Commission. Chairman Sine was assured that the preceding discussion
had given the Planners enough Commission input to work with.
At this point in the meeting Chairman Sine brought up his concern with
the growing trend of gas stations going into the grocery store, beer
and wine business. His main concern was the possible traffic problem
which could result. Burlingame has many small gas stations and is
unprotected should this country -wide trend continue. He thought it
advisable that staff prepare a code revision. There was little
Commission discussion and the Chairman advised he would discuss this
matter further with the City Attorney.
15. REPORT ON 1975 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' INSTITUTE MEETING
JULY 30 - AUGUST 1, HOTEL DEL CORONADO, CORONADO.
Reports of the Institute meeting by City Attorney Coleman and City Planner
Swan were distributed to members of the Commission earlier. Chairman
Sine asked that Commissioner Taylor present any comments he might have
at this time. Commissioner Taylor indicated the most interesting
subject brought up was that of personal liability. There seemed to be
unanimous belief by the City Attorneys attending that no Commissioner
should engage in predetermination, particularly in variance applications
or conditional use permit, before the application gets to public hearing;
no Commissioner should solicit information or advice except at a public
hearing; there was no objection to visiting the site if it was fully
disclosed at a public hearing. By law, a Planning Commissioner can
make a decision only on information presented at a hearing. City
Attorneys presenting material at the Institute unanimously agreed that
Commissioners should make a finding of fact in every case where there
is a variance or conditional use permit; further, findings should be
clearly related to the ordinance. The City Attorneys believed all
witnesses at a hearing should be under oath, and hearings should be
heard with a court reporter. Examples had been cited concerning the
problem of personal liability arising out of the failure of a Planning
Commissioner to do these things.
At the close of Commissioner Taylor's remarks Commissioner Francard
was given the floor by the Chairman to make some comments regarding
the recent report by the budget committee of the City Council. He
suggested Chairman Sine should contact the Mayor regarding the item
mentioning elimination of one planner. In discussion the Commission
expressed its very emphatic belief that the present Planning Department
staff is most necessary, especially for the staff work that is required
to help the Commission live up to its established purposes. It was
-15 -
the consensus of the Commission that Chairman Sine and Commissioner
Taylor write a letter of staff support as an official statement from
the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary