Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.11.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Norberg (excused, City Planner Swan Jacobs out of town) Asst.City Planner Yost Kindig Asst.City Engineer Mink Rebarchik Sine City Attorney Coleman Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P. M. MINUTE S The minutes of the meeting of October 28, 1975 were approved as written. 1. SIGN PERMIT FOR EXISTING 220 SF ROOF SIGN WITH NEW COPY FOR OFF PREMISE BUSINESS BY FRED HARVEY INC. FOR AIRPORT MARINA HOTEL, AT 866 BURLWAY ROAD. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. After ascertaining that a representative of the applicant was present, he requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner told Commissioners this existing roof sign at 866 Burlway Road covered 220 SF. Body of the sign is 10'x 20', of which 120 SF is given to copy of "Airport Marina Hotel," 80 SF is a readerboard carrying advertising for the coffee shop; and there is a 20 SF "Next Exit" sizn on the top. The sign is illuminated and has a maximum height of 42 2' . Slides were shown of the building and this sign. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the history of the sign which was put up in 1962 with a building permit. In 1969 the Tia Maria Restaurant obtained a special permit from the Planning Commission for their business on Bayshore Highway and also signed a lease at the 866 Burlway building. They then put their copy on this roof sign. He quoted Code Section 22.20.010 which prohibits signs carrying advertising for products or services other than those of the occupants of the building. It is also an advertising display adjacent to the freeway, prohibited by Code Section 22.24.020. The Assistant City Planner stated the Tia Maria sign apparently went up with staff knowledge. Tying in the present sign with this precedent, Airport Marina has signed a lease for 400 SF of office space at 866 Burlway Road. This is not being, used for I-,otel purposes, but for dead storage. The roof sign advertises services and products not available at that address. - 2 - He offered four alternatives: 1. Application be approved without conditions as a change of copy on an existing sign. 2. Approve with condition that the permit be void at the end of the present lease period, 9/30/76. 3. Deny the application. It does not conform with Ordinance code, Sections 22.20.010 (d) and 22.24.020. 4. Reject application and instruct staff to return applicant's fee on the basis that this sign is prohibited under the city's sign code. Chairman Sine requested comment from representative of the applicant. Respondent was Mr. Donald Johnson, 111 South Hill Drive, Brisbane, who is a vice president of Fred Harvey Company. Mr. Johnson informed Commissioners his company had signed a lease with Mr. Swanson in good faith and had given up warehouse space in the area of the restaurant to use this space. He stated he was recently advised by the Planning Department of violations on this sign. Mr. Johnson displayed snapshots he had taken of signs in Burlingame which he stated were more obtrusive than his, and asked that the Commission approve the sign. Mr. Earl Swanson, owner of 866 Burlway building, addressed the Commission. He stated the first sign was put up in 1962 advertising Swanson Constructior Company and that he came to the Planning Commission to get approval. He commented he would never have signed a contract for the sign unless it was with the understanding he could use it in the future. He then affirmed that Tia Maria had signed the lease at his building in 1970 and the Planning Commission said as long as he had an office below that sign, "it would work." There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs noted the code section prohibiting signs which do not advertise a business on the premises; and commented she did not think the Airport Marina Hotel lacked signs. Commissioner Francard questioned if a time limit had been set when the sign was permitted. It was established by staff that none had been. Commissioner Kindig wanted clarification of the original permit to the point'of whether it was for a general sign or just for Swanson's business. He suggested it was granted for the business because Mr. Swanson was in the building. Assistant City Planner Yost left the meeting for the purpose of obtaining Planning Commission minutes of 1962. Mr. Swanson affirmed the permit was not granted just for his business and as long as he had a tenant in the building he could always lease the sign to him. Commissioner Mink regarded this as a new sign application. He thought that under the provisions of Ordinance 1023, which prohibits roof sions, the Planning Commission should not even consider i4 and should return - 3 - the fee to the applicant. Commissioner Taylor cited the cooperation of the Planning Commission in granting the several signs on the Airport Marina site, including the roof sign with its considerable impact on the area. However, he disapproved of this sign and suggested rejection. Commissioner Kindig agreed, also noting the many on-site signs for Airport Marina. At this point, Chairman Sine remarked that the Planning Commission did have another alternative: approve this sign permit with the condition of removal of the roof top sign for the Airport Marina Hotel. Assistant City Planner Yost returned to the meeting and read Planning Commission minutes of March 16, 1962 in which the Planning Commission denied Mr. Swanson's application for a sign for 866 Burlway Road. Commissioner Mink moved the Planning Commission declare that the application is not a proper action to be before the Commission; return the applicant's $50.00 fee; and direct staff to pursue abatement of the sign. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. Commissioner Taylor questioned the would deprive the applicant of due had not been taken. City Attorney preferable to deny the application, to appeal to Council. City Attorney if this method process because a definitive action Coleman considered it would be which would allow the applicant Commissioner Mink and Jacobs withdrew their motion and second. Commissioner Mink then moved that this application for sign permit be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Sine advised the applicant he had the right of appeal to the City Council. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 6, 11 AND 12 AND A PORTION OF 7, 10 AND 13, BLACK 8, BURLINGAME LAND CO. AT 1513/ 1517 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE AND 537/41 ALMER ROAD AND 530/34 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 029-111-020/030/040/050/270) ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR BONITA K. SCHAFER AND MEDMAC COMPANY (OWNERS) AND NICOLAIDE S & SON INC. (,APPLICANT.) Chairman Sine introduced this application. City Planner Swan directed Commission attention to exhibit of proposed condominium development on certain of these parcels which necessitates a parcel map. There would be two parcels on the new map. Parcel 2, the condominium site, would encompass four residential lots fronting on Almer/Floribunda. Parcel 1, zoned R-3, and occupied by a medical complex fronting on El Camino, would be combined with a portion of one lot which would have a 12' access drive on Almer. This would give access to Almer for the medical building and offer more parking space. Mr. David Nicolaides, who proposes to develop the condominium, stated the reason for acquiring part of the lot at 537 Almer was to get nine additional parking spaces for the condominium so parking code could be met. He said the medical corporation had agreed to sell that portion of the lot provided the corporation could keep the access driveway to Almer. In the discussion following it was established that the medical building would have 20 added parking spaces for the use of employees. The house at 537 Almer would be demolished, leaving the lot free for parking purposes of condo and medical building. When the medical building got the variance for its site, it did not include that lot. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik noted there was the fact of an existing approved tentative parcel map pending. This was for a previous application for an apartment building. Mr. Nicolaides remarked that could be withdrawn. The Assistant City Engineer had several other concerns on the parcel map. These were: title report, some assurance that the applicant has an interest in the property; indication of existing buildings and what is going to happen to them; details on the medical building so that determination can be made of what conditions were imposed on it and if these conditions will cause problems. He noted that this medical complex is on an R-3 lot. Mr. Nicolaides stated the medical complex was given a use variance in 1958 and that the owners of the properties have agreed to sign the final map. Commissioner Mink was concerned that removing the lot line between Lot 6 and Lot 12 to create a parking area in an R-3 zone for Medmac would permit an extension of use beyond the boundaries for which it was granted. Mr. Nicolaides and Mr. Arthur Dudley agreed that the lot line could be left in. Mr. Dudley suggested the possibility of the condominium association acquiring that lot and granting Medmac an easement. Discussion followed on the adequacy of the 12' driveway. City Planner Swan stated it was wide enough for one-way traffic. Commissioner Mink requested that the City Attorney research the question of extension of use and if the Planning Commission is empowered to do this by means of a parcel map. He suggested the possibility 'of rezoning Parcel 1 with its dogleg lot. City Planner Swan noted that a parking area in the R-3 zone is a conditional use with a special permit. A condominium permit would be required for Parcel 2. In answer to commission question, Mr. Nicolaides stated there is a structure on Lot 12 which will be removed. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing on November 24. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS IA AND 2, BLOCK 31, LYON & HOAG SUBDIVISION AT 500/504 PENINSULA AVENUE (APN 029-294-150/160) ZONED R-3, BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR ROBERT J. AND S)MATIA W. PISANI City Planner Swan displayed parcel map for this corner property on Peninsula Avenue. He noted it is on the west side of Dwight and is zoned R-3. It consists of Lot 1A, which contains a single family house, and Lot 2, which is vacant. The owners wish to combine these lots, creating Parcel A, in order to build a 12 -unit apartment building. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik indicated there were only minor details of concern in the map. In response to question from Chairman Sine on undergrounding, he stated that as long as services are available, `here is no concern in a parcel map of this type. There was comment that since the zoning is R-3, the services should be presumed to meet - 5 - the requirements of the zoning. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing November 24. 4. VARIANCE FROM PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AT 500/504 PENINSULA AVENUE (APN 029-294-150/150) ZONED R-3, BY ROBERT J. AND SYLVIA W. PISANI City Planner Swan read letter dated November 10, 1975 from Mr. James Casella, architect for Mr. and Mrs. Robert Pisani, withdrawing this application for variance because an adjustment of the two-hour fire wall in the proposed building would solve the problem of parking space. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A CONVERTED GARAGE AS HOBBY ROOM AT 1340 EDGEHILL DRIVE (APN 029-011-190) ZONED R-1, BY GEORGES AND MARY - SUSAN KURTH Chairman Sine requested staff report on this application. Assistant City Planner Yost referred Commissioners to exhibit showing position of house and garage on the lot. He stated the application is to allow the property owner to use the original garage at the rear of his property as a hobby room or drafting studio. The small 2 -bedroom house does not have enough space. An extension of the house would be difficult, since the lot is only 30.5' wide and the combined coverage of house and garage is presently 38%. An extra room would have to be added as a second story. The Assistant City Planner, noted, however, that the code does require covered parking. In the process of converting the garage, Mr. Kurth obtained a building permit for a carport adjacent to the former garage. This presents a problem because the carport is built on a 10' strip of land next to Mr. Kurth's lot, and there is no owner of record for this 10'. Presumably, title is still vested in an heir of the original owner of Burlingame Terrace. The City Attorney commented a title search would indicate who the owner is, but the City does not have the responsibility of finding this information for the property owner. The Assistant City Planner added this application had been held since August 20, 1975 to give the title company a chance to look for the owner. Their advice had been that this probably will not be straightened out until a legal suit is filed. Mr. Georges Kurth informed the Commission that he and his wife had filed suit to quiet title in Municipal Court as of this date. Their attorney had said they would have the judgment in less than two months. Commissioners discussed the city culvert under the driveway and whether or not it would hold heavy vehicles. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik indicated he did not have the date of its construction at hand but would search the record. He noted that generally a structure is prohibited over a sewer line, and stated there was a sanitary sewer line in the vicinity which might be on the adjoining property. This location should be determined. Commissioner Kindig questioned the services in the hobby room. Mr. Kurth stated there was only electricity. Commissioners suggested this application be set for hearing and then continued until the rights of property ownership are established. This would give the applicant leverage in the title suit. Also there could be a time limit on the use permit or it could be conditioned by date the title is established. City Attorney Coleman suggested that if the use of the culvert is allowed, the type of vehicle use on it could be limited. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on November 24, 1975. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING AND VEHICLE STORAGE ON PROPERTY WITH EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AT 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, (APN 029-151-100) FOR BURLINGAME IMPORTS INC. BY DON SABATINI. City Planner Swan informed Commissioners Mr. Sabatini had withdrawn his application since there was delay in getting owners' consent because of multiple ownership. The application will be submitted later. RECESS After a short recess at 9:00 P. M. the meeting reconvened. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES FOR PLANNING ACTIVITIES City Planner Swan discussed Exhibit G, the final vote on Commission priorities. Following are priorities selected and his comments: 1. Written staff reports to Planning Commission 2. Condominiums - Review Criteria 3. New Title 22 Sign Code 4. Miscellaneous Title 25 Zoning Code Amendments. The City Attorney has prepared a long list of changes to update Title 25. 5. Revise and republish General Plan. This work is underway. The actual revision is to the diagram, Part III of the General Plan. The original diagram has been obtained from Wm'. Spangle and is being revised to conform with City decisions in the last year. "Republishing" will consist of incorporating the revised diagram, the six elements adopted in the last year and a half, and the original general plan into one volume. That does not include updating any of the other elements. 6. Location for transfer station. This is a prerequisite to estai�li _�zi110 a golf course. 7. woof signs - inventory and appraisals. It might be said that this is a followup to the prohibition of roof signs. The Commission asked that roof signs be amortized and abated. The City Attorney commented this had been referred to a Council committee. Chair.ian Sine noted it had been in committee for about a year. 8. Broadway Interchange study. This could cover a number of topics. - 7 - One project, separate railroad from street traffic. Another, improve- ment of the interchange with the freeway so that more vehicles could be accommodated and possibly a bike pedestrian path. A Broadway area study of land use, possibly of rezoning the area from M-1 to C-2. The Commission agreed to rename this priority Broadway Area study. 9. Update Housing Element. There is only a preliminary assessment in the existing General Plan. As yet it has not received enough priority. 10. Update CEQA procedures 11. Repairs to non -conforming buildings report The City Planner stated that work is being done now on the top 4 or 5 items. Exhibit G has been directed to the City Manager with a request it be forwarded to the City Council for their suggestion. City Planner Swan advised.that Commission priority list was on the Council study meeting agenda for Wednesday, November 12. 8. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMITS. City Planner Swan initiated discussion of condominium criteria in Commission's hands. These were the draft resolution with Exhibit A, Findings; condominium permit application form; and copy of condominium ordinance No. 1015. He summarized; intent of the resolution was to establish guidelines for condo application review. The City Planner emphasized that the guidelines were not incorporated into an ordinance. Guidelines are subject to change, review and updating. He suggested the Chairman review the findings one by one with the Commission. Chairman Sine reviewed list of findings. Suggested changes were: Item 6 be changed to read, "The site plan shall indicate the proposed location and use of common areas; driveways . . ." Item 8. "Condominium luring unit floor plans shall indicate . ." Delete "living" so that office condominiums shall be included. Item 9b. Change to "Unit Climate Control." This change proposed to cut down transmission of sound through duct work; to insure self - containment of units with regard to easements. Item 10. (Refers to sound levels.) Considerable discussion of whether or not the 45dB noise level was discriminatory if applied only to condominiums. No change. Item 13. Change to read "Applications for condominium conversion permits shall also include sufficient information to evaluate the soundness of any proposed condominium project. In addition this information should be verified through thorough inspection and report by the City prior to public hearing on . . . Item 14. Delete. This is requirement for EIR. Commission decision that CEQA requirements are adequate. Commissioners questioned requirement of certificate of occupancy, Item 12, with City Planner Swan explaining this might have some application on infractions, incomplete units, or failure to meet regulations. The Commission considered Item 12b, Relocation Procedures, and its relation to General Plan requirement that cities must furnish various types of housing. The City Planner presented the example of a condo- minium being built in a business area with businesses in the old building. It would be necessary to find new places for the businesses. Commissioners directed staff to prepare a resolution mcommending the adoption of guidelines and review criteria for condominiums with findings attached. 9. SIGN PERMIT GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Assistant City Planner Yost reported on a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce Sign Committee on November 6, 1975. He stated that alternative sign sizes to those in report of September 30, were discussed with no firm consensus. It was agreed some types of small signs may be undesir- able, but no method of definition was made. There was a discussion of different sign standards for different districts, with no decision. There was suggestion of a type of consent calendar for Planning Commission consideration of some types of signs, with thorough review for others. The Assistant City Planner commented that the meeting was an exchange of views, with no consensus reached. Commissioner Mink disapproved of the principle of a consent calendar since one of the functions of the Planning Commission is to certify through hearings that certain facts are applicable. Chairman Sine agreed. The Chairman remarked he had attended all of these Committee meetings and had stipulated to the Committee their work was voluntary and results might or might not be acceptable to the Planning Commission. He stated he could attend all meetings through December after which he would no longer be on the Chamber Board of Directors. Commissioner Jacobs thought a new sign ordinance should be written. The Assistant City Planner remarked staff work on this had included review of Commission action on signs for the past 18 months, but that the Chamber Committee had interrupted further proceeding. Commissioner Taylor suggested the Planning Commission go ahead with the work of drafting a sign ordinance after which the Chamber could make its own suggestions. City Planner Swan pointed out that before an ordinance is drafted a policy decision should be made on what type and what kinds of signs should be reviewed. Assistant City Planner Yost agreed that direction to staff was needed; otherwise, the ordinance would reflect past Commission actions on signs. He added decision should be made on who is to administer the sign ordinance. In the discussion following, Commissioner miink approved of different kinds of sign limits for different zones; Commissioner Francard ,,Xas concerned about window signs; Chairman Sine noted that the City Council had not yet resolved amortization of roof signs. Assistant City Planner Yost reminded Commissioners of the August 11 report from staff which listed 23 guidelines and 17 recommendations for signs. He commented no response had been received from the Commission and requested their direction. Commissioners agreed to schedule sign guidelines as a study item on November 24, using the August 11 report. Staff is to assemble past material on signs for review also. City Planner Swan showed slides of some controversial signs in Burlingame, including the Penguin Lounge, Beardsley's and Old Uncle Gaylord's. Discussion followed of the wall left at the rear of the Bullis site which could become a billboard for the commute trains. On the upcoming Dick Bullis sign program Chairman Sine suggested through review of the lighting. 10. THEATERS IN C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS City Planner Swan reviewed the facts concerning this item. He reminded Commissioners that Emergency Ordinance 1046, adopted in September, prohibits theaters in C-1 and C-2 zones and that the City Council had received notice that this matter would be discussed at this meeting. The City Planner went on to say that research indicated that the Fox Burlingame was not used as a theater after September 1, 1974. Seats and all equipment have been removed. They had a valid business license which expired 7/1/75. The Encore theater license expired July 1, 1972. Both have been out of business for longer than six months. In some cities a non -conforming use that is not in operation for six months is then subject to the regulations of the zone. He suggested one solution might be to allow this use as a conditional use with a special permit. The City Planner stated that on May 5, 1975 the City Council had approved the.use of the Fox -Burlingame as a theater. City Attorney Coleman commented he understood the prospective operator still is not in the building, and his opinion was that the permit would be valid for six months. The City Planner told of a discussion with the previous operator of Fox Burlingame, Mr. Bob Smith. Mr. Smith had stated that he had spent much money in upgrading and maintaining the theater, and had lost money on his operation. The City Planner concluded this building would be difficult to use as a theater and very expensive to remodel for any other type of use. He suggested the building could be demolished to permit private redevelopment of the property. Regarding the Encore, the City Planner pointed out there is an amuse- ment permit application before the City Council for use as a discotheque, which is a permitted use in the C-2 district. He noted the vacant lot adjacent to the theater and under the same ownership, provides offstreet parking immediately next door, and there is considerable parking in the municipal lot across the street. Commissioner Kindig suggested that since apparently neither of these buildings would be used as a theater, prohibition of the use would be sensible. City Attorney Coleman reminded him that this prohibition - 10 - would apply to all C-1 and C-2 Districts, not just to these two theaters. City Attorney Coleman presented three alternatives for the Commission on this use; Prohibit. Allow as a conditional use. Do nothing., Commissioner Mink questioned if the proper use of the commercial zone would be an 8 - 10 hour activity or could that activity extend up to the late night hours. Based on that, what is the attitude toward bars, restaurants, gas stations? He spoke of the traffic problem with theaters and questioned if the City wanted that in the downtown area or should it be moved to a C-4 zone which is essentially a 24-hour area. Commissioner Taylor spoke of growing up in an environment where a movie theater was part of any downtown community. He noted that the right of the public to stay out of a movie is well established. Commissioner Mink commented he did not think changing the theater ordinance would have any impact on the community; that for every fact he found against theater use, such as traffic, hours of activity, he found another use that would be denied by the very same fact. He gave the example of liquor stores and bars. He considered the real issue to be what type of activity is proper for the zone. City Attorney Coleman cautioned that the Commission should work on the assumption that the theaters might reopen. Chairman Sine stated he did not see where this was a problem for the Planning Commission. He considered it was rather the problem of the owner of the property. He commented on past use of theaters for children on Saturday afternoons. Commissioner Taylor added that this prohibition or lack of it was not a natter of significant concern to him. City Planner Swan read sentence from Ordinance 1046 specifying Planning Commission responsibility, "It is therefore necessary that the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame be given time to consider_ the desirability of the elimination of such uses from the C-1 and,C-2 zones of this City." City Attorney Coleman stated that possibly the language would be more correct in substituting "study and recommend on" for "consider the desirability of." He stated he thought staff should put together a recommendation based on the Commission's comments. The City Planner suggested a resolution for the meeting of November 24. Chairman Sire stated that in his opinion the consensus of the Planning Commission was that nothing should be done on this issue in C-1 and C-2, and it should be referred back to the City Council. City Attorney Coleman specified there must be adequate reasons stated. Chairman Sine stated he thought any change should originate with the owner. Commissioner Taylor told Commissioners he could not find any criteria to judge motion picture theaters as distinct from other activities in the area which essentially have the same adverse features about them as traffic, hours of operation, and others. Commissioner Mink stated there has to be some logic in the removal of this use from this zone. Ile added he had considered the issue in the light of all these criteria and he could not find a rationale. Commissioner Jacobs thoughtshe could approve of this use in C-2 such as California Drive,,but had difficulty with the concept in C-1 and the young children who might be affected on Burlingame Avenue. Conclusion of the discussion was that staff would draw up resolution for action at the meeting of November 24, 1975. SAND BLASTING ORDINANCE City Attorney Coleman told Commissioners he had drafted an ordinance which requires a permit for sandblasting in the city. This includes wet sandblasting. This ordinance will be before the Council shortly. Chairman Sine suggested that all sandblasting agencies should be notified. REPORT City Planner Swan distributed copies of City Attorney Coleman's memorandum concerning voting after review of Planning Commission minutes. The City Planner reported that the County Manager has recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the County Housing Authority and Re- development Agency be combined with the Planning Department. He said there would be a meeting on this subject on Tuesday, November 25 at 7:30 P. M. at the San Bruno City Council Chambers. He told Commissioners that additional code amendments, revising Title 25 would be on the December study meeting agenda. Commissioner Kindig commented that the restaurant at Broadway and Carolan, formerly Broadway Joes, was for sale, and was concerned about a use permit for the new owner. He stated he would be absent from the next two meetings because he would be out of town. MEETING ADJOURNED The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary