Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.11.24THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 24, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Kindig (excused - City Planner Swan Jacobs out of town) Asst. City Planner Yost Mink Norberg (excused - City Engineer Davidson Sine ill) 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. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of November 10, 1975 were approved as written. 1. VARIANCE FOR A LOT WITH LESS THAN FIFTY FEET OF FROINTAGE NEXT TO 541 ALMER ROAD, BEING PARCEL 2, PORTION OF LOT 12, BLOCK 8, BURLINGA E LAND CO., ZONED R-3 BY MEDMAC COMPANY Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing and requested staff report. City Planner Swan reported to Commissioners that the variance application is for the use of a portion of the property at 537 Almerr. The applicant proposes to create a flag lot with a 12' wide area providing egress and ingress from Almer Road back to the parking area on this lot. The Zonirc, Code requires an average width of 50' for a lot fronting on a public street, but a variance can be granted from this requirement. This application is preliminary to a subsequent application for a condominium project which would be constructed on the adjoining parcel. The City Planner read applicant's statement on application for variance which states this variance is necessary for continued use of parking area for the adjoining medical building. He explained the front 40% of Lot 12 would become pare of Parcel 1, the parcel for the condominium development north of that property and the rear 60% of Lot 12 that adjoins the medical building would be used for medical building parking. The City Planner noted code regulation which states that a non -conforming use may not be extended beyond the confines of the structure which it occupies or the lot upon which it is located. He stated that the previous variance permitted a medical center on the property located at 528-534 El Camino Real. for that reason there had been Commission discussion at the meeting of November 10, 1975 to determine whether that area should or could be extended, since it would extend the variance granted to the medical office building. At this meeting staff had made the recommendation that a property line be extended at the rear of Lot 12, establishing Parcel 2 as the parcel for which the present variance is required. The City Planner reviewed the three applications which the - 2 - Commission should consider jointly: the parcel map, this variance, and a special permit application to use this parcel, Parcel 2, as a parking area in a residential district. City Engineer Davidson had no comment on the variance application. Mr. Arthur Dudley, 1009 California Drive, addressed the Commission as an associate of Nicolaides & Son. Mr. Dudley reviewed the purpose of the three applications on this meeting's agenda, stating the developers had made arrangements to purchase four parcels on Floribunda and Almer, subject to their being able to construct a low rise condominium. The Medmac Company, which owns three of the parcels and the medical building on E1 Camino, desires to retain a portion of one parcel as a parking area, for which it has been used for many years. Mr. Dudley emphasized there would be no change to the lot except upgrading by fencing, a control gate, and landscaping. It would have 9 parking spaces for the condominium, of the required total of 62. Commissioner Taylor, after reviewing the facts of the application, stated he would prefer that the lot line between Parcel 2 and Lots 6 and 7 be eliminated, thus making one continuous parcel and negating the future possibility of selling Parcel 2 as a lot with a 12' frontage. Mr. Dudley indicated this would be acceptable. City Attorney Coleman reminded Commissioners that the property on El Camino was the subject of a use variance which cannot be extended. If the lot line were eliminated, physical examination of the map would indicate the use extended to the entire parcel, when actually it is only on Lots 6 and 7. Commissioner Taylor suggested this could be overcome by a description. If the lot line is eliminated between Lot 6 and Parcel 2, the use cannot be legally extended. Commissioner Jacobs questioned code require- ments for lot widths. City Planner Swan informed her regulations require 50' in R-3, as in R-1 and a variance would be required for less than 50'. It is the extension of the non -conforming use over Parcel 2 that provides the legal problem. Commissioner Mink stated he too was concerned with less than standard lot frontage. Since the parking lot is a conditional use in R-3, he suggested tying Parcel 2 and the Medmac parcel together so that they could not be sold separately. If the land on E1 Camino were to revert back to residential, he would want Parcel 2 tied to that in such a way that it would have to be sold to Parcel 1, for example, or to the Sandpiper West. He considered that Parcel 2 by itself did not make sense and would not 40 years from now. Chairman Sine stated that by community standards the parking for the medical building is inadequate. He noted that at one time Medmac took part of Parcel 2 and has open parking; even with that the parking for the building is inadequate. He agreed that with a separate Parcel 2 there -could be problems with any changes in useage of the medical building. Commissioner Mink added that even if there were to be some major damage to the Medmac building, the City would be in the same position since there can be no addition to a non -conforming structure. Mr. Arthur Dudley told Commissioners that without the 9 parking spaces - 3 - to be gained from Parcel 2 the condominium units would have to be cut down, or parking put in the front yard, and swimming pool and amenities eliminated. He emphasized he was attempting to work out a method for the condominium to acquire parking space as well as Medmac. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink stated he was not opposed to the use of Parcel 2 and granting a special permit if the parcel could be tied to the medical use, but he disapproved of the creation of a separate substandard lot. In answer to Commission questions as to whether Parcel 2 could be tied with Lots 6 and 7, City Attorney Coleman stated this could be done but the use of the Medmac building could not be extended to another property. There would be a non -conforming use with a boundary line that does not show on the map. He stated this could be only a theoretical problem. His opinion was it could be approved. Commissioner Francard considered the situation should be clarified. Commissioner Mink commented that Parcel 2 had'four possible uses: it can become a narking lot for the medical building; it can become an adjunct to Parcel 1; it can become an adjunct to Sandpiper West; or it can be developed as an individual property. Mr. Dudley suggested that the condominium could retain the driveway and grant Medmac an easement over it. This would eliminate the 12' frontage on Parcel 1. There was Commission objection that this would create a landlocked lot. Chairman Sine suggested the application be continued so that details could be worked out. There was some Commission agreement since attendance at this meeting was short and the action would require four votes. City Attorney Coleman commented this requirement is not yet in effect. Commissioner Mink questioned if the deletion of the lot line was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Dudley, as representative of the condo- minium and of Medmac agreed that it would be. Chairman Sine announced the Commission would then consider Agenda Item 11,2, the parcel map, and return later to discussion of the variance. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 11 AND 12 AND A PORTION OF 10 AND 13, BLOCK 8, BURLINGAME LAND CO., AT 1513/1517 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE AND 537/41 ALDER ROAD (APN 029-111-020/030/040/050), ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR BONITA K. SCHAFER AND MEDMAC COMPANY (OWNERS) AND NICOLAIDES & SON INC. (APPLICANT.) City Planner Swan indicated that if Commissioners wished to include Lot 6 and portion of Lot 7 in the parcel riap, it could be done by amendment. Mr. Dudley did not comment. City Engineer Davidson stated that if the Commission wishes to eliminate the property line, there would be no problem with drainage. If it were not eliminated, he would have concerns about drainage. Elimination of this line eliminates the engineering department's objections. He suggested signatures could be withheld until the necessary demolition was accomplished. - 4 - Chairman Sine requested audience comment. There was none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink moved the adoption of the tentative parcel map with the deletion of the property line between Parcel 2 and the Medmac parcel with the full knowledge of the applicant that this does not extend the use of the Medmac parcel into Parcel 2, and that the filing of the tentative parcel map be subject to the code requirement that there be not more than one residential building per property. Both applicants, Arthur Dudley and David Nicolaides, agreed this motion was acceptable. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Kindig and Norberg absent. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PARKING AREA IN AN R-3 DISTRICT NEXT TO 541 ALMER ROAD, BEING PARCEL 2, PORTION OF LOT 12, BLOCK 8, BURLINGAME LAND CO. BY MEDMAC COMPANY (ND -68P POSTED 11/14/75) City Planner Swan considered that Agenda Item 1 could be dropped, with the understanding that the non -conforming use has a boundary line that will not show on the tentative parcel map just approved. He expressed the opinion that approval of the special permit would permit a parking area on the remainder of the enlarged Parcel 2. Con-nissioner Mink moved that special permit be granted to allow parking area in an R-3 district next to 541 Almer Road, on the flag lot next to the Medmac property. Commissioner Taylor objected that the special permit was not necessary since Parcel 2 has been incorporated into Lot 6. City Attorney Coleman agreed that action would be superfluous since Parcel 2 is now part of the adjacent lot. He added that the reason for the parking permit was that there had been an independent lot that was to be used for the sole purpose of parking. Commissioner Mink withdrew his motion. Chairman Sine announced that both Agenda Items 1 and 3 were withdrawn. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 1A 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 SYLVI: W. PISANI. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. City Planner Swan informed commissioners this is a tentative map combining two lots into one parcel for the construction of an apartment building. In response to questions from Commissioner Mink he stated there were no non -conforming structures on the lot and the map need not be conditioned by the removal of structures, since one lot is vacant. City Engineer Davidson stated the map could be recommended without conditions and met all requirements of a tentative map. Mrs. Sylvia Pisani, 39 Victoria Road, was accorded the floor and told Commissioners she and her husband wished to combine these t+'o lots to '-U4116 a 12 unit apartment house. - 5 - There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. There was little Commission comment. Commissioner Taylor moved that this tentative parcel map be approved.. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Kindig and Norberg absent. 5. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MILLS ESTATE NO. 1, AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 025-161-010) ZONED C-1, BY JONES-TILLSON & ASSOCIATES FOR PACIFIC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. City Engineer Davidson informed Commissioners this was the final of a tentative map approved earlier by the Commission; that it satisfied the code and the map act; and that document had been received which would give the City right to use part of the corner of Trousdale and California Drive for control of traffic conditions. There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink moved that this final parcel map be approved. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Kindig and Norberg absent. 6. 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 (ND -69P POSTED 11/14/75) At the request of Chairman Sine, Assistant City Planner Yost reported on the background of this application. He told Commissioners the applicant had purchased the property in 1974. It consists of a small two-bedroom house and one car garage on a narrow lot 30.5' wide. Area of the lot is only 3,050 SF and lot coverage is 38%, with an allowable maximum of 40%. After purchasing the property the Kurths found they needed more room. Because of lot coverage the only method to expand would be the addition of a second story, which would be expensive. As a consequence, 12 months ago they converted the small garage into a hobby room which is being used as a drafting studio. This conversion was done without a building, permit. The Assistant City Planner quoted code section which specifies that use of an accessory building as a hobby room requires approval of the Planning Commission. The Assistant City Planner went on to state that since the code also requires covered parking, Mr. Kurth subsequently obtained a building permit for construction of a carport to the side of the original garage. As constructed, however, this carport extends 9' over the side property line. The property that parallels the Kurths is a strip 10' wide. When they purchased their property they thought they were also buying this adjacent strip; they have since learned that the ownership of this 10' wide lot is apparently with the heirs of the original subdivider. The Kurths have recently filed civil suit to gain control of this ad- jacent land. If the Kurths obtain title to this strip, there would be no need for a variance from parking regulations. In the opinion of - 6 - the Assistant City Planner, the Kurths may have accumulated some rights to use this land, since the garage was built in 1930 and it is impossible to get a car into the garage except by trespassing over the 10' strip. However, the right to park a vehicle on this strip, as with the present carport, is ambiguous. The Assistant City Planner pointed out that the application seems to be surrounded by legal problems and offered the Commission three alter- natives: 1. Approval, with the recognition that the City has no authority to grant the Kurths any right to the 10' strip. 2. Approval for a limited period, possibly 6 to 12 months, to allow the Kurths time to obtain control of the strip. 3. Deny, with requirement that the studio be converted back to a garage, and make a ruling on the carport. Chairman Sine requested correspondence on this application. Secretary Jacobs read letter dated November 24, 1975 from Willi Klafki, 1344 Edgehill Drive, protesting this conversion in an R-1 zone. The Secretary then read petition presented by Mr. Kurth, dated November 24, 1975, signed by eleven owners of neighboring property, which stated no objection to this conversion and present use. Chairman Sine opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. James Hamrock, 860 Fairfield, told Commissioners he knew the circumstances of this application and recommended it be approved. Mr. Leo Aigner, 1361 Edgehill, declared himself as a Burlingame resident for 28 years, and s"-ated he had had two previous opportunities to buy this properlty. In each instance the 10' strip had been represented as being with the Ku rths' lot. He considered the applicants had improved the property and urged their application be approved. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink asked Mr. Kurth to confirm that the hobby room, if granted, would be for non-commercial purposes. Mr. Kurth agreed. Commissioner Francard asked if the Engineering Department had researched the culvert in the 10' strip. City Engineer Davidson replied that to the best of his knowledge the culvert had been built by the WPA. There are no structural records, but it has held up for some 40 years. However, the City Engineer emphasized that he would want to be relieved of the question of structural failure, since it is impossible to determine if the culvert is adequate or not. City Attorney Coleman added that under no circumstances should any approval of this hobby room use be construed as permission to park over the drainage facility underneath it. The adjacent property owner (Kurth) would use that 10' scrip at his own peril. Chairman Sine stated he had checked the property and apparently the drivowa.y and the culvert iia d served their purpose over the years, - 7 - but he did not advise driving any heavy equipment over it and expecting it to hold up. Commissioner Jacobs suggested time be allowed the Kurths to work on the title to the 10' strip, since she felt she could not grant the right to park on this lot nor the use of the carport. Commissioner Taylor thought there had been adequate testimony of the history, circumstances and the fact that neighbors did not consider the improvement detrimental. He considered the Kurths had bought the lot in good faith as a 40' lot and stated he felt the granting of the special permit and variance would not affect the General Plan and that the Commission should consider it favorably. Chairman Sine thought if the special permit were granted, the Commission would be approving an illegal use. He stated Mr. Kurth proceeded with the conversion without the benefit of a permit, and with his training as an architect he should have known better. Commissioner Mink questioned staff if it would be reasonable to grant a special permit conditional upon the establishment of a covered parking space on the property, permit to be reviewed in twelve months. This would allow the Kurths time to clear the problem. City Attorney Coleman commented this would mean allowing Mr. Kurth to park over the City's drainage structure. He thought, as a practical matter, even with all precautions if the drainage structure were damaged it would be very difficult to go against the property owner. He cautioned about the carport over the drainage structure, and stated he would prefer to see a variance from the parking requirement. Commissioner Mink commented that within 12 months Mr. Kurth might be able to have a better solution, and he wanted the parking structure in 12 months or the garage converted back to its former use. Commissioner Taylor noted that a hobby room is not illegal; the illegality lies in the fact Mr. Kurth did it without a building permit. He went on to say even if the garage returns to its former use, Mr. Kurth would still have to use the 10' strip. He considered that 12 months would be time for Mr. Kurth to make progress through the court. Commissioner Francard suggested the Police Department will give permits for on -street parking. Chairman Sine was concerned that when Mr. Kurth moves the City will be left with a nonconforming illegal use. Commissioner Mink moved that the special permit be granted with the condition that the Kurths establish a covered parking space on their property, this condition to be reviewed in 12 months. He stated that while he chose to grant the use, he did not choose to elude the code which says they must have a covered space. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COWAISSIONERS: FRANCARD,MINK,TAYLOR NAYES: COINIMISSIONERS: JACOBS, SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBERG - 8 - 7. SIGN PERMIT FOR THREE ILLUMINATED POLE SIGNS AT 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BY BELL ELECTRICAL SIGNS INC. FOR DICK BULLIS CHEVROLET Chairman Sine questioned City Attorney Coleman if approving vote on this application would require four votes. The City Attorney stated this procedure was not yet in effect. Chairman Sine then stated he did not choose to participate in discussion or vote on this application because of previous conflict of interest with Mr. Bullis. He turned over Chairmanship to Vice Chairman Taylor, after remarking that Mr. Bullis might wish to continue the application because of the small number of Commissioners considering it. Upon question by the City Attorney, Mr. Bullis indicated the application should proceed. At the request of Chairman Taylor, Assistant City Planner Yost presented this application. He _reminded Commissioners of discussion at the October 28 meeting of Mr. Bullis' proposed redevelopment. The present sign application is incidental to the redevelopment. He continued with the sign descriptions. Sign A is a 27'6" high illuminated pole sign with 64 SF of copy to be placed at the corner of California and Howard. Sign B is a 33' high illuminated pole sign 137 SF in area, located at about the midpoint of the sales area. Sign C would be a 2716" high illuminated pole sign 64 ,SF in area located 90' NW of the existing building. He described logo on the signs and told Commissioners total area would be 265 SF. Three existing signs with a total area of 276 SF are to be removed. T�,,o additional existing signs with an area of 159 SF are to remain. This brings total proposed signage to 424 SF for a frontage of almost 600'. The assistant City Planner noted that pole signs in a C-2 district are limiter' to a height of 20'. Renderings of signs were distributed to the Commission. hr. Eullis announced himself available for questioning, and was as';,, ---d" '1.,y Chairman Taylor to justify the height excess. Mr. Bullis stated he .relieved he needed the signs of phis height and he believed past experience and past determination of the Commission had allowed this type of thing in the Automobile FZcw district. Commissioner mink remarked the policy of the Commission in allowing signs of more than 20' was to specify they not be above the 31' height of the electroliers. He questioned if Mr. Bullis would cut the 33' high sign down to that. Mr. Bullis agreed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned design of signs and asked Mr. F-1-illis if ,-his would be the extent of signage. He stated it would be. On her ,question as to a low wall sign, I'r. Bullis said he would like to put a conforming wall sign on the back of the old dairy building (wall) facing East. On Commissioner Jacobs further question he stated he ,could not be coming in for permit. Commissioner Jacobs remarked she would like to condition the sign permit to the presently requested amount of signage and the elimination of graphics on the existing building. Mr. nullis protested that was not a matter of tonight's application, and added the graphics on the building disturbed him and probably would come off. Chairman Taylor remarked that one of the existing signs to be kept, Sic~n D, is 22' above the roof canopy and almost 40' above the ground. Commissioner Francard initiated discussion of proposed lighting. In - 9 - reply to questions, Mr. Bullis stated the new signs would be internally lighted, the area would be well lighted, and the present sign lights go off at 9:00 P. M. Chairman Taylor requested audience comment. There was none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink remarked that since one -existing sign and the new signs are double faced, the total signage would be actually much greater than 424 SF. He did like the new graphics, but disapproved of Sign D, the 40' high roof sign. He wanted assurance that the graphics on the existing building would be removed in a reasonable length of time. He considered height of Signs A and C to be consistent with past Commission actions of Auto Row, but wanted Sign B reduced to 31'. He questioned the overhang of an offset sign which is part of Sign D. Mr. Bullis' representative confirmed it extended over the sidewalk, but the Assistant City Planner reported this overhang was within code. Commissioner Jacobs questioned Mr. Bullis on his opinion of eliminating Sign D. Mr. Bullis said he did not wish to do this. He stated he could simplify by taking the words "Dick Bullis" off the top, but would go no further than that. He did not think the sign was obvious in view of its location on Automobile Row. Chairman Taylor remarked sign heights did not seem unreasonable for this location with the exception of Sign A, 27' high, in its location on Howard and California Drive. Commissioner Francard asked confirmation that Mr. Bullis would bring Sign B down to 311. Mr. Bullis agreed. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned with the effect of lighting on nearby residences. City Attorney Coleman stated there is a section of the State Vehicle Code that speaks of the allowable light that can shine in drivers' eyes. There are limits as to the light that hits the street. He stated that the lights on the Bullis site would have to conform and the applicant would be made aware of this code. Chairman Taylor remarked that even compliance with the code might not remove the nuisance value. Commissioner Mink moved that sign for three illuminated pole signs for Dick Bullis, as represented by Bell Electrical Sign Company, be granted; Signs A and C to be permitted as proposed, and Sign B reduced to the lesser height of 31'. This is to be conditional upon the removal of Sign D, the removal_ of all graphics on the outside of the structure at Bayswater and California Drive; and that no additional painted wall signs be allowed on the property. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Kindig and Norberg absent, Commissioner Sine abstaining. Mr. Bullis remarked he assumed the Commission had the right to condition as they chose, but he was going to appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Mink told him that the Planning Commission and the City Council had gone on record as opposing roof signs, and there was an ordinance prohibiting such signs as Roof Sign D. Having that sign in his application would be asking the Commission to reaffirm an illegal sign. Mr. Bullis stated that this was a way to do away with a roof sign, but he protested there were many other signs in the area that were objectionable which the Commission had not chosen to eliminate. Be .repeated he would appeal. - 10 - RECESS- There was a 10 -minute recess at 9:45 P. M. 8. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE 3 SF PROJECTING SIGN AND ONE 10 SF WALL SIGN AT BROADWAY ARCADE, 1050-60 BROADWAY, BY PAT HEEMSTRA (TENANT) AND N. CRI SAFI (OWNER)_______ After Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the background of the case. Re told Commissioners that on October 30, 1974 the Planning Commission approved a sign program for the Broadway Arcade. At that meeting, Mr. Jack Webb of J/W Design Associates stated this would be the total signage program for the project, and Commissioner Jacobs had moved the signs be approved with the understanding this would be total signage program. He distributed a copy of the drawing approved at that earlier meeting. The Assistant City Planner went on to say that in July, 1975 the Apollo Travel Service at this address had applied for a 14 SF sign in addition to the original program. The Commission approved this applica- c4on August 11, 1975. There was an implicit recognition that this porion of Broadway is a car oriented rather than a pedestrian oriented street, and that larger signs are required than originally approved. The present application is for a wall sign of 10 SF to be installed next to that of Apollo Travel. It will not be illuminated, and the existing 3 SF hanging sign for the secretarial service is to remain. As pointed out in the letter of application from Ms. Heemstra, this wall sign is not new, but is a sign which was taken down prior to the building's renovation in 1974, and which the property owner neglected to restore. Ms. Patricia Heemstra addressed the Commission. She told them she had not known of the October, 1974 meeting, nor did she realize that her 7,ign would remain doTyn. Otherwise, she would have protested because her business needs the advertising exposure. She spoke of recent problems W4th clients being unable to locate her or assuming that she is out of business since there is no sign in the area where she has been for many years. Ms. Heemstra had brought with her the original wooden wall sign and displayed it to Commissioners. Copmmissioner Taylor questioned other identification which Ms. Heemstra has in the building. The Assistant. City Planner showed diagram of zhe 3 SF hanging sign. Ms. Heemstra stated she and other tenants had put together a plastic directory which is hanging by the door, but cannot be seen from automobiles. Ms. geemstra volunteered to repaint her sign to ::patch Apollo Travel's so that the building would have continuity. Commissioner Jacobs objected to the phone number on the sign, as she had on the Apollo Travel sign. Ms. Heemstra agreed to remove it, and the Commissioner voiced no objection to the sign. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Sam Sciabica, 1396 :Madera Way, 'Millbrae, identified himself as a partner of Mr. lvicholas cri Safi in the operation of the Broadway Arcade. Tie stated their intention of cooperating with any decision which the Commission ;dace but pointed out Ms. Heemstra's need for identification, and the previously stated fact of Broadway being auto oriented rather than pedestrian oriented toward advertising. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink did not object to the phone number as such, but thought the sign had too much copy. Ms. Heemstra reiterated her willingness to remove the phone number. Commissioner Taylor objected to Ms. Heemstra's having two signs, stating he would approve only one. Commissioner Mink questioned statement in Ms. Heemstra's letter of application which refers to Chairman Sine's suggestions in this matter. The Chairman pointed out he had merely suggested that Ms. Heemstra contact staff on this sign. Commissioner Jacobs moved that sign permit for one 10 SF wall sign be approved per drawing submitted, with the conditions that the phone number be removed and the 3 SF existing sign, indicated on the Broadway Arcade plan, also be removed. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Kindig and Norberg absent. Commissioner Taylor noted statement in Ms. Heemstra's application letter that the Apollo Travel sign is lighted by a spot light, and commented that to the best of his knowledge the Commission had not given permission for this lighting. The question was referred to staff for investigation. 9. SIGN PERMIT FOR TWO 174 SF PAINTED WALL SIGNS AT AVENUE ARCADE, 1110 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY JONATHAN B. HOROWITZ Chairman Sine introduced this sign application for hearing and drawings of the proposed signs were distributed. Assistant City Planner Yost reported the proposal is for two painted wall signs each 6' high and 29' long. Area of each is.174 SF. The signs would be illuminated with spotlights along the roof line and would be 52' above the sidewalk level. These signs would be placed on the North and West elevation of the West building. Technically, the application conforms with the sign code, since these two signs individually are less than 10% of the area of either wall. The Assistant City Planner noted previous signage program for this project approved July 22, 1974 which consisted of 126 SF on Burlingame Avenue and 60 SF on California Drive. ACKNOWLEDGMENT At this time Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence in the audience of Mayor Amstr_up, vice Mayor Mangini, and Councilman Harrison. Mr. Jonathan Horowitz was accorded the privilege of the floor. He told Commissioners he wanted approval of this additional signage because he needed the additional exposure and it was within the code. lie concedcc to Chairman Sine's remark that he had stated at the 1974 hearing he had no intention of enlarging that sign program and would have no painted signs on the wail.. However, he stated he had changed his mind because of 'ie :feeds indicated, and poinL-ecf out the excellence of the - 12 - first year's operation of this project. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink commented that in 1974 the Commission, while approving Mr. Horowitz' attempt to function without wall signs, had reservations about his ability to do so. The Commissioner thought the graphics were well done, adding he approved of the appearance of the building as a whole. Commissioner Francard questioned if this would be the end of all signs on this building. Mr. Horowitz qualified that at this time it was all that was proposed. Commissioner Taylor questioned whether the "28 Specialty Shops" in the sign would be the total for this building. Mr. Horowitz affirmed this is the maximum figure, not yet reached. Commissioner Taylor approved the sign. Chairman Sine was concerned with the effect of the signs on nearby residential areas, and questioned the lighting. Mr. Horowitz advised present signs are on a time clock which is set for 12 P. M. However, he agreed to the Chairman's request that lights for these new signs would be turned off at 10:00 P. M. corm-nissioner Jacobs moved this sign permit for two 174 SF wall signs be approved with the condition that their lighting be turned off at 10:00 P. M. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Kindig and Norberg absent. Commissioner Mink was excused from the meeting at 10:30 P. M. 10. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMITS Chairman Sine announced Commission consideration of Resolution 16-75 "RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF GUIDELINES AND REVIEW CRITERIA F0:? THE EVALUATION OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT APPLICATIONS." City Planner S -wan called attention to change in Items 6 and 7 of the findings which specifies ". . parking spaces for owners and quests . " This had been suggested by Mr. F. M. Donahoe, president of the condominium owners association at 110 Park Road because they have problems with guest parking at their project. Commissioner. Jacobs moved the adoption of Resolution 16-75 as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Planner remarked that this resolution covers guidelines and will not be incorporated into an ordinance. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioners Kindig, Norberg and Mink absent. 11. TEEATERS IN C-1 AND C-2 'DISTRICTS Chairman Sine announced consideration of EesoluLion Vo. 17-751 "�� COMt�IEI`DIL7G AGAINST +' Rt 1,1 .._I '^1iEATERS AS A PERI✓I _1Tj 1 11,.- 7:.':1 - -1 f ND C- 2' ZONES . " - 13 - Commissioner Taylor moved the adoption of Resolution No. 17-75 in accordance with findings. 'Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,TAYLOR,SINE NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS (Could approve of use in C-2 but not in C-1) ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG 12. SIGN GUIDELINES Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed previous Commission efforts to resolve concerns of: When is a sign permit required? Who enforces Title 22? What degree of control should there be? How can the needs of the business community be served? He referenced draft ordinance in Commission's hands which he said had these objectives: 1. To establish outline for a new code. (a) Introduction and definitions (b). Administrative procedures (c) Sign regulations by zoning districts (d) Sign regulations by type of sign. (This not yet drafted.) 2. To suggest possible contents for each section. This contains references to ordinances reviewed of such cities as Millbrae, Palo Alto, Palm Springs and San Mateo. 3. To offer a set of ideas as a reference point around which details of a new sign ordinance can be discussed. He drew attention to Page 2 of covering memo for ordinance which lists four types of limits for signs. He suggested that the Commission may wish L -o go through the draft ordinance chapter by chapter. He considered the preliminary draft a starting point for discussion. City Planner Swan stressed the need for Commission feedback on this draft, and showed transparency of a diagram which indicated limits of sign areas per linear front foot as set by various cities and agencies. Graph lines indicated the relatively low area of signs permitted by Palm Springs and Palo Alto. San Mateo'_s code has a definite cutoff point for maximum signage. Mr. David Keyston commented that the Chamber of Commerce has recommended a method of controlling signs, but that the numbers in that report are not recommended, merely arbitrary figures for Commission discussion. He suggestec adoption of the San Mateo line on the graph which has a top limit of 200 SF, adding that this would probably eliminate 75% of the signs which come before the Commission. Chairman Sine stated he preferred a amine somewhere between the Palm Springs and Palo Alto figures. There was little Commission discussion because of the late hour, and Commissioners agreed to review and edit - 14 - the draft ordinance for discussion at another meeting. PLANNER'S REPORT City Planner Swan noted that the Devine appeal to Council was denied and Mr. Devine will be remodeling his house. He reported that the Airport Marina sign is up for hearing by Council. He reported that the idea is being discussed by cities adjoining the Airport to work together as an entity in aircraft noise abatement. ADJOURNMENT Meeting regularly adjourned at 11:00 P. M. Respectfully suhhmitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary