Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.05.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER May 10, 1976 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup Asst. City Engr. Rebarchik A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chm. Taylor at 7:35 P.M. on the above date. He made mention of the fact that Commissioner Cistulli, newly appointed member of the Planning Commission, was not present at this time but perhaps was not aware that Commission meetings were scheduled for 7:30 P.M. C. Cistulli arrived shortly thereafter at 7:45 P.M. and was welcomed by the Chairman on behalf of the Commission. C. Cistulli expressed his feeling that he was happy to be back. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES Minutes of the April 26, 1976 meeting were approved as written with the following addition: on page 7, third paragraph from the bottom, after the statement, "Commissioner Kindig noted the argument that because the lot is smaller, more coverage should be allowed," add the phrase "and I do not consider that a valid reason to support a variance application." PRnCFnI1RFS 1. NEW PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF PROCEDURES. Chm. Taylor announced this item on the agenda. At this point City Planner Swan introduced Ann Sprague, Planning Department secretary, who will in future be taking Planning Commission minutes; and Ralph Kirkup, new City Engineer who was attending the meeting tonight unofficially. Chm. Taylor began the discussion of Item #1 by inquiring of the C.P. if the tape recording machine was turned on. He was advised that it was. The Chairman commented that this is a substantial departure from prior P.C. meetings and that he would like an expression from the Commission regarding recording of the discussion. C.P. Swan stated that any person may bring a tape recorder to a public meeting and take a record. His intent was to implement directives of the City Council and the City Manager. He pointed out there is a time problem involved with the Planning Dept. -2- secretary attending meetings and preparing minutes; this may be alleviated by assistance from the Legal Dept. secretary and by the C.P. and Asst. C.P. taking notes and preparing a summary of study items for these minutes. In the course of the discussion, in reply to Commissioners' questions, City Attorney Coleman informed the Commission the subject had come up at the City Council special study meeting held Saturday, May 1, 1976. The City Council desired more than a short summary report of meetings (which they have been receiving) in order to have guidance with regard to an appeal. The matter of tape recording did not come up but it was his assumption it was for backup for the secretary. In later discussion of the desirability of a tape recorder and the problems involved with shorter study meeting minutes, the C.A. stated that findings of fact should not have anything to do with study meeting minutes; evidence at study meetings is not relevant to developing evidence at regular meetings. Considerable discussion ensued following the Chairman's request for Commission comments regarding the new P.C. and staff procedures. Chm. Taylor had concern that perhaps the use of a tape recorder would tend to inhibit free discussion; and also felt it was not a very satisfactory way to obtain a good record nor suitable for purposes of memory refreshment. The C.P. commented there were no plans to transcribe the tape made at study meetings. C. Kindig pointed out it was his practice to read study meeting minutes before a regular hearing. He felt the City Manager's memo on new procedures was based mainly on economic measures. He believed recording regular meetings would be acceptable, as long as all involved knew it was being done, but felt it might inhibit study meetings. C. Sine commented that in the past the Commission taped several meetings for specific items, always at a public hearing; and that it is the responsibility of the Chair to properly notify the other Commissioners and audience that the entire procedure is being taped. He could not subscribe to having any part of a study meeting taped because of'its inhibiting effect, unless a continuation of a public hearing were on that agenda. Addressing the matter of the City Manager's memo, C. Sine felt that Planning Commissioners are not responsible to the City Manager; they are responsible to the City Council only. He noted that if the C.C. was asking staff to expedite minutes for its convenience and guidance, they should pay for it. C. Jacobs stated her belief that taping of meetings was a good idea; it would be more accurate, especially in the accuracy of what has been considered by the P.C. in reaching its decisions. She felt action meeting items should be taped; as responsible persons, the P.C. is accountable for its deliberations and decisions. C. Francard had some objection to taping also, and stated he concurred with C. Sine. He thought before these procedures were set up the Chairman of the Planning Commission should have been contacted. C. Mink stated that in working with an organization that does make tape recordings, he has found tape to be unsatisfactory. He believed direction as to the length of minutes should come from City Council as it is the purpose of the P.C. to elicit testimony and find facts for the Council's use, not for the P.C.'s purposes. C. Mink suggested complete and accurate minutes be taken by hand by the recording secretary on action items on the agenda and a more informal approach, or summary notations, be used for study sections. He felt the Council should understand that minutes, submitted to Council on Thursday following a Monday meeting by P.C., are draft and unapproved minutes. A case in point was the minor correction in the April 26, 1976 minutes made this evening which completely changed the meaning of C. Kindig's comment. -3 - After Commission discussion, C.P. Swan stated he wished to record meetings during the two month trial period. The Planning Department objective will be to produce the best possible information for the Commission as time and resources permit. The consensus appeared to be that the Commission follow Council directives. C. Kindig added it was his hope tonight's minutes would show the conversation thoroughly. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 2. SIGN PERMIT FOR TWO CANOPY SIGNS WITH A TOTAL OF 36 SF OF COPY AT 1298 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY W. GREGORY MENDELL OF KERN JEWELERS, INC. Chm. Taylor introduced item and requested review by Asst. C.P. Yost. The Planner stated Kern Jewelers have already installed a new canvas canopy with a face area of 71 SF; within this area, 36 SF of new copy has been painted. The application is to allow this non -illuminated sign to remain. Added together, the existing wall sign plus the canopy have a total surface area of 105 SF. The advertising area of both signs is 70 SF which is 40% above the recommended standard for Burlingame Avenue in the draft sign code. Mr. Mendell indicated he had not been aware that he needed a permit since he was not adding any new sign space. He stated the canopy needed to be replaced and his only intention was to make Burlingame Avenue attractive. In discussion with Commissioners it was brought out that it is not a retractable canopy; in 1972 when the canopy was originally put up they had a permit to do so; the Building Dept. has no record of painting on the original canvas (C. Kindig commented he thought this was permissible at that time). C. Jacobs thought it was attractive, and C. Kindig was glad it wasn't lighted. C. Cistulli confirmed that it has the same footage and same width. Mr. Mendell also confirmed they kept the same color and amount of lettering but changed the script only. There was discussion regarding the name of the company, to which Mr. Mendell replied he would prefer "Kerns" and had already obtained a permit for the illuminated wall sign to read the same. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments for or against this application; there being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Commissioners had no further questions and C. Jacobs moved this sign permit be approved. It was seconded by C. Kindig and carried on the following roll call vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK, TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Chairman Taylor announced the application is approved and told the applicant it would become effective one week from tomorrow if there is no appeal to the C.C. 3. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE AWNING SIGN OF 40 SF AT 1316 BURLINGAME AVENUE BY THEODORE L. COOK, JR. FOR GLENNA COOK INTERIORS. Chm. Taylor requested review of this application by Asst. C.P. Yost. Planner Yost stated this is a proposal to remodel an existing shop and establish an interior decorating studio. During several discussions with Mr. Cook it appeared a building permit would be adequate for the new advertising; however, 10 days ago a change was made to increase the size of the new awning, or "lambrequin." This lambrequin was 0 -4 - to be 4'3" x 1614" with copy over an undetermined area. Initially it would have been a 69 SF sign and consequently a sign permit application was requested. Last week the size was reduced to 40 SF and the new copy is now down to 12 SF with 12" high lettering; present sign code specifies 8" letters. Chm. Taylor asked for comments from the audience. There were none and the public hearing was declared closed. There were no Commission questions. C. Mink moved that the sign permit as specified in Item 3 on the agenda be approved. The motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and carried on unanimous roll call vote. There were no questions on the motion and Chm. Taylor announced the application was approved subject to approval by the City Council. 4. REQUEST BY NEIL VANNUCCI AND BEVERLY MILLS TO REASSIGN SPECIAL PERMIT FOR XEROX COPY CENTER AT 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY APPROVED APRIL 26, 1976. Chm. Taylor announced this agenda item, questioning whether this might not be a ministerial item. The C.A. replied that the Commission was specific to whom it granted the permit, and staff felt it could not do it ministerially. C. Sine, secretary of the Commission, read into the record two letters received by the Planning Dept. and addressed to the Planning Commission: (1) letter dated May 5, 1976 from Neil J. Vannucci of V & T Investments authorizing the name of Paul White dba Reproduction Centers of America be changed in favor of Beverly Mills dba Reproductions Unlimited; and (2) May 5, 1976 letter from Xerox Reproductions Unlimited signed by Paul White requesting Commission relinquish his permit in the name of Paul White-dba Reproduction Centers of America in favor of Beverly Mills- dba Reproductions Unlimited. During discussion it was determined that this request makes no changes placed on the original special permit but is merely a change of permittee; Beverly Mills is the true owner of the business and has had a copy center in Bore] Square for two years. C. Sine objected to going through the formality of a public hearing and immediately receiving a request for change of ownership. C. Mink stated his feeling that discussion of the special permit granted Paul White centered on the operation and use of the building and who made application for this permit was not really relevant. The C.A. advised it is appropriate for the Commission to grant a special permit to a specific permittee. Paul White advised Commission it would have been difficult (Ed. to obtain financing) to have operated under the permit the way it was. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments or questions. There were none, he declared the public hearing closed, and asked for further P.C. questions. C. Cistulli was given further clarification of the previous application which pointed out: the permit had been granted to Mr. White and Mr. Vannucci; Mr. White made the application and shortly thereafter Neil Vannucci requested co -applicant status (Neil Vannucci and V & T Investments are continuing co -applicants for that reason). C. Kindig questioned the advisability of giving the permit to both Beverly Mills and Neil Vannucci as the Commission would then be giving it to any owner of the building. Beverly Mills indicated she would prefer to be the sole permittee since she is the proprietor of the business. There being no further discussion, C. Mink moved that upon the request of Neil Vannucci and Beverly Mills the special permit for a Xerox copy center known as Reproductions Unlimited be assigned to Beverly Mills to operate at 1555 Bayshore Highway; second by C. Jacobs. Chm. Taylor was assured by C.A. Coleman that this was a new matter and there would be no reason the Commission could not vote on the item. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD (excused due to illness previous to this vote) 5. COUNCIL REFERRAL - STUDY RECLASSIFICATION OF AREA ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE FROM C-1 TO C-2. Chm. Taylor announced this item and requested comment from C.P. Swan. The C.P. briefly related previous action for the benefit of C. Cistulli. He noted an. application by Thor Thorstenson was heard by the Commission on February 23, 1976. It was a request to expand the business and allow servicing of marine engines in a C-1 District. The Commission denied this application unanimously and it was subsequently appealed to the City Council. At the Council hearing on April 5 the Commission recommendation was overruled. At that hearing comments were made that the Council wanted to investigate reclassification. The C.P. reported to Council that Thor Thorstenson was in possession of a business license that was legal and valid. C.P. Swan inquired of Commission how soon they could reply to Council, stating that the code requires a report back within 40 days. With regard to the suggested study of changing C-1 to C=2, Mr. Swan advised that Councilman Martin had indicated he wished it to be very clear the Council referral was not a suggestion, but a directive. C.P. Swan requested a determination by the Commission as to how they wished staff to proceed. He reviewed the options: (1) no action; (2) staff to continue work on the study at the direction of C.C.; (3) if Commission wishes to pursue rezoning, direct staff to prepare an EIR and schedule for hearing; (4) establish an overlay to state that C-2 useswauld be permitted in that area as a conditional use (this would require a code amendment to the ordinance and amendment to C-1 District Regulations); (5) any other options. The C.P. indicated staff awaits direction from the P.C. C. Jacobs said she thought the Commission should study this even if no recommendation were made. The nature of California Drive is C-2. She felt a traffic study of the area was necessary. C. Sine informed the Commission the Traffic Engineer had already completed a traffic study and C. Kindig mentioned this would be included in the EIR. C. Cistulli believed Commission should direct staff to prepare a report in order that the P.C. could recommend to Council. There was discussion regarding preparing an EIR and the need for findings of fact, as well as the sequence these items would take. Chm. Taylor summed up the discussion stating that rezoning of this particular area does seem to have Commission support, and directed staff to prepare an environmental impact report for consideration by the Commission. ADVANCE PLANNING 6. PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES Staff was directed to give more priority to commercial and industrial zones; consider permitted and conditional uses in the C and M zones, then bring the General Plan Diagram and the Zoning Map more into conformity. C.P. stated the Housing Element of General Plan would endeavor to meet housing needs of the Burlingame community. Burlingame does not qualify today for people to obtain E-1 rehabilitation loans. The Sign Code and revisions to the Zoning Code will continue to have priority. 7. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Discussed with the objective of working up some new regulations. Staff suggested review lines be established to distinguish ministerial acts from the types of projects to be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission. Four major concerns were reported: (1) loss of privacy in neighbors' backyards, (2) possible illegal conversions to rental units, (3) avoid excessive utility connections, (4) limit activities to those compatible with neighborhood. Levels of review might be building permits, petitions, variances and special permits. C. Mink suggested starting with permitted and conditional uses. Home occupations should not be permitted in an accessory building. A special study meeting was scheduled for 9:00 A.M. Saturday, June 12, 1976 to work on regulations for accessory buildings in residential districts. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY 8. Tentative Parcel Map for the 140 foot wide strip of property owned by Waikiki Development Company, Southern Pacific Transportation Company and Frank Edwards Company to be resubdivided to establish a specific parcel for purchase by Peninsula Sports Center. Drainage plans were reviewed, utilities and easements were discussed, and staff concerns were considered. C.A. advised that tentative maps with easements should go to Council unless extremely simple. Map shows dedication of pump station site to the City. The Map was set for hearing May 24 and notices are to be sent to all contiguous property owners. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING MAY 24, 1976 9. Variance from sideyard requirements for an existing swimming pool equipment structure at 1725 Hunt Drive by Maureen C. and Kenneth R. Topping. Asst. C.P. Yost stated a staff report would be prepared and distributed prior to the hearing to show the chronology of events leading up to this application being filed. 10. Variance to construct a second floor addition to a house with non -conforming garage at 1448 Balboa Avenue by William E. and Pamela J. Flowerday. Applicant wishes to add three new bedrooms on second floor but 17 foot wide garage will not be widened. Code specifies a two car garage for houses with three or more bedrooms. There is no additional parking space behind the front setback. Documentation will be distributed prior to the hearing. C. Sine asked to see plans for review, study and questions; he questioned procedure. Staff offered to provide detailed plans for variance applications. C. Kindig pointed out that plans need not be mailed out to Commissioners but they should be available for review at the study meeting. Time might be saved -7 - by study of project plans. Chm. Taylor added that the applicant would have a chance to amend plans after study by the Commission. He also advised that full testimony should be presented at the hearing, not at the study meeting. Asst. C.P. mentioned the applicant opted not to widen the garage. C. Mink requested elevations of the proposed addition. He believed the Commission should avoid negotiation sessions during the advance study of applications. 11. Variance to construct a second floor addition to house at 609 Concord'Way which is less than 48" from its detached garage by Brian J. Johnson. Staff reported that two bedrooms, a study and bath would be added with the second floor cantilevered to reduce the space between the house and garage to 20". Mr. Johnson said plans will be revised to reduce the degree of non- conformity to a 34 inch space which is no more than at present. C. Sine suggested the option of using flame retardant lumber in the overhang area. 12. Special Permit to operate a courier service in the M-1 District at 826 Cowan Road by Paul Kimoto of DHL Corporation. Staff reported the number of employees, hours of operation and number of vehicles. DHL Corp. has been in business for some time and this application resulted from a business license inspection. C.P. Swan stated that in keeping with a new procedure the evaluation on the Environmental Assessment form and the Negative Declaration with its reasons for a conclusion will be brought to the Commission with the application for study. He stated parking requirements of the Zoning Code are satisfied. If DHL provides all parking required on site, there should be no impact in the neighborhood. The Commission agreed that Mr. Kimoto should be present at the May 24 hearing if he wishes consideration of the application. 13. Special Permit to operate a continuation high school and infant day care center in the M-1 District at 1530 Rollins Road by Maurice Gonzalez of San Mateo Union High School District. C.P. Swan read from SMUHSD Board Meeting minutes of April 7 to confirm valid authorization to select this site in Burlingame or an equivalent facility. The Advance Star Building site would be developed for a continuation high school for approximately 160 students with a staff of 19 and an infant day care center for 6 to 10 infants with 3 temporary staff. C.P. Swan read from his evaluation: "It has been determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. Our initial study shows there may be serious public controversy concerning the environmental effect of the proposed continuation school." It appears possible to provide 45 on site parking spaces which would satisfy the current and anticipated need. C.A. Coleman stated the School District does not have to ask for a special permit and can exempt themselves from our zoning laws by passing a resolution to exempt themselves. C. Mink asked to be excused from the discussion and declared he was not available to answer any questions. Mr. Gonzalez explained building plans and bus transportation for students. C. Sine asked if temporary school building would be exempt from Field Act and from fire sprinkling requirements. Mr. Gonzalez reported it would be exempt from the Field Act. Bus traffic would arrive at 9:00 A.M. and depart at 1:55 P.M. At the present continuation school the student parking is 22 spaces and staff parking is 23 spaces. Between 9:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. there would be 40 to 45 cars at the site. Information was not available about meal service. Chm. Taylor asked that an appropriate representative of the School District staff should be present at the hearing. For the convenience of the public.this item will be the second item on the agenda (after the Tentative Parcel Map). 14. Variance for addition to house with 16 foot wide garage at 1225 Majilla Avenue by Neal J. Lucett. Mr. Lucett presented the application, the $40.00 fee and plans to the Commission. Asst. C.P. Yost explained that the Lucetts had recently been refused a building permit because of the 16 foot garage. They were unable to get a loan last Saturday so they hurried to gain consideration and get on the May 24 hearing agenda. The proposed second story addition of a bedroom and bath is at the rear of the house. 15. C.P. Swan reported that on applications which present real issues the staff reports will express concerns, ask more questions and suggest the Commission take a look at this, etc.; in contrast with straightforward applications. ARInIIPHMFNT The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary