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