HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.03.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 13, 1978
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
Monday, March 13, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Cistulli
Jules L. Francard
Ruth E. Jacobs
Everett K. Kindig
Charles W. Mink
Thomas W. Sine, Secretary
Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman
Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner
John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner
Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney
Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer
Quorum present; Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman presiding.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held February 27, 1978 were approved with a correction
on page 14, first paragraph (agenda item #9) that upon roll call the motion carried
4-2, Commissioners Jacobs and Kindig opposed and Commissioner Francard absent.
A n.inl tRNMPNT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
MINUTES of the March 13, 1978 meeting were approved with the deletion of the third
sentence under Item #6, page 4, "Commissioner Kindig stated . . . ."
1 .
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1978
Before continuing with the agenda the Commission discussed procedure on revised
f item returned to the Commission from the Council. It was the general consensus
that items with substantial changes should be studied prior to a hearing. Staff
explained the Council sometimes requests that certain items be considered at a
particular Commission meeting. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned about the slowness
of government and felt any procedural pol.icy should remain flexible. Commission agreed
it is not fair to other applicants who have gone through the study/set-for-hearing
process to wait until a returned item is heard, i.e., an item returned because of
changes between Commission action and Council hearing. Commissioner Mink moved
that unless specifically directed by Council, any item referred back to Commission
because of substantial changes in the proposal will proceed through normal processes
of study and decision to set for hearing at a time specific. Commissioner Cistulli
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. It was noted that "substantial changes"
allows for flexibility. Staff was requested to advise applicants of this procedure
and that changes in plans between Commission and Council meetings could delay the
process.
1. REVISED WORK PRIORITIES THROUGH JUNE. 1978
Commission briefly discussed a priority list dated 3/13/78. It was agreed the first
five item were satisfactory although Commissioner Sine felt regulations for
condominiums should be given a higher priority and included in the first five instead
of under "future tasks." City Planner Swan advised that part of the inventory for
the Housing Element would be the identification of all existing condominium and
their locations. He.stated the current ordinance gives the Commission a great deal
of power and without adequate parking there will not be very many conversions. He
emphasized each conversion would be considered on its own merits and could be continued
if the Commission has some questions. Commissioner Jacobs felt the sign inventory
should be given less priority and it was noted it is listed under "future tasks"
and that portion of the list is subject to revision in July. City Planner Swan
reviewed another staff report dated 3/13/78 regarding CEQA requirements.
It was noted that material regarding Commission rules and procedures had been obtained
from about five cities and the City Attorney would prepare draft by-laws for the
Commission's study in April.
2. HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN; PROGRESS REPORT, PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM
City Planner Swan reviewed a tentative schedule for completing the Housing Element
before July, 1978, noting that the draft Housing Element would be considered by
Commission by May 8 with hearing May 22, and Council hearing June 19. Several
members of the Commission indicated they were pleased that the Housing Committee
would be reactivated.
3. JOHN BLAYNEY ASSOCIATES' BAYFRONT ALTERNATIVES - REPORT NO. 2
As this was received too late for Commission review, little discussion was held.
City Engineer Kirkup stated the traffic report would be sent out on Friday. Staff
informed the Commission the Joint Council/Planning Commission/Traffic, Safety &
Parking Commission study scheduled for March 18 had been postponed to Saturday,
April 1. It was noted that Chairman Taylor and Commissioner Cistulli would not be
able to attend due to prior commitments. It was requested that Commission members
be consulted when such changes are made.
1i
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
4. CURRENT PROJECTS
Page 3
March 13, 1978
City Planner Swan briefly updated the Commission on the following projects.
Legaspi Towers on the Bay, a three story office building with 92,000 SF of gross floor
area on the NEly corner of Burlingame near Fisherman's Park. A Study Area Permit had
been requested from Council and the matter was tabled. City Planner advised an EIR
should be prepared.
American International Rent-A-Car. The last remaining vacant piece of shoreline property
in Burlingame between California Trucking and the Mobil organization has been purchased
and the new owner intends to establish a new outlet including servicing and storage
as well as offices. Proposals to prepare an EIR have been requested from consultants.
Charles King Office Building. BCDC approved the project April 16 with modified design
along the shoreline with six less parking spaces. A variance or a smaller building
would be required. City Attorney Coleman advised this would not go back to the
Commission or BCDC, but to Council.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
5. APPEAL OF STAFF DENIAL OF A SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION TO CHANGE COPY ON TWO
NONCONFORMING SIGNS AT 1818 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 025-150-100), ZONED C-1, BY
WILLIAM A. OJAKIAN OF MILLS ESTATE PHARMACY (TENANT) WITH PAUL GOORJIAN (TRUSTEE
FOR PROPERTY)
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application, noting the Mills Estate Pharmacy
is presently a pharmacy and liquor store and the present tenant intends to stop selling
drugs and sell only liquor. Therefore, he wants to change the copy of two of the
three signs presently on the property. Mr. Yost described the three signs as:
Sign A - a roof sign projecting about 9 feet above the top of the one-story building,
double faced with 100 SF of signage; Sign B - a wall sign on the front of the
building, facing E1 Camino Real, with 112 SF of signage; and Sign C - a painted wall
sign facing Trousdale with 180 SF of signage; the three signs totalling 392 SF. He
informed Commission staff rejected the application to change copy of signs A and B
because they are presently nonconforming in two respects: (1) all existing roof
signs in Burlingame are nonconforming under the regulations of the new Sign Code,
and (2) the three signs total 392 SF of advertising and Code limits the total
advertising to only 34 SF. He referred to Code Chap. 22.42 which states: "No
non -conforming sign shall be in any manner altered, reconstructed or moved without
being made to comply in all respects with (current code requirements)." He explained
that staff advised the applicant the roof sign should be removed and the total
advertising reduced, or a Sign Exception application should be filed for Commission
consideration; instead the applicant appealed staff's code interpretation to the
Commission.
The Assistant City Planner noted that Paul Goorjian, attorney, was present and would
submit testimony that staff is permitted to authorize a change of copy under Code
Chap. 22.08.030 which states: "An applicant who has previously obtained a Sign Permit
or a Sign Exception . . . may be authorized by the City Planner to change copy without
reapplication for an amended Sign Permit." Mr. Yost stated Mr. Goorjian was advised
the existing signs predate the present sign code, that they therefore were not
erected with a Sign Permit, and this code section does not apply to this application.
' Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1978
Assistant City Planner Yost recommended Commission deny the appeal and advise the
applicant that he should either bring his present signs into conformance with current
code or apply for a Sign Exception on which the Commission could schedule a public
hearing March 27. City Attorney Coleman confirmed he had reviewed the legal aspects
of the application and stated he concurred with staff's position.
Paul Goorjian, attorney for the trust which owns the building and business, addressed
Commission presenting photographs of the building and the signs and testimony about
the background of the business. Chairman Taylor advised the testimony being presented
should be pertinent to the present appeal. Upon question by Commission, Mr. Yost
confirmed this was an appeal of staff's determination that a change in copy could
only be granted through the Sign Exception procedure. Mr. Goorjian referred to
Code Chap. 22.08.030, stating this is unclear and general enough to cover this
application and that generally cities have grandfather clauses which apply to and
include previously constructed or erected signs. He emphasized the only change
would be to delete the word "pharmacy;" there would be no other changes and there
would be no change in hands.
City Attorney Coleman interjected that if the Commission permits this, then any sign
could be changed and repainted as many times as someone wants; he emphasized that
under the existing code nonconforming signs may be maintained, but not changed.
Commissioner Cistulli felt it was unfair not to grant this as there was to be no
change of hands. He emphasized that a word is merely being deleted. City Attorney
Coleman stated other businesses have been forced to correct signs when they changed
a word. Commissioner Cistulli stated that this involved a change of hands.
Commissioner Mink felt, in considering the purpose of the code with regard to roof
signs, that staff's code interpretation was appropriate. He therefore moved to
sustain staff's decision. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and upon roll call
the motion carried 6-1, Commissioner Cistulli casting the negative vote. Chairman
Taylor advised the applicant of his right of appeal and other alternatives stated
by staff.
6. ACCEPTANCE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ND -154P, FOR JOSEPH KARP APPLICATION FOR
RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROM R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 BURLINGAME
AVENUE (LOT 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2)
No action was necessary on this item. Staff noted that if the Negative Declaration
is appealed, the appeal could be scheduled for March 27. Commissioner Kindig stated
his only concern was whether a parking lot would be provided. Commissioner Jacobs
felt that since the previous EIR on this site is three years old a new EIR should
be required. The applicant was present.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2
INTO ONE LOT; PROPERTY AT 1500 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APN 028-283-010), BY WILLIAM
WRIGHT FOR JOSEPH KARP
Staff reported this item was not ready for hearing. Later during the meeting staff
noted that since it appeared the next agenda would be light perhaps staff could
schedule this item for hearing if the application is complete. Commission agreed
to this.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
March 13, 1978
8. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.010 TO PERMIT.AN EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT TO COVER
56% OF THE LOT AT 1210 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (APN 029-131-210), ZONED R-3, BY
GEORGE L. SINCLAIR OF PANKO/SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECTS) FOR GERALD KUNZ
(PROPERTY OWNER) (ACCEPT ND -155P)
George Sinclair, architect representing the applicant, was present. Assistant City
Planner Yost briefly reviewed this item and stated it was complete and ready for
hearing. Mr. Yost confirmed the reason the coverage is 6% over the 50% permitted
was because of the balcony overhangs. Commissioner Mink referred to Mr. Sinclair's
letter of February 27, 1978 and asked if the applicant was requesting a variance or
an appeal to staff's interpretation of the code. Mr. Sinclair confirmed that a
variance is being requested. This item was scheduled for hearing March 27, 1978.
9. VARIANCE FROM CODE CHAPTER 25.62 TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK TO 7 FEET AND ALLOW
A SWIMMING POOL TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT 3096 RIVERA DRIVE
(APN 025-341-030), ZONED R-1, BY MIRNEZAM SAJADI
Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application and the uniqueness of the lot
and the manner in which the house is situated on the lot. He confirmed the item
was ready for hearing. It was noted the applicant was present. Commissioner Francard
requested that staff find out if the applicant intends to remove any portion of the
existing fence if the pool is permitted. This item was set for hearing March 27, 1978.
10. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.28.050 TO PERMIT A CARPORT TO EXTEND BETWEEN HOUSE
AND GARAGE WITHOUT A 4 FOOT SEPARATION; PROPERTY AT 1004 PARK AVENUE (APN 029-
026-140), ZONED R-1, BY LJUBO BANDOV
This item was briefly discussed and Mr. Bandov, the applicant, was present. Chairman
Taylor advised the applicant of the legal requirements for variance approval and
instructed him to discuss this with staff. Commission requested staff inform the
Fire Department of this and obtain their comments, if any, before the hearing. This
item was scheduled for hearing March 27, 1978.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
11. PARCEL MAP FOR GORDON R. STROCHER TO ESTABLISH A LOT WITH NO STREET FRONTAGE;
PROPERTY AT 1508 LA MESA DRIVE
Progress.was reported; a geologic report was prepared and reviewed. Staff is preparing
an EIR on this project.
City Planner Swan noted that a parcel map for the Dore property would be sent to
Commission; the pavement is complete and the aluminum slats will be put into the
chain link fence along the freeway off -ramp. He reported that another parcel map
is being prepared for the unimproved rear portion of a property owned by the
California Teachers Association (CTA). It might be ready for hearing on March 27
and he requested permission to schedule it on the agenda if it is ready. Commission
agreed to this.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1978
COMMUNICATIONS
City Planner Swan noted that of the 149 applications considered by the Commission
during 1977 only two had been reversed by the Council. He felt this was a commendable
record.
City Attorney Coleman reported the Burlingame School District is keeping potential
buyers of Coolidge School well informed of local government's procedures and
concerns (permit processes, etc.). He noted that sale might involve a contingency
on a reclassification as a higher price could be obtained.
An.10[IPNMFNT
There being no further discussion or business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary