Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.10.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, October 24, 1983 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Graham, Schwalm, Taylor (excused) Absent: Commissioners Cistulli, Giomi� Leahy Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the October 11, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted with the following additions: the record to show that C. Garcia was "excused"; page 7, item #6, parking variance for the boat -restaurant at 410 Airport Boulevard, the record to show: "Motion to approve the variance passed on a 4-0 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli, Garcia and Leahy absent; appeal will be heard by Council 10/17/83." AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BEDROOM -BATH ADDITION TO THE HOME AT 1100 HAMILTON LANE, BY MARCY ALPINE (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for two variances. Reference staff report dated 10/18/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 9/27/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (9/30/83), City Engineer (10/3/83) and Chief Building Inspector (9/30/83); September 26, 1983 letter from the applicant; and plans date stamped September 27, 1983. CP discussed details of the application; code requirements; staff review; applicant's justification for variance; summary of findings addressing this property and the proposed addition. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, 24 Orchard Court, San Mateo advised he had prepared the plans for this addition and that there was no objection to meeting the Chief Building Inspector's requirement concerning eave overhang. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion/determinations: the 2'-6" side yard abuts the walkway to California Drive; existing structure is original construction and the 11'-6" rear yard is the original rear yard; the extra overhang on the addition was proposed for purposes of shade; this home has a single car garage which is 28' from the sidewalk. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances in this odd shaped lot; that lot coverage was within code requirements; and that the rear yard which fronts on California Drive would not affect anyone. C. Schwalm then moved for approval of this variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1983 memo of September 30, 1983 be met; and (2) that the project as -built be consistent with the plans submitted.and date stamped September 27, 1983. C. Taylor seconded the motion with further findings: that the granting of this variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, such property rights having been stated in the applicant's letter of September 26, 1983; that the addition would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners, it would improve the surrounding neighborhood; and it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. Motion approved on a 4-0 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli, Giomi and Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SOLAR GREENHOUSE ADDITION TO THE HOME AT 1445 BALBOA AVENUE In the absence of the applicant and/or applicant's representative, this item was continued to the meeting of November 14, 1983. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 32, 33, 34 (1550 ROLLINS ROAD) AND A PORTION OF LOT 38 (S.P.R.R. TRACT) IN MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 5, BY HOWARD HICKEY FOR WINSTON MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COMPANY CE Erbacher reviewed this item. Reference October 18, 1983 agenda memo; October 11, 1983 study meeting minutes; October 11, 1983 staff report with attachments including Project Application & CEQA Assessment, Hickey letter of 9/15/83 to Southern Pacific Land Company, S. A. Surfin, Southern Pacific Land Company letter of September 26, 1983 to City of Burlingame, CE's September 6, 1983 letter to Hickey, June 14, 1982 Planning Commission minutes, CE's agenda memo dated June 22, 1982 and June 18, 1982 Hickey letter to Erbacher. The following two letters were received after preparation of staff report: October 18, 1983 Sutfin letter to Winston Management and October 20, 1983 letter to the Planning Commission from Trevor Roberts & Co., Winston Management, Inc. Further reference: tentative and final parcel map distributed with the study meeting packet. CE discussed details of this request. He noted this resubdivision proposes removal of both the spur track and its right-of-way, and staff questions regarding 6pur track access and its effects on modal access in the M-1 district. Two conditions were suggested for Commission consideration at the public hearing, particularly that a nonexclusive easement for spur track be placed on the abandoned right-of-way. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Louis Harding, Winston Management, Inc. (applicant) noted there was a spur track nearby on David Road which could be used for rail access if the need ever arose, that Winston wanted the S.P. land for additional parking and have been trying to buy it from S.P. since 1978. Ms. Sheryl Rodriguez, representing Southern Pacific Land Company (applicant), expressed concern about the recommendation for a nonexclusive easement and pointed out that since the track was put in small industries in the area have found it more economically feasible to ship by piggyback or by truck. Further, an abandoned corridor could become a blighted area; S.P. is reluctant to lease the property and is concerned if the easement is required it would affect desirability of purchase. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/applicant discussion: Winston Management is the owner of 1550 Rollins Road (Parcel C) and chief tenant at 980 David Road (Parcel A, owned by Douglas Woodworth) with right of first refusal should the owner sell the property; Winston wishes to use the S.P. land along Parcel C and Parcel A for parking; S.P.'s unsuccessful attempts to reach the owner of Parcel A regarding his interest in purchasing the S.P. land behind 980 David Road; Mr. Harding (Winston Management) advised he had talked to the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 24, 1983 owner of Parcel A, owner does not want to buy the land; Ms. Rodriguez (S.P.) explained S.P.'s practice of phased abandonment; Mr. Harding stated leasing the land behind Parcel A was not economically feasible for Winston. CE advised this spur originates from the Southern Pacific main line in Millbrae. CP pointed out that based on current code leased property could not be used to meet the parking requirement; applicant does not need the S.P. land for his current parking requirements but may need it for future requirements if he expands. There was Commission objection to incorporating the portion of S.P. land behind Parcel A into Parcel C as well as a desire to have something in writing from the owner of Parcel A. It was felt this resubdivision would result in an odd shaped piece of land, not in conformance with the Commission's objective of self-contained lots, and it was not good planning. C. Taylor moved that this application for a tentative and final parcel map, showing the removal of a portion of Lot 38 from the Southern Pacific Railroad, be approved and recommended to City Council for that portion contiguous to Parcel C (1550 Rollins Road) only. Second C. Schwalm. Motion approved on a 4-0 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli, Giomi and Leahy absent. In discussion following the motion Commissioners stated that the S.P. easement would be divided at the property line between Parcel C and Parcel A; only that portion adjacent to Parcel C could be added to Parcel C. No spur track easement was included in the motion. Recess 8:20 P.M.; reconvene 8:25 P.M. OTHER ACTION ITEMS 4. DETERMINATION ON SIGNAGE FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1209-1215 DONNELLY AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated 10/18/83; applicant's 10/14/83 letter; color swatches and Elevations (in color). Staff requested Commission's determination if the decorative painting of this building should be considered to be a sign. The definition of "Sign" from Code Sec. 22.04.420 was distributed and read to Commission members and staff. During discussion staff pointed out the issue is decorative painting of a building where no architectural feature exists. Discussion: if interpreting on a case by case - basis, would have no problem finding this proposal is not a sign, might have a problem with another proposal and another set of facts; think perhaps our concern about signs is becoming an anxiety, find this to be a fine decorative proposal and not a sign; feel the vertical and horizontal lines which go with the architecture are not a sign, but those at an angle should be considered a sign. Michael Yantos, applicant's architect, was present and discussed his request for a determination: this is not a highly decorative structure, it's a big building and receded, people aren't noticing it; Donnelly is being progressively developed; feel proposal is simple and not too flamboyant; would submit this is a decorative feature, not a sign; it is not identification for a particular product, business, use or person, just an attempt to liven up the facade. Further Commission discussion: building is drab; painting would improve it but have concern about determining it is not a sign, might set a precedent; would prefer to see the painting of the structure and signage come to Commission at the same time. C. Taylor felt the definition of sign should be broadly construed and, based on testimony this evening, moved that Commission find this proposal is not a sign. Second C. Schwalm. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 24, 1983 It was noted four votes were necessary to approve this determination. C. Schwalm withdrew his second. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Garcia moved that this particular application is a sign. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Schwalm then moved to continue this item to the meeting of November 14, 1983. Second C. Taylor; all aye voice vote. 5. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1110 BAYSWATER AVENUE Reference CE's memo received October 18, 1983 with attached map. CE Erbacher advised this project is substantially complete and may be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Garcia moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this Final Subdivision Map. Second C. Taylor; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 6. PROPOSED 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE The 1984 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule as proposed by staff was unanimously approved. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its October 17, 1983 meeting. REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: SIGNAGE ON AWNINGS AND CANOPIES Commission comments: suggest letter to Chamber of Commerce for their comments; should awnings and canopies be treated differently for signage; think canopies should be treated as wall of a building; awnings are something of the past, don't believe they are being put up any more; should capital letters at beginning of a word be limited to 8" on awnings and canopies, or should capital letters be allowed an exception. CP discussed the issue of aesthetics and streetscape as they relate to signage: part of planning is the general streetscape, the appearance of a large area, not a single parcel within it; objective of the sign code is overall consistency of an area; one of the problems is that the sign code is not retroactive, and it takes time to implement any change. CP was requested to write the Chamber of Commerce for general comments which could be included in Commission's study of this issue. One Commissioner asked specifically that the letter ask if those affected saw any difference between a movable awning and a fixed canopy as far as suitability for signage was concerned. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, A. M. (Bill) Garcia Vice Chairman