HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.03.12!A
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 1984
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order
by Chairman Graham on Monday, March 12, 1984 at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: Commissioner Garcia (excused)
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman;
City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the February 27, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved
and adopted.
AGENDA - Items #1 and #2 continued to March 26, 1984 at the request of the applicant.
Audience members were informed. Agenda then approved unanimously.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT TO CREATE A NEW LOT AT
1133 PALM DRIVE, BY ERICH BREMER
2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Items continued to March 26, 1984 at the request of the applicant.
3. REZONE OF A 3.4 ACRE PARCEL AT 3155 FRONTERA WAY FROM R-1 TO R-3 IN ORDER TO
BRING THE ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BY DOUGLAS PRINGLE
FOR SIMBA GROUP
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT AT THE FOURTH FLOOR LEVEL OF A
STRUCTURE AT 3155 FRONTERA WAY WHICH WILL EXCEED THE 35' HEIGHT REVIEW LINE,
BY D. PRINGLE FOR SIMBA GROUP
CP Monroe reviewed this request for rezoning and special permit in order to add a
one bedroom penthouse unit. Reference staff report dated 3/6/84; Project Application
& CEQA Assessment received 1/30/84; Negative Declaration ND -352P posted March 2, 1984;
letter from the applicant, January 30, 1984; staff review: City Engineer (2/23/84)
and Fire Marshal (2/7/84); project/site history material: Commission minutes, July 23,
1962; Variance application (approved on appeal 7/20/64); Council minutes, July 20,
1964; Council staff report, July 1, 1964; Planner memo to Council, March 3, 1965;
photographs, 11/28/66; Council minutes, 12/19/66; Council minutes, January 16, 1967;
Council minutes, February 6, 1967; Commission study meeting minutes, February 27,
1984; applicant's letter, March 1, 1984; aerial photograph; plans date stamped
February 3, 1984; and Planning Commission resolutions recommending action to Council.
CP discussed details of this request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's
letter, project and site history, Planning staff comments, study meeting requests.
Three conditions were suggested for consideration and action on the use permit.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
March 12, 1984
Commission suggested a condition #4: that the use permit be subject to the R-3
zoning being approved and add to condition #1 "and the Fire Marshal's memorandum
of February 7, 1984." CP advised this parcel is large enough to stand on its own
and rezoning of it would not be considered 'spot zoning'.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Responding to the Chair, CP advised that
state law says cities should strive for consistency between zoning and the General
Plan. Douglas Pringle, applicant, stated he was granted 117 units originally, that
one 3 -bedroom apartment had been converted to a social room, leaving only 116 units
presently; this request would again make the total units 117; he would like to have
this new one bedroom apartment for his own personal use; parking requirements would
be met; there are no parking or police problems; if granted, will meet the require-
ments of the Fire Department or the new unit will not be built. There were no
audience comments in favor.
Those speaking in opposition: Raymond Mauss, 1837 Hunt Drive and Ruth Agnello, 1807 Hunt
Drive (reference letters received March 12, 1984). Their comments: proposed apartment
is in the same area at the fourth floor level that the city previously denied; concern
about increased traffic and noise levels; landscaping has not been maintained and
all the promised trees have never been planted. Mr. Mauss presented photographs
taken in 1966 and 1967 to indicate impact of the Skyline Terrace Apartments on
property owners below. In rebuttal, applicant advised almost 50 trees were planted;
Trousdale was landscaped with sprinklers; have had no complaints from neighbors for
12 years; many of the neighbors who complained in past years now reside at Skyline
Terrace; denial of the penthouse apartment will not affect Skyline Terrace apartments,
they will still be there. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: total number of units that could be put on this parcel; with
R-3 zoning must come to Planning Commission for anything over 35'. Applicant advised
he had acquired an additional acre since purchasing the 3.4 acre site, might in future
ask for additional units but not making that request now; when asking for the penthouse/
recreation room previously he had been competing with the facilities in other large
residential developments in the area, they now have a long waiting list and the
3 -bedroom apartment converted to a social room is adequate; are now left with the
shell on the fourth floor level and would like to make use of it; feel the requested
one bedroom apartment is completely unrelated to the request for the recreation room.
Further Commission/staff comment: need to have definite commitment regarding sprinkling
to Fire Department standards; with the penthouse, height would be 36'-7" measured from
top of curb. There are other sites in the city where zoning is not consistent with
the General Plan map, staff hopes to pursue the consistency issue for the entire
General Plan at some future date; rezoning item is before Commission this evening
because of the request for an additional unit; rezoning request is for all the property
in the applicant's ownership which includes the ± 1 acre purchased since the project
was developed; use variances are no longer legal, if this property is not rezoned,
applicant cannot expand the existing structure; support denial of the rezoning until
applicant is ready to come before Commission with proposal for the additional land;
reluctant to grant the rezoning, does the city want more housing than already exists
on those parcels; would be poor planning to rezone one portion of the applicant's
property and not the other; the request is to rezone all the parcels to achieve
consistency with the General Plan; have no objection to the rezoning proposal,
appears to be a part of the city's long range objectives for consistency; feel
Commission was right in its decision 18 years ago, not in favor of changing the
zoning; support rezoning the developed parcel, but not the additional parcel; under
any circumstance city should have a firm understanding about the existing building
being sprinklered.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1984
C. Giomi moved for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1-84 recommending
to the City Council denial of the request for reclassification of all properties
owned by Douglas Pringle, Simba Group, at 3155 Frontera Way. Second C. Cistulli;
motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting, C. Garcia absent.
Special permit (Item #4) denied as a matter of law. CP confirmed with Commission
that they would like staff to pursue changing the General Plan map for these parcels
to conform with the existing zoning.
5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW SIGNS WHICH EXCEED SIGN CODE LIMITATIONS AT 321 PRIMROSE
ROAD, WHAT'S FOR DESSERT?, BY ROBERT SUTTER
CP Monroe reviewed this request for signage which exceeds limitations of the code.
Reference staff report dated 3/6/84; Sign Permit application filed 1/16/84; Sign
Exception application filed 1/16/84; sign drawing received January 16, 1984; staff
review: Fire Marshal (2/6/84) and City Engineer (2/6/84); aerial photograph; Towber
letter to applicant, August 5, 1983, with notations; City Attorney's Warning Notice,
1/4/84; study meeting minutes. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements,
staff review, Planning staff comments, and noted an inspection this evening disclosed
two more placard signs in the window, making a total of seven signs on site. One
condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robert Sutter, applicant, discussed signage
on the site, his communications with city staff, concern about the expense of
repainting the entire canopy, could remove the two signs on the side of the canopy.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: stove on the window is considered a sign; concern that applicant
had received a copy of the Sign Code but subsequently put up more signs in excess of
the code minimum; sign painter was referred by the awning company and both should have
known requirements of the code; there are several signs on this street in violation
of the code; think the canopy signage is attractive and in keeping with Commission's
proposed amendment of the Sign Code, do not find the number of signs objectionable;
could have been designed to come well within the contemplated code, have no objection
to this proposal.
C. Giomi moved for denial of this sign exception, based on the fact that Commission
is considering the application under current code and can find no special circumstances
to support approval. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: possibility of denying
without prejudice to allow for reapplication; feel if this were denied Commission
is being inconsistent and not taking into account signage privileges allowed other
businesses on the street and in the city, this is attractive signage; why punish
the small businessman, Commission has granted exceptions larger than this. Motion
to deny was defeated on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli, Schwalm, Taylor and
Graham dissenting, C. Garcia absent.
C. Schwalm moved to grant the sign exception for the five signs requested. He found
it was attractive signage and not inconsistent with privileges enjoyed by other
businesses on the street or in the city. Second C. Cistulli. C. Schwalm then
moved to amend his motion and to approve the sign exception for three canopy signs,
incorporating his previous findings. Amended motion seconded by C. Cistulli;
motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Leahy dissenting, C. Garcia
absent.
C. Schwalm moved to reconsider the previous motion. Second C. Cistulli; motion to
reconsider approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Garcia absent.
Vote on the previous motion to approve the three canopy signs was defeated 6-0 on
roll call vote, C. Garcia absent.
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1984
C. Taylor then moved to approve the sign exception with signage to be no more than
50 SF and limited to three signs on the premises. C. Taylor incorporated C. Schwalm's
findings and found that granting this exception would not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the area, that this business
is on a street with an abundance of signs which limit visibility of these premises
without adequate signage, and that the strict application of zoning regulations
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved 5-1
on roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting, C. Garcia absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
6. DRAFT ORDINANCE REVISION TO THE SIGN CODE FOR SIGNAGE ON AWNINGS AND CANOPIES
Reference City Planner's staff memo with attached draft ordinance. CP noted Commission's
discussion at the 2/27/84 meeting and consensus reached at that time. The draft
ordinance responds to Commission direction at that meeting. If complete, Commission
should recommend action on the ordinance to Council.
Commission/staff discussion: how signs on canopies/awnings would be counted, criteria
for determining what is a separate sign; height of lettering; 12' height limit from
grade with penalty for elevated signage; 50 SF minimum allowed on the primary frontage
would be self-limiting.
C. Taylor moved that the draft ordinance revision be recommended to City Council for
adoption in its present form, incorporating as a part of the motion considerations
1, 2 and 3 identified as criteria in the 3/12/84 staff report. Second C. Leahy.
Discussion on the motion: CA's request that criteria #2 be included in the ordinance
revision; CP explained CA's concern that the exact definition of a sign on an awning/
canopy was not included in the code, this would present a problem in any court defense.
On roll call vote C. Taylor's motion was approved 4-2, Cers Giomi and Schwalm
dissenting, C. Garcia absent.
C. Giomi then moved to incorporate in the draft ordinance the criterion "with each
side of an awning or canopy counting as a sign unless the signage were continuous
around the awning or canopy"; approved unanimously on voice vote. Staff will draft
an ordinance revision for Commission review at its next meeting.
Recess 9:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:55 P.M.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
7. TWO VARIANCES TO DIVIDE AN EXISTING 2 -BEDROOM UNIT INTO TWO 1 -BEDROOM UNITS
AT 1466 BELLEVUE AVENUE
Set for hearing March 26, 1984.
8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 98 SF CANOPY ADDITION AT 1457 BELLEVUE AVENUE
Request: demarcation of fencing around the pool, safety concerns. Set for hearing
March 26, 1984.
9. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - SIX 1 -BEDROOM UNITS - 1114 PALOMA AVENUE
10. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE
Requests: driveway shows 20% grade, clarify fire exiting from the garage; guest parking
and placement of security gate; history of previous proposal. Items set for hearing
March 26, 1984.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1984
11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A TRUCK RENTAL OPERATION AT 1299 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
CP advised plans were inadequate and detailed items needed. Staff will send letter
requesting this information by March 15. Item set for hearing March 26, 1984.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS
- CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its March 5, 1984 regular meeting and
March 7, 1984 study meeting.
SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE
Reference staff report, 3/12/84 with attached draft ordinance. CP reviewed state
legislation regarding second units in single family residential districts, Council
and Commission discussion in 1983 and Council's direction to the CA to prepare a
draft ordinance precluding second units. Factors which could support such an ordinance
were discussed in the staff report for this item: on -street parking already a problem,
more units will compound this situation; lot sizes or topography often would not allow
for additional land use within the city's standards; storm water and sewer systems
in residential areas are currently used to their limits; the city currently provides
a high share of rental and elderly housing. Staff recommended Commission set this
item for public hearing, discuss the background information and, following the
hearing, make a recommendation for action to the Council.
Discussion: findings in the staff report have been well documented by staff; all R-1
lots have been counted and the streets measured; the city has not received an
application for a second unit up to the present time; a survey indicated that of
the second unit ordinances in effect most are limiting, and some very limited.
Item set for public hearing March 26, 1984.
DRAFT ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON BROADWAY,
OGDEN DRIVE AND MARCO POLO WAY AND LIMITING OFFICES ON BROADWAY
Set for public hearing March 26, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS INSTITUTE, SAN DIEGO, FEBRUARY 29 - MARCH 2, 1984
CP and Commissioners Graham, Schwalm and Cistulli reported on their attendance at
the Institute. Some sessions found of interest were: second units, housing element
review, Brown Act, code enforcement, community and press relations, general plan/
zoning/subdivision law, historic preservation. Commissioners who attended and CP
shared items they felt were of interest from the sessions they each attended.
An.inl1RNMFNT
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary