Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.08.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, August 10, 1987 at 7:33 P.M. Df1T_T_ f Ar -r_ Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ken Musso, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the July 27, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #6 withdrawn by the applicant. Order of the agenda approved. CONSENT ITEMS 1. MINOR MODIFICATION - 716 BURLINGAME AVENUE 2. MINOR MODIFICATION - 31 CHANNING ROAD C. Jacobs called up Items #1 and #2 for full review. Request: why does 31 Channing need the outside stairway. 3. MINOR MODIFICATION - 1504 CORTEZ AVENUE 4. MINOR MODIFICATION - 3053 RIVERA DRIVE C. S.Graham moved to accept Items #3 and #4, second C. H.Graham, motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote. ITEM FOR ACTION 5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY AND LANDS OF MUNKDALE - 1616 ROLLINS ROAD Reference agenda memo (8/10/87) with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed this resubdivision of a former railroad right-of-way to combine a portion of it with 1616 Rollins Road property and 3.4 acres of landscape storage in a PG&E and drainage easement area behind 1616 Rollins Road. Staff requested that drainage requirements be considered and the area covered by the 20' wide parcels 47 and 49 be dedicated as a drainage easement to the City of Burlingame and that Parcel 48 provide a 10' minimum weed and debris cleaning easement from Rollins Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1987 Road to Parcels 47 and 49. Staff recommended approval of this tentative and final parcel map with two conditions as listed in the agenda memo. Discussion followed regarding the status of the S.P. property from the Millbrae city limit; CE advised trains were stopped a long time ago, there has been some abandonment, no spur track easement rights are available to properties now. A Commissioner requested a brief discussion of abandonment actions be included in any future staff reports for this area. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Louis Arata, civil engineer, representing Steve Munkdale, applicant, stated they were aware of the suggested conditions of approval and were opposed to them. With regard to the easement for drainage purposes on Parcels 47 and 49, S.P. will not sign a map for a blanket easement. When Munkdale developed the area in the rear underneath the towers in accordance with the conditions of approval at that time he extended all the known pipes of all adjoining properties on the PG&E easement across the PG&E easement he was using for storing plant materials. These pipes crossed S.P. land without permission of S.P. with one exception, the city has a legal arrangement for crossing S.P. land; they felt this should satisfy the drainage requirements of Rollins Road properties across Parcels 47 and 49. Regarding the weed abatement easement, it would seem Munkdale is being told he should put in an easement for all other properties; they could go along their own properties for weed abatement in the area behind, why go to Munkdale's property which could be four or five parcels away; if there is a weed problem why can't S.P. cross property adjacent to the problem. Responding to Commission question, CE noted Parcels 47 and 49 are now two very long, narrow lots which will be kept clean when purchased by someone in the future; his concern is temporary maintenance; if any of the properties are sold separately, then access to the remnants of S.P. land may be a problem. Tom Chakos, 1600 Rollins Road, advised he wanted to buy the piece of land behind his property but had difficulty communicating with S.P.; he saw no problem if S.P. sold that land to each adjacent property owner, then there would be no need for an easement, but if the entire parcels were sold to someone else then there would be a need for access since 47 and 49 have no street frontage. Regarding any indication of the future for this S.P. land, CE stated that as an absentee landowner S.P. is doing its best to sell all the land off. Steve Munkdale, applicant, commented on his dealings with S.P., it had taken at least six months trying to acquire this property; the only reason he objected to the 10' easements relative to drainage and weed abatement is that no one other than those properties fronting on Rollins Road would want to buy the S.P. property, he would expect S.P. to deal with each landowner; they asked him to purchase the entire parcels but the price was too high; S.P. will not allow any restrictions, if this purchase doesn't go through the piece of property behind 1616 Rollins Road will remain as it is, an abandoned spur; who would buy it? Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 10, 1987 Responding to Commission question, Mr. Munkdale stated he stores plant material for his business in the drainage easement at the rear, he keeps it clean. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff comment: in the case of 1730 Rollins Road 10' easements were negotiated where the pipes existed; in this case it would take some studies and discussions to make sure each parcel had its rights across the S.P. property and that anyone in the future had rights across it; consequently staff is asking for a generalized drainage easement. Commission discussion: CE confirmed his belief the two suggested conditions were the only way to cover all the bases with this proposal. Possibility of mapping all the pipes was discussed, CE was concerned all of them could not be identified; this area was designed and developed to drain to the rear; weed abatement at 1730 Rollins Road is handled by the property owner, he bought the entire 20' section; if the S.P. area were partially sold and fenced, with an access easement any fences would have to be removed to clean the area. With the statement it appears this protection is needed until the S.P. land is sold off to adjacent property owners and, if that happens, the easement will not be needed, C. H.Graham moved that this tentative and final parcel map be recommended to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) that the area covered by the 20' wide Parcels 47 and 49 be dedicated as a drainage easement to the City of Burlingame until such time as those parcels are divided further and sold to contiguous property owners at which time portions will be abandoned; said dedication statement be as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney; and (2) that Parcel 48 provide a ten foot (101) minimum weed and debris cleaning access easement from Rollins Road to Parcels 47 and 49 and contiguous along the length of those parcels; said easement to become void to any purchaser contiguous to these parcels. Easement location to be approved by the City Engineer. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C. S.Graham abstaining. ITEMS FOR STUDY 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - 301 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Item withdrawn by the applicant. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION - RAMADA INN, 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: do they have a master sign permit for this site; review history of signage on the site. Item set for public hearing August 24, 1987. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1987 PLNNNER REPORTS - Permit Review - art studio and school - 1530 Gilbreth Road - C. Giomi reviewed Council actions at its August 3, 1987 regular meeting. Continued Discussion - Signage for Auto Dealerships Reference staff report, 8/10/87, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the additional items staff requested be addressed prior to drafting an amendment to the sign code regulating auto dealership signage. Consensus follows: (1) window signs should be counted in the allowed square footage of signage when they are permanent signs; seasonal window signs will be allowed but not counted in allowed square footage; (2) temporary signs (covered under #1); (3) banner signs should be prohibited; (4) inflatable signs and balloons should be prohibited; (5) flags, pennants, etc. may be allowed; (6) on-site directional signs should not be included in allowed square footage but should be limited as to height above grade and size and no advertising be allowed including make or model of car; (7) roof and sky signs should be prohibited. Staff will redraft a new auto row section of the sign code for Commission's review. - N Commissioner requested all minor modification applications include existing lot size, existing house size as well as new house size. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:53 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary