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AGENDA - Item #6 withdrawn by the applicant.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