Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.01.12THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 1976 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None Jacobs Kind ig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost City Engineer Davidson City Attorney Coleman A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7;30. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of December 22, 1975 were approved as written. COMMENDATION On behalf of the Commission and himself, Chairman Sine extended congratu- lations to Mr. Robert Davidson, present Burlingame City Engineer, on his future position as City Manager of the Town of Hillsborough. Commissioners added their good wishes and appreciation of the City Engineer's excellent relationship with the Commission. 1. PRELIMINARY DRAFT; NEW SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 22 City Planner Swan reviewed past circumstances which had led to the drafting of a new sign code. These included Ordinance 979 which brought all signs over 32 SF before the Commission; tentative draft of sign code in 1973 and Ordinance 1023 which prohibits roof signs. He stated that a new sign code has now been drafted incorporating administrative procedures and policies for sign review. It has used Commission suggestions as to review lines, separate regulations for different zoning districts, and the relation of sign size to the frontage of the parcel and of the building. The City Planner told Commissioners he needed advice as to whether or not the draft satisfied their objectives. Commissioner Jacobs stated she agreed with the concept of the draft. She noted, however, some difficulty with the chart showing sign regulations by zoning district. Assistant City Planner Yost explained the chart in detail. She then questioned the height of pole signs on Automobile Row. It was established by the City Engineer that the standards for electroliers are 30' high, and the mast arms are 11, which gives a total height of 31'. Commissioner Jacobs wondered if any illuminated signs should be permitted in residential zones, and staff thought indirect lighting would be helpful for churches, schools, and the like. - 2 - The City Planner again asked if the draft code in general reflected the opinions of the Commission. He noted technical questions could be discussed later. The Commission indicated approval of the concept of the draft. Commissioner Taylor suggested that the Commission's view on abatement of roof signs be incorporated in the ordinance. The City Planner commented that subject could be addressed later. He noted that other cities' sign ordinances had been consulted and portions were incorporated in preparation of this draft. Chairman Sine suggested copies of the draft ordinance be sent to sign companies and real estate companies for their input, also to developers and/or any interested parties. Commissioner Francard considered the practice of allowing street banners on Burlingame Avenue a hazard because of the strain on the light poles. He raised the question of liability in the event of an accident. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the draft code page by page, first explaining its division into three sections: general regulations, regulations by zoning district, and regulations by sign type. At this point Chairman Sine directed that high school students in the audience be given a copy of the draft so that they could follow the discussion. There was some discussion of personnel involved in sign administration in other cities. During discussion of section on sign removal, City Engineer Davidson questioned if the City could direct a contractor to go on private property to remove a sign. City Attorney Coleman replied this would be possible once due process had been observed. Commissioners discussed the percentage of sign area to be allowed on buildings above the first floor, and in particular, the fact that signage on the 4th story would be prohibited. It was decided to show this as "0%" rather than "prohibited" so that exceptions could be allowed. There was also discussion of the fact that this draft limits "auto row" to California Drive between Burlingame Avenue and Peninsula Avenue. it was also noted that "auto row" provisions do not include auto body shops and parts shops. It was agreed, however, that sale of such vehicles as motorcycles and recreational vehicles are included in the auto row designation. There was Commission discussion of Chapter 22.24 "Properties with Use Variances and Non -Conforming Uses." which provided that property having a use which was obtained by variance or was legally non -conforming would be entitled to signage as if it were zoned for that use. Commissioners objected to this provision, and it was agreed that such uses would come to the Commission for a sign permit. In response to question from Commissioner Kindig, the Assistant City Planner stated that directory signs (Chapter 22.38) would be included in the total signage area, not in addition to it. Commissioners discussed real estate signs and wished to have requirements added that they should not be permitted on sidewalks, streets, or rights of way. Commissioner Mink suggested the sentence "Signs for sale or rental of real estate should be placed upon the subject property." - 3 - Commissioner Jacobs objected to the specification of numbers of window signs in Chapter 22.52 "Political and Campaign Signs." She considered this too much regulation.. There was Commission discussion. Assistant City Planner Yost referred to Chapter 22.58, "Real Estate Signs" noting a suggestion had been made that such signs requiring permits be allowed for a period of four months only, after which the City Planner could renew the permit as his discretion. There was some discussion of a percentage requirement for window signs in the R-1 district. The Assistant City Planner closed his presentation of the draft code with a discussion of proposed fees. City Attorney Coleman noted that staff had tried to start with as restrictive an ordinance as possible so that it could be modified downward if necessary. Commissioners indicated that they would prefer more time to consider this draft, and Chairman Sine continued the discussion to the first meeting in February. Staff agreed to send copies of the draft to the real estate board, sign companies, and the Chamber of Commerce. RECESS Following a short recess at 9:20 P. M., the meeting reconvened. Chairman Sine announced that discussion of the next agenda item, accessory buildings in residential districts, would be considered at the end of the agenda. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING 96 SF REAL ESTATE SIGN AT 310 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY.CLARKE/DONALDSON/CRAMER,INC. FOR CROCKER NATIONAL BANK. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed background of this existing sign. A 30' high pole sign had been installed in 1970 by Lindal'.. Homes when they received a special permit for their business at this address. They are no longer at this location. The real estate firm of Clarke/ Donaldson/Cramer has been retained to lease the property and wishes approval for their recent installation of new plywood faces on this existing pole sign. Their real estate sign will be of a temporary nature and will be removed when the property is leased to a new tenant. The Assistant City Planner specified that the sign code in the M-1 district limits real estate signs to 40 SF. This sign is 96.SF on each of two faces. He suggested a time limit if this sign is approved. Mr. Paul Cramer of Clarke/Donaldson/Cramer, was present. In response to question from the Chair he stated he was not aware of the local sign codes since the firm had employed a sign company to erect the sign and the president of this company had assured them that all codes would be conformed with. Mr. Cramer explained that he had asked the sign company to design the sign face in proportion to the existing sign frame, hence its proportions of 12' x 8'. If the face were made smaller, it would not fit over the frame. Commissioner Kindig stated he disliked the sign and noted it has a three way exposure at that location. Commissioner Mink commented that under the new sign code specific areas would be permitted for each frontage, and suggested this sign permit could be approved on a temporary basis - 4 - City Attorney Coleman noted this pole sign would exceed by 10' the new height limits of the proposed code. Commission Jacobs wanted information.on haw "temporary" this sign would he. Mr. Cramer stated their firm had a six-month contract with Lindal'. Homes to lease the property. This contract began on September 2, 1975. In the following Commission discussion it was agreed the contract would expire in approximately 2 months and then the sign should come dawn. Chairman Sine requested public comment. Tony Brawn, Burlingame High School student questioned if the applicant would be allowed an extension of time for the sign if the site was not leased by the time the contract expired and a new contract was subsequently signed. The Chairman remarked that would depend upon the conditions of the motion. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the sign permit for the existing 96 SF sign be approved until March 15, 1976. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. On the question, Commissioner Taylor received information from the applicant that the sign belonged to the real estate company, but he thought that the poles belonged to Lindal`; Homes. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES.: FRANCARD, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK,,`NORBERG, SINE NAYES: TAYLOR Chairman Sine informed the application he had the option of applying for an extension of time if the property had not been disposed of at the end of the permit period. 4. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1,2,3 & 4, BLACK NO. 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (RSM VOL. 70/33) AT 433 AIRPORT BOUIEVARD, ZONED M-1, BY H. G ,HICKEY FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORP. City Engineer Davidson told Commissioners this map had been submitted approximately two years ago by Anza and had been approved by the Commission as a tentative map, but Anza had not submitted the final map within the required 18 months. Therefore the map had been resubmitted recently, had again been approved as a tentative map. This is the final version before the Commission, which eliminates certain lot lines for the Kee Joon Restaurant parcel. He stated there are no conditions and the map could be set for hearing. Chairman Sine set this final map for hearing on January 26, 1976. 5. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP, PORTION.OF LANDS OF KATHLEEN DORE AT MARSTEN AND ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-134-100) ZONED M-1, BY W. M. WRIGHT FOR BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA (TRUSTEE) AND KATHLEEN DORS (OWNER) City Engineer Davidson reminded Commissioners that tentative map for this property had been approved by the Commission subject to six conditions which included improvement of ingress -egress easements, implementation of water main loop, installation of fire hydrants, and closure of structural openings within 5' of the new property line. The City Engineer stated that Mr. Bill Wright, owner's representative, had indicated in a recent conversation that a final map incorporating these conditions would be ready next week. The City Engineer said this could be set for hearing conditional upon receipt of the final agreement. - 5 - This final map was set for hearing on January 26, 1976. 6. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 12, 13, & 14, BLOCK NO. 21, TOWN OF BURLINGAME AT 234/236/238 MYRTLE ROAD, ZONED R-3 FOR CASA AMIGO-BURLINGAME The City Engineer specified condition:: of approval of the tentative map as demolition of one of the two dwellings on the parcel. He noted that the applicant also had agreed to contribute $10,000 toward public utilities in the area. City Engineer Davidson stated that Mr. Johnson wished to put both the map and the $10,000 contribution into the escrow procedures so that once escrow is closed, the new owners will sign the map. He also had agreed to put up bond for demolition of one of the dwellings. The City Engineer noted this was acceptable to the City Attorney. Chairman Sine set this final map for hearing on January 26, 1976. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCKING ESTABLISHMENT AT 1660 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 925-262-250) ZONED M-1, BY H. JOHN WINTSCH OF TRAFFIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Assistant City Planner Yost reported that this freight forwarding company has been located at 1216 Rollins Road, since June 1974 with a valid business license The company recently purchased the property at 1660 Rollins Road as a main location. This site contains a building of which 3600 SF is warehouse and 2400 SF is office area. Four new truck ramps are being added. The Assistant City Planner stated that on-site parking will conform to code requirements and site coverage is within that permitted. The physical facilities are better than average. He noted that Mr. Wintsch, president of the company, was present, and referred Commissioners to his detailed letter of application and site plan for the operation. The Assistant City Planner noted no staff difficulties with the application and considered it complete. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing on January 26, 1976. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BEAUTY CULTURE TRAINING FACILITY AT BAYPORT OFFICE CENTER, 1575 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-321-520) ZONED M-1, BY BOMAR INVESTMENT COMPANY -AND THE GLEMBY COMPANY, INCORPORATED. Assistant City Planner Yost referred Commissioners to applicant's letter of 1/6/76 with attached floor plan for this proposed beauty culture training facility. He noted several problems with this application, one of which is lack of acceptable figure for occupant load. The applicant cites four employees and ten prospective trainees, but does not give figure for the models on which teachers will be demon- strating. The Assistant City Planner questioned how many would there be, would they be charged a fee, will they arrive by car, how many parking spaces will they use? He noted the layout seemed large for the staff and trainees proposed. The parking layout meets office building requirements for this district, but would it be adequate for the occupant load? He reminded Commissioners the possible sale of services at retail should be reviewed. In response to question from the Chair, Mr. Chas. Boone of the Bomar Corporation announced himself as one of the owners of the building and representative of the applicant who could not be present this evening. Mr. Boone reviewed proposed operation of this trade school. With ref- erence to the parking question, he noted that trainees would stay at local hotels or, in the case of local trainees, would probably use car pools. The facility would not be advertised to the public, models would not be charged for hair styling, and would be recruited by word of mouth from the surrounding areas - other occupants of office buildings, for instance. In response to further Commission questions, he stated the office area is 800 SF with a training area of 1,200 SF. He did not consider the free beauty culture service would conflict with other beauty shops since there are none in the industrial area. One Commissioner requested that the applicant be prepared at the public hearing to testify whether this training program is to prepare people for state licensing or whether it is to update training of people who are already licensed. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing January 26, contingent upon a representative of the Glemby Company being present at the meeting. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF BOATS AND BOAT ACCESSORIES AT 1331 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-132-050/060) ZONED M-1, BY RICH DIODATI (OWNER) FOR FRAHS PERFORMANCE BOA'S (LESSEE) City Planner Swan told Commissioners this application is for boat sales in the industrial area. Just over a year ago, the City Council had approved the use of this building covering more than 30% of the lot. One of their conditions had been that any equipment bringing materials would be expected to back off North Carolan and unload inside the building. For the proposed use, boats would be delivered one or two at a time by tractor trailer. The City Planner also noted the stipulation of the recent approval by the Planning Commission of an auto service center that the entire building be limited to auto service. He confirmed that the application was complete; title report indicating ownership had been submitted; and environmental assessment indicates that the use does not affect environmental conditions. However, he commented that the sale of boats represents quite a change in use for this building, and the plan submitted shows area for sale of parts and accessories. He suggested that boo more parking spaces could be needed for this use. He stated the applicant claims this will be a temporary use pending establish- ment of auto service facilities. Mr. Marron Barnes, Frahs Performance Boats, told Commissioners that no used boats would be sold, and accessory sales would be limited to such items as boat fixtures and water skis. Mr. Diodati reported that Mr. Ostertag occupies only 3/4 of the building and had leased this space to Frahs as a means of income until full occupancy by auto service. The lease is for two years. There was Commission comment that one of the conditions of approval of the special permit had been that the entire building be limited to auto service. Mr. Diodati considered that Mr. Ostertag intended this as a permanent use, and the boat sales would be an interim use for financial reasons. There was Commission suggestion that estimate be presented at the public meeting of the amount of drop-in trade so that parking and - 7 - traffic impact could be considered. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing January 26, 1976. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE at 261 PARK ROAD (APN 029-203-020) ZONED C-1 BY A.EBNER OF RORKE'S (LESSEE) AND WELLS FARGO BANK (OWNER) City Planner Swan referenced letter of application of January 9, 1976 from Mr. Albert L. Ebner and attached diagram showing proposed addition. The applicant wants to build this addition for office, stock room and storage space. The existing building occupies 64% of the lot. With this addition to the rear, the coverage would be 81.7%. This necessitates a special permit in the offstreet parking district for coverage over 75%. He noted that no credit had been taken for on-site parking spaces, and considered the application could be set for hearing. In response to Commission question, Mr. Ebner indicated that 3-4 parking spaces might be lost by this construction. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing January 26, 1976. 11A. SPECIAL PERMIT, ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION FOR ANZA AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES AT 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD City Planner Swan referenced letter of January 7, 1976 from Anza Pacific Corporation requesting one year extension of special permit for Anza Airport Parking. This permit, granted for five years, has six months to its expiration date. Commission discussion followed of whether or not this facility had expanded beyond its original boundaries, and if so, whether a special permit amendment of a new special permit would be required rather than an extension of the previous one. The matter was resolved that staff would confer with Mr. Keyston to determine the exact area for the special permit before any decision as to type of application needed. 11B. ANZA PARKING NORTH OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD City Planner Swan explained this is a request from Anza to park cars for storage on parcels north of Airport Boulevard. This is in conjunction with a permit issued to Anza to park cars for various auto dealers south of Airport Boulevard. The northern parking is desired in the event the parking south of the boulevard is filled. The City Planner stated a formal application was needed as well as definite indication of area. Also, areas to be used must be surfaced and fenced. Mr. David Keyston addressed Commissioners, telling them that it was not anticipated there would be need for this area this year, but that Anza wished to be prepared for eventualities. He stated this is the most logical area to be used, since it is low. Early application would make it possible to take advantage of possible sales on paving materials. He would make formal application and describe area thoroughly. Chairman Sine suggested this application be submitted at the study meeting in February. Mr. Keyston agreed, stating he also would discuss Anza's future plans at that time. 12. LEAGUE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS INSTITUTE City Planner Swan announced this institute would commence on Wednesday, February 4 and last until noon on Friday, February 6. It will be held at the Holiday Inn, San Francisco. He noted staff could arrange reservations and rides, and requested that Commissioners indicate if they planned to attend. CITY PLANNER --:REPORT The City Planner reported than the City had applied for money to be used in community development. The funds will be used for sanitary sewer, storm drains, and new water mains in the vicinity of Casa Amigo. He reported that the City Engineer is asking Council for authority to advertise for bids on the first phase of the Bike -Pedestrian trail. He announced there would be an aircraft noise abatement meeting later this week. He reported he had met with Airportransit with regard to changing the bus route B to the Bayshore Highway area so that it could be more effective. The City Planner spoke of attending a meeting on transportation alter- natives during which the offer by Southern Pacific to sell its right of way to the respective transit districts was explored. He stressed this is of importance to Burlingame because of the three local stations and noted that S.P. would retain its east line for handling of freight. He noted a countywide census may be undertaken in October of this year. 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS City Planner Swan referenced memo of 1/7/76 to Commissioners on this subject with attached Exhibit A, excerpts from Burlingame code; Exhibit B, excerpts from San Mateo code: Exhibit C, recommendations from City Engineer Davidson; Exhibit D, suggested change to code on repair of non -conforming accessory buildings; and Exhibit E, recommendations from City Attorney. He pointed out two regulations from the San Mateo code which seem appropriate for use in our code. These are limitationsof height of accessory building to 151, and coverage of 50% of the required rear yard area. In discussion following, Chairman Sine and some Commissioners thought 15' was too high and height should be limited to 91. This could conceivably eliminate problems with illegal dwelling units in the second story. Chairman Sine suggested that this would allow for an Be plate line and roof could be flat. However, there was comment that this type of building would not be attractive; and discussion followed of the recent hearing on the accessory building at 1525 Cypress and how the building could have been prevented. City Attorney Coleman questioned if one story would be any better than an arbitrary 9' height. City Planner Swan noted that if there is additional space above an 8' level, it is - 9 - still technically only one story. Sec. 1307 of the Uniform Building Code specifies that storage rooms shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches. The limitation to one story would be about the same as a 15' maximum height. This would allow a plate height of 8', a storage area above, and a peaked roof. There.was suggestion that the location of an accessory building that generates noise (such as a swimming pool pump house) should be 10' from other buildings. Another suggestion was that there should be a side yard and rear yard setback of no less than 81, rather than have a building on the property line. This could aid in maneuvering of fire fighting equipment. One Commissioner objected to the recommendation from the City Engineer that no plumbing other than hose bibbs be allowed in accessory buildings. He noted some recent experiments with heat exchange devices in nearby residential areas. Their use entails piping on the roof, and he questioned if this potential should be excluded. Chairman Sine suggested there be more time spent for study of this problem, and indicated it would be again considered at the February study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary