Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1971.05.10THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 1971 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Attorney Karmel Jacobs City Planner Mann Kindig City Engineer Marr Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from the regular meeting of April 26, 1971, was called to order on the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Sine presiding. ROLL CALL The above named members responded to roll call. HEARINGS Chairman Sine announced that one public hearing, initiated at the last regular meeting and continued to the present date, would proceed at this time. 1. SPECIAL PERMIT, AERO RENT -A -CAR FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1299 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. Chairman Sine explained that this matter had been continued from the regular public hearing of April 26, 1971 in order that more definitive plans might be presented regarding such problems as sewage, gas storage tank, location of gas pump, and allocation of space for this rental agency. Mr. David Keyston was present, as well as Mr. Hollenbeck, operator of Aero Rent-A-Car. Chairman Sine invited the City Engineer to express his viewpoints regarding the situation. The City Engineer stated that Mr. Keyston is the fee owner and has title to the property, but the State Highway Department has an easement for freeway purposes which they hold under lease, and said he was very concerned as to whether the State would allow structures such as the underground storage tank. Also, he brought out the fact that the two manholes on the property are dead manholes and the sewer has been disconnected, thus making the sanitary sewer unavilable, and. that it must be determined how the owner is going to handle waste water from the car washing operation. He mentioned that the ditch along the edge of the freeway was constructed only to drain the shoulder of the freeway. He cautioned that if any foam resulted from materials used in the car washing operation they could not be allowed, and questioned the disposition of the sediment pit. Mr. Keyston replied that he was investigating the matter of the State easement, and that the revised plans would show details of the sediment pit which they would install to pick up dirt and gravel. Mr. Hollenbeck declared that they had agreed if detergents were used they would make arrangements for a line to the sewer in the street or a line from,the existing building. He mentioned he had heard of a biodegradable product called "Basic E" which might work well and which he was investigating. He promised to use only clear water until he received the facts on this product. Chairman Sine questioned whether the sewer lateral from the building was properly installed and large enough to carry the sewer, and noted that no architectural design was shown on the plan. He mentioned he had recently gone by the site while a car was being washed and it was an untidy operation. Mr. Keyston replied that the only thing shown above the surface on the plan was the gasoline pump with no structure. Commissioner Cistulli made the point that the present agreement might be to use only clear water or a certain detergent; if in the near future other more favorable detergents were developed, the problem must be resolved again. He felt that definite decisions about the sewage should be made now. The City planner clarified the principal problems before the Commission as: 1. Arrangement for gas pump. *To structure around it advisable but possibility of landscaping; 2. Marking of actual spaces to be used; 3. Proper method of carrying off waste water. 4. Resolution of gasoline storage tank. Mr. Keyston responded that the new plan would show the actual ten spaces that are to be used, and mentioned the operator is prevented from using more under the terms of their lease with him. Commissioner K.indig stated he thought the site was the wrong place for an operation of this type and that he objected to making a decision until an answer had been received from the State as to whether a storage tank could be placed on the leased oroperty. With regard to this, Mr. Keyston reported that he had gone to the local permit inspector, who was agreeable, but referred him to the permit department. They, in turn, referred him to the person who signed the lease, who stated that the owner would have to amend the lease to show the gas tank and that a plan must be sent. Mr. Keyston said that he had sent a plan, but as yet had no reply from the State Highway Department. Commissioner Taylor questioned taking action on the matter without the resolution of the problem regarding the disposition of the water and felt this should be tied down first. Mr. Keyston suggested - 2 - that be a condition of the motion. Commissioner Norberg had no comment, nor did Commissioner Jacobs. The City Engineer stated that if the applicant did go to sanitary sewer, he definitely wanted all details, including details of the sediment pit; and that a building permit would be required. Commissioner Cistulli introduced a motion that the special permit be granted Aero Rent-A-Car with the condition that there be a sewer line for the purpose of disposal of water; landscaping to cover the gas pump; marking of the parking -spaces for not more than ten cars; proper installation of the underground gas storage tank; and contin- gent upon receipt of a document from the State approving the in- stallation of the underground tank. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cistulli, Jacobs, Mink, Norberg, Taylor, Sine NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kindig The applicant was informed the special permit would be effective on Tuesday, May 18, if not appealed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was regularly adjourned at 8:30 P. M., followed immediately by the regular monthly study meeting. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETING May 10, 1971 1. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE, 1510 NEWLANDS AVENUE, MODIFICATION OF APARTMENT BUILDING, BY CHARLES D. DENNY Upon invitation of the Chair, the City Planner explained to the Commission the background of this particular application for variance. This is an existing 7-unit apartment building in an R-1 zone, on which no variance has ever been granted. The building has been used for apartment purposes for many years, and when it was purchased by Mrs. Mary H. Rimkus, the present owner, she was unaware of any illegality of zoning involved. -Recently, she put the property on the market, and the prospective purchaser, Mr. Charles D. Denny, was informed by the real estate agency that the useage is illegal. Mr. Denny has now filed an application for variance for the purpose of providing a legal basis for the modification of this apartment. The City Planner stated that along with the application there was received a letter from Mrs. Mary Rimkus giving her permission for Mr. Denny to negotiate with the City of Burlingame regarding this property. A statement of reasons for variance, also received, cites in part, the fact of several other illegal apartment houses in this neighborhood and the granting of R-3 variances to at least two other property holders. Mention was also made that since the useage had existed for years and with full public knowledge, such variance would not materially injure other property owners and would enable the owner to receive her proper income and the purchaser to receive a return on his investment. The City Planner commented that when this property came on the market recently, there were some questions raised by the Building and Fire Departments and they investigated the building, making reports of which he has a copy. He also has a copy of a report made on the property of an inspection made in December, 1959 by the Fire Department at the request of Mrs. Jean Roussey, then owner of the property, who wished to comply with fire egress requirements, since at this time she had built two units, without kitchens, in anticipation of zoning changes. The City Planner told the Commission that since the application for variance has been received, he would like to inspect the property personally and make a report to the Commission prior to any hearing. At that time, the Commission and buyer could work out details of what was necessary. He made the following points regarding this variance: 1. This apartment building is already in existence. 2. This particular block West to E1 Camino has virtually departed from R-1 classification already. 3. The Planning Commission has approved one 5-unit building on this block; another, which they have also approved, is now on appeal. Mr. Denny, upon invitation of the Chair, told the Commission that he wished to take out the 7th apartment unit to make an extra parking space, redo the front of the building, redecorate the apartments, and remove the large fence in front. Upon a question by Commissioner Jacobs, he stated that he would be able to make room for 5 or 6 parking spaces and was informed that since there were 6 units, he must have 6 parking spaces. During a period of Commission discussion, it developed that Mr. Denny would be agree- able to making appointments for the Commission members to see the inside of the property, and that the apartments would be vacated and remodeled in turn, although fully occupied at present. There i�-Yas some feeling that the next public meeting might be too soon for this application to be detailed and given a hearing, but the City Attorney brought out that if an application is on file the applicant has a right to be heard. The City Planner remarked that the matter could be carried for several meetings if not immediately resolved. commissioner Taylor raised the question of enforcement against existing violations of the zoning code and was informed by the City Attorney that the City has no way to enforce these because of lack of sufficient personnel; that the only alternative to granting of the variance under discussion would be to file suit to have it returned to its proper status as a one family dwelling. The City Planner remarked that a similar suit was in process on a property on Chapin Avenue, but that such a process takes a long time. There being no further discussion, Chairman Sine informed the applicant that this matter would be scheduled for the regular public hearing of the Planning Commission in the Council Chambers on May 24, 1971. NEW BUSINESS: Report on Carwash-Gasoline Sales Combinations: The City Planner read to the Commission a report which he compiled on the subject, setting forth the need for either more definitive regulations or proper amendments to present regulations, since the present code is nebulous in its approach to this combined useage. He presented existing definitions and offered alternatives for the Commission's consideration. Each Commissioner was given a copy of the report, and the City Planner suggested that this be read and thoroughly discussed at some future date, so that this problem could be resolved. There was some discussion of the cost of a gasoline service station license as opposed to an inclusive business license. Parking Ratios: Commissioner Kindig brought up the fact that our parking ratio on multiple units is one to one up to six units, but cited the example of a five unit building with three bedroom units. He stated that to one three -bedroom unit there could obviously be allocated more than one car, and questioned whether the ordinance` should make different provisions if the units are more than two bedrooms. The City Planner stated that he would investigate the possibilities and report to the Commission. Census: The City Planner told the Commission that official census figures had come in as of this date. He gave some facts derived from them, such as the ratio of rental units in this city to the number of owner occupied is 50-50; the average age is going up in Burlingame - there are fewer young people; in no district in the city is there - 5 - lack of all necessary utilities, which is not true of other cities. There was discussion. Sign Ordinance: Commissioner Kindig brought up the subject of the present sign ordinance, citing its lack of limitations in such places as office buildings - where, for instance, every occupant could have a sign on the building if he wished. The City Planner mentioned that one solution might be to limit the footage of the signs allowed in ratio to the size of the building. Chairman Sine suggested that when a tenant leaves his premises, he must take down his sign. The City Planner stated he would investigate the sign ordinance more fully. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting regularly adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary