Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.09.25THE CITY OF BURLINGAh'>E PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER SEPTEMBER 25, 1972 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Commissioner Kindig- excused OTIMRS PRESENT City Planner Swan City Engineer Marr City Attorney Karmel A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of August 28, 1972 and the study meeting of September 11, 1972 were approved and adopted. LIEAR INGS 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RECREATION VEHICLE DEALERSHIP IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT ADRIAN COURT AND ADRIAN ROAD BY BAYWEST ASSOCIATES RECREATION VEHICLE COMPANY. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read a letter from Baywest dated September 7, 1972 attaching revised site plan. The revisions include moving of the service building, elimination of some of the exhibit areas and delineation of parking in a maximum use situation. The letter advised of review of chemical waste problem and the submission of details to the City Engineer. Mr. Carl Kirker, President of Baywest Associates (hereafter called "Baywest") and Mr. David fright, General Manager, were present as representatives of their firm. Plans were distributed for Commission inspection. City Planner Swan then showed transparencies using the new overhead projector. These included a map of the site which involves Parcel C. F, and E, a total of 4 acres; a reduction of the plot plan; a floor plan, an elevation of the proposed development; and an enlargement of Parcel C showing future expansion. The City Planner reviewed some points of previous discussion. Ile noted that the motor and chassis work is to be done at the Dodge dealership, and commented that a parking summary showed 32 spaces for employee parking. This meets the requirements for the initial development, but plans for future expansion indicate addition of 6,400 square feet for storage and offices. This would require additional parking area., and he commented that there should be some method of future review prior to this expansion. He noted that the temporary buildings must - 2 - meet building and fire codes and be subject to a time limitation. City Engineer 'Harr voiced his concern that highly_toxic--waste material not be- deposited- in the_city's- sanitary sewers. - _ Baywest is to submit a sample of waste for toxicity.tesiing. If the sample meets the specifications, he suggested that a condition of the permit be that the treatment system for cleanout of RV sanitary systems be approved by him. W .Carl Kirker addressed the Commission. He stated that the temporary buildings would be prefabricated, and would be removed immediately upon completion of the final structures, He declared that having the special permit conditional upon the City Engineer's approval of the solid waste disposal system would be acceptable. lie stated Baywest would submit an application for a sign permit at a later date. This will be a standard sign used by their firm on a nationwide basis and will conform to all city ordinances. Commissioner Sine questioned Mr. Kirker on the seven feature displays indicated on the plans. W. Kirker informed him a display would consist of one of the vehicles setting back from the curb line with some landscaping around it. The displays immediately adjoining the show room would be raised 2-3 feet. Commissioner Sine questioned the City Engineer regarding utilities. City Engineer Marr stated that there was adequate sewer and water. However, he would like to see Baywest's general overall grading and drainage plan when it was finished. Commissioner Sine questioned the City Planner. how the parking for the future expansion could be handled. The City Planner replied that nine (9) additional spaces would be needed for a future showroom of 5400 square feet. A redesign of both the parking layout and the storage facilities would be needed. Chairman Cistulli asked for audience comments against this application. Mr.^Jayne Stiner of Sylvania Company, 1811 Adrian Road, responded. He stated that he was not necessarily opposed to the application but had some questions, and requested further information on the traffic conditions that this dealership would generate, as well as individual foot traffic that would be involved in the Adrian Court area. He also wanted further information on the temporary buildings and the land- scaping. He stated he had talked with Mr. 'Wright and learned there was a similar installation in Denver. Mr. Stiner had obtained slides of the Denver installation and asked the Commission's permission to show them. This was granted, and he left the meeting momentarily to obtain them. Chairman Cistulli asked for audience comments in favor of this application. There were none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg questioned an area shown on the plans as stairs, and stated these should be a ramp for vehicular use. He was informed that a ramp would be used, but did not presently appear on the plans. Commissioner Norberg commented that it should be stipulated that an approval of this special permit did not constitute an approval of any future expansion. Commissioner Sine had no comment. Commissioner - 3 - Taylor was concerned that the granting of this permit would conceivably involve the tacit approval of the expansion, and felt that this should be controlled. City Attorney Karmel commented that consideration of the application for expansion could be made a condition of the granting of the permit. Commissioner Taylor then spoke of possible "oral (noise) pollution" produced by an outside address system and considered that this type of communication should be prohibited. Mr. Wright stated that a public address system is often a necessary evil but that Baywest would have no objection to control by means of chimes or other methods. Commissioner Mink was concerned with the temporary buildings. lie was informed that the permanent construction would take six months under good conditions and asked if Baywest would be willing to accept the condition that the temporary buildings could be on the site not more than 90 days before construction and must be removed within thirty days following completion - that under no circumstances would temporary buildings be on the site more than one year. Mr. Wright stated Baywest would accept these conditions. Commissioner Mink also questioned the wording of the condition regarding expansion. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the solid waste disposal system would be for the exclusive use of Baywest, and was informed this was intended to be used for their rental vehicles. Chairman Cistulli questioned the amount of traffic generated and the times of its greatest incidence. Mr. Wright gave an estimate, judging from other locations, that they might expect from 8 - 12 vehicles to come in from 8:00 to 10:00 A.M., with vehicles coming in occasionally during the rest of the day. Heaviest pedestrian traffic would be on Saturdays and Sundays between 11:00 and 2:00 P.M.. At the most, there might be eight separate families at one time. Chairman Cistulli then questioned Mr. Wright about landscaping. Mr. Wright replied that he sympathized with organizations such as Sylvania who have beautiful buildings and landscaping. Ile stated that Baywest would have landscaping which would be in harmony with that of neighbor- ing buildings. Mr. Stiner returned to the meeting and showed slides of the Baywest establishment in Denver. This is a combination new and used car and RV dealership, not an attractive installation, and the site is barren. lie made the point that we do not want this in Burlingame. Mr. Wright replied that Denver is planning an expansion of the RV vehicles and the barren areas were used for storage. Ile emphasized that the Burlingame installation would be unique in the country and they expect to gross $5,000,000 the first year. Chairman Cistulli questioned the fencing on the lot, and was informed it would be chain fence of not more than b' in height and at the rear of the lot. Mr. Stiner questioned the possibility of the sales on this lot being changed from RV to used cars. Chairman Cistulli informed him that the use on the special permit would have to be changed to accomplish this. rt was understood that Baywest would also have not more than 10 - 15 used cars to sell as trade-ins. Commissioner Sine recommended that a detailed landscape plan by a landscaping architect be presented to the Planning Commission at a later date. Commissioner Mink moved that the special permit be granted to Ba}nvest for a -recreation vehicle dealership in an M-1 District at Adrian Court and Adrian Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Treatment system for cleanout of RV sanitary systems subject to approval of City Engineer. Waste disposal facility to be for the exclusive use of vehicles owned by Baywest. 2. A ninety (90) day permit for temporary buildings (prior to starting construction of new buildings) with an extension until thirty (30) days after occupancy of the proposed office display center, and temporary buildings will be on the site not more than twelve months. 3. Temporary buildings shall be subject to approval of fire department and building inspector. 4. There shall be no pennants, flags or changeable signs. 5. No used vehicles shall be displayed within fifty (SO) feet of Adrian Road. 6. A detailed landscape plan and parking layout shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission. 7. Resubdivision Map of Parcel B to create Parcel F. 8. Subject to provision of additional customer parking depending upon planning commission's findings after staff inspection in October 1974 or prior to future expansion. 9. No motor, chassis, or major body work be done on the site. 10. No public address or audible call system be used. 11. Grading plans to be subject to approval of City Engineer. 12. Approval be limited to drawings submitted, specifically, hardline drawings of all buildings; and does not include future expansion on indicated site on Adrian Road. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. Baywest representatives objected to Condition No. 9. Mr. Wright stated that they would be doing chassis and motor repair -because none of'the Dodge dealerships are willing to handle vehicles of RV size. Secretary Jacobs read excerpt from September 11 study meeting minutes which set forth Baywest's statement that chassis and motor repair work was to be given to the Dodge agency. Mr. Wright declared that the statement was correct in that this type of work would have to be given to a Dodge agency until Baywest was given a certificate to do it. He brought out that they are to be a complete service facility for these vehicles in this area. - 5 - There was much discussion of the unsightliness which could be involved by this type of work, with Baywest insisting that it was absolutely necessary. At length, they agreed to make certain that it would not cause an unsightly condition, and Commissioner Mink amended his ninth condition to be: 9. That the premises be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall not be allowed to become unsightly by reason of the storage or -retention of wrecked or damaged vehicles or parts or otherwise. This motion passed unanimously on roll call vote, and the applicant was informed the special permit would become effective on October 3, 1972 if not appealed to the City Council. 2. SIGN VARIANCE FOR ROOF SIGN EXCEEDING TWENTY (20) FEET IN HEIGHT FROM ROOF LEVEL AT 1021 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-2, BY CUMMINGS AND COMPANY FOR LEE OLDSMOBILE. Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs then read a letter dated September 8, 1972 from Michael Mullery of Lee Oldsmobile requesting a withdrawal of the request. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Commission accept this request for withdrawal; Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it carried on voice vote. 3. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 6-UNIT APARTMENT IN AN R-2 DISTRICT AT 1105 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, BEING LOT 14, BLOCK 5, EASTON ADDITION BY LE S ALEXANDE R Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read Mr. Alexander's letter of application dated September 5, 1972. Mr. Alexander stated this building would conform completely with code requirements for R-3 zoned property, and follow the precedent already set in the block for multiple family dwellings. At this point, Chairman Cistulli acknowledged the presence of Councilman Dorothy Cusick in the audience. Plans of the proposed building were distributed, and Mr. Alexander was requested to address the Commission. He pointed out that this is the largest buildable lot on the block; and added that the plans have been revised. He presented two parking alternatives: the addition of one covered parking space or the addition of two uncovered spaces. He showed the Commission snapshots of a similar completed apartment building he had built. No one in the audience spoke against the granting of this variance. Steven Sacco, 1142 Capuchino, declared he was in favor of granting it. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg disliked the "cracker -box" architecture of the building. Commissioner Sine established that parking alternatives were for a total of 7 spaces as opposed to 8. He also disliked the architecture and suggested the use of a modified mansard. Mr. Alexander agreed this could be done. Commissioner Taylor also thought the elevation could be improved; but was mainly concerned with the offstreet parking, and felt this building would add to the street congestion. Commissioner Mink questioned lot coverage, particularly with the percentage taken by driveways and paved areas. Commissioner Jacobs felt that a better elevation should be submitted, but had no objection to the apartments in view of the others on the block. Commissioner Norberg questioned the location of the storage space, and was informed by Mr. Alexander that it would be over the car parking areas. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Planning Commission grant this variance with the conditions that a new elevation be submitted and that the floor plan for the tandem parking spaces be submitted showing the storage area. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. There was further discussion. City Attorney Karmel suggested that action be withheld until the Commission had approved the changes made, and suggested consideration at an adjourned meeting. Commissioner Jacobs withdrew his motion. Commissioner Sine moved that this application be continued to the adjourned meeting before the next study meeting, and that the applicant furnish new elevation and modified floor plans showing storage. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried unanimously on voice vote. City Planner Swan reminded the Commission that the date of the next study meeting, October 9, was a legal holiday, and requested they decide on another meeting night. It was agreed among the Commissioners that Wednesday, October 11, would be a satisfactory date for the adjourned meeting and study meeting. 4. RESOLVE AMBIGUITY OF USE - ALIAW ADVERTISING STRUCTURE FOR RETAIL SALES ESTABLISHMENT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT, REPO DEPO AT 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY RONALD A. ROSBERG. (EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 18, 1971.) ALSO SIGN APPLICATION REFERRED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR TO PLANNING COMMISSION PER SIGN CODE SECTION 22.24.040. Chairman Cistulli announced this item for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read a letter dated September 20, 1972 from Cyrus J. McMillan, Attorney, requesting this sign application be placed on the regular meeting agenda. Mr. Hugh E. Connolly, Attorney, was present as representative of Ronald A. Rosberg, and addressed the Commission. Mr. Connolly went into background, stating his client had applied for a building permit for a sign which does not in any way violate any requirements, and was told by City staff that they felt unable to grant a building permit on the grounds that there was an application of the zoning ordinance involved, a possible ambiguity of use. Mr. Connolly then quoted Code Section 25.42.05 "Ambiguity of Use." which states, "If any use is for any reason omitted from those specified as permissible in this district, or if ambiguity arise concerning the approximate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this chapter, it shall be the I - 7 - duty of the Planning Commission to ascertain all pertinent facts concerning such use and determine into which classification such use shall be classified. The Commission shall make its recommendation to the City Council by resolution of record, setting forth its findings and reason for such classification." Mr.' Connolly stated his client had made an application last year for a special permit to operate a retail establishment in an M-1 district. The City granted him that use, and all he asked of the building department was for permission to erect a legal sign to advertise that use. The attorney stated he saw no ambiguity. He commented that the ordinance could not contemplate every use, but that the only problem at this time was that his client would like to put up a legal sign to identify a use which the City has permitted him. Mr. Ronald Rosberg addressed the Commission. He spoke of his need for a sign to identify his business, and noted the large distance his building is set back from Old Bayshore, making it difficult to see. He said they wanted to erect an attractive sign in_place of the present sandwich board, and presented to the Commission letters from neighboring businesses stating they had no objection to the proposed sign. These letters were from Alfa Rent-A-Car System, The Vagabond Motor Hotel, Saluto's, and Avis Rent-A-Car System. Mr. Rosberg stated the sign would be installed by Bell Electric. City Planner Swan reported that Burlingame does not have a review system for signs other than the building permit application. Signs, if supported by the technical requirements and required information, may be approved by Staff. Whether the sign is an advertising display or merely a sign is a matter of semantics. He stated that in his opinion a moving sign or a sign which could be changed is an advertising structure. If it is an advertising structure, then it falls under provisions that a special permit is required. The City Planner commented that ambiguity of use would apply to a conditional use in a particular location. He added that it has been the policy of the Planning Commission to consider the application for a sign separately from the special permit, on separate applications. He quoted code reference to "Conditional Uses requiring special permit" which states: "The following uses may also be permitted as special uses if the site locations and proposed development plans are first approved as provided . . ." He stated it is his contention that the approved development plan for the Repo Depo did not include a sign, and therefore the proposed sign isan additional (Ed. perhaps ambiguous) use. The proposed sign is a change because it was not a part of the special permit (approved October 17, 1971.) It is up to the Planning Commission to find whether an additional sign or a new sign is to be permitted with the special permit and also whether the specific sign could be approved or not. Mr. Connolly stated that nothing had been stated wherein his client's sign violated any city ordinance, and he did not think there was a reasonable ambiguity concerning his right to erect a sign. City Attorney Karmel agreed that there is an ambiguity of use. He stated that this special permit for an M-1 zone was granted for that special use and nothing more. He felt there should be an application for the sign because it was not included in the special permit. He stated that this is also an incomplete sign; that part of it did not have lettering on it. The Building Inspector had referred it to the Planning Commission on the assumption that they should approve whatever the sign would contain. Mr. Rosberg replied that both sides of the sign were complete with lettering for identification and there was a readerboard for the purpose of advertising his merchandise. Chairman Cistulli emphasized that this was the reason the sign needed a special permit - it had a readerboard and was a sign for the purpose of advertisement. He cited the Hyatt House and its readerboard. There followed discussion concerning lack of communication, with both Mr. Connolly and Mr. Rosberg protesting there had been no mention of the readerboard at the study meeting. Commissioner Taylor wished clarification on the procedure dealing with an ambiguity. The City Attorney stated that the Commission does determine that there is an ambiguity of use. If there is, a resolution and findings are conveyed to the City Council. There followed a discussion of what the readerboard should contain. City Attorney Karmel referred the applicant to the sign ordinance concerning prohibited signs. This states in part that a sign shall be prohibited if it carries the advertising of a person other than the occupant of the land on which it is placed. He commented that the sign would be acceptable if the reader board did not advertise anything which is prohibited by the sign ordinance. Mr. Connolly stated this would be agreeable to the applicant. Chairman Cistulli asked for audience comments against the sign. There were none. Two people in the audience spoke in favor, Mr. Roger Hayne, 1654 Ascencion, San Mateo, who has a business on old Bayshore; and Mr. Craig Thompson, resident manager of Burlingame Hyatt House. Secretary Jacobs read the aforementioned letters from neighboring businesses approving the sign. There followed a discussion of procedures necessary to resolve the ambiguity. City Planner Swan raised the question: Where is the responsibility for the sign when the Commission has approved a special permit? Should the sign come before the Commission? He stated he felt that there was an ambiguity since the Commission would like to see the sign because it was not a part of the plan, even though the sign would meet the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Mink agreed that there was an ambiguity in the granting of this special permit because the sign was not included as a condition. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the sign application be approved - with the word of the applicant that the sign would contain only advertising of the merchandise that is sold by him. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. There was discussion of how a motion could be formulated to resolve the ambiguity. Commissioner Taylor commented that he thought the City Planner wanted the Commission to resolve the question of whether a sign should be referred as a matter of policy on each special permit. He thought a resolution should be adopted. Commissioner Jacobs withdrew his motion. Commissioner Mink moved that for conditional uses requiring a special permit, addition of signs and additional structures or additional developments over and above the original plan are subject to Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. Commissioner Jacobs restated his motion, and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. RECONVENE After a recess at 10:35, the meeting reconvened at 10:50. 5. AMEND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REVISION OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SERVICE STATION AT BROADWAY AND ROLLINS ROAD. Chairman Cistulli announced this item for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read a letter from ARCO dated September 25, 1972, defining their final plans. These are essentially the same as approved earlier in the year, varying from the original only in internal and structural modifications. It also indicated compliance with the original conditions. City Planner Swan explained that Mr. Clausen had discussed with him the change in plans. The facade will not be brick or masonry unless the Planning Commission desires. It is now rustic - a board and batten exterior. There was some discussion of these revised ARCO plans which take this application out of stalemate. Commissioner Sine moved that the Commission accept these modified plans as presented by ARCO. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS 1. R-2A District Regulations: The City Planner explained that this is an updated draft of the proposed zoning code amendment. He spoke of the alternatives on parking - 1'h spaces per unit and 2 spaces per unit; mentioning that as a guideline 1'h spaces might be more realistic with 2 spaces for 3 or more bedrooms. He mentioned alternatives in lot coverage - 50% coverage; 60% corner lot with 55% interior; 60% corner lot with 50% interior. This draft is preliminary to bringing back a final draft so that it can be considered for hearing. - 10 - Commissioner Mink stated that if the open space requirements could be not less than 400 square feet he would be glad to go along with 60% on the corner lot and 50-55% coverage on the interior. He would prefer that no building exceed 2 stories exclusive of garage. The City Planner noted it was the intent that there be two living floors. If the base is devoted entirely to garage, there could be two levels of living above that. Chairman Cistulli brought up the question of the invasion of privacy to neighboring buildings engendered by two story buildings and stated he would like to see a little more coverage and the garage under one floor rather than two floors. He would rather have a garden type of building, and stated he thought a triplex would be just as good an investment as 4 units on a 9,000 square foot lot. A triplex would give a comfortable living area. He also stated he would limit the two stories of living area to not more than 22' in height. Commissioner Sine commented that other residential zones have a height limitation of 351, and felt this one should not be limited to 22". Commissioner Taylor suggested a requirement that the parking area be submerged. There was much further discussion. The City Planner suggested that this draft should be studied before an action is taken. Commissioner Sine suggested that the entire Commission have their comments available before a final review of the draft is made. It was agreed that this amendment be discussed at the regular meeting in November. 2. City Planner Reports October meeting: The City Planner suggested that the date for the regular meeting in October be changed, since Monday, October 23, is a holiday. It was agreed that the regular meeting would be held Monday, October 30. Census The City Planner reported that an updating census would be prepared October 1, 1972. SB1118. This bill refers to subdivision law and improvements thereto. The City Planner stated the League of California Cities bupports it, and he plans to draft a letter of support and present it to City Council, to be sent at their discretion. An application is being drafted to claim funds for a new public transportation system within the City of Burlingame. Notation of four planning commission items before the Council on October 2: Drive-in screen for Anza Pacific; 1000 Block Capuchin reclassification; Anza Pacific reclassification to C-4; Interim open space element. Notation of parking meeting, October 10. Special study meeting of City Council 4th of October relative to Anza Pacific property and the State Lands Commission. Commissioner Mink stated that he was impressed with certain parts of Proposal 20, the Coastline Initiative, and moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council consider a statement supporting Proposition 20. This was seconded by Commissioner Taylor and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG, MINK, CISTULLI, TAYLOR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to the study meeting of October 11, 1972. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm Jacobs Secretary