Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.02.25THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Norberg (excused) City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Davidson Kindig City Attorney Karmel Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:35 P.M., Chairman Kindig presiding. RECOGNITION - COMMISSIONER FRANCARD Chairman Kindig introduced Mr. Jules "Boots" Francard, newly appointed Planning Commissioner. He stated that Commissioner Francard would be a welcome addition to the Commission whose contributions would be especially valuable because of his previous career as Burlingame Park Director and his wide knowledge of the city. ROLL CALL ;! The above named members were present. Chairman Kindig noted that Commissioner Norberg was excused because of illness. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of January 28, 1974 were approved and adopted. The minutes of the study meeting of February 11, 1974 were approved and adopted with the following corrections: Page 4, Item 11. Sentence beginning "The City Attorney remarked that if this map was turned down .." Chairman Kindig stated this sentence belonged with Item 10, Map of 1477 Floribunda, since it was in response to his question on that item. PP. 3 and 4, Condominium at 1477 Floribunda - Commissioner Sine objected that his comments on this item were quoted by the press but were not include in the meeting minutes. He reiterated he had two years prior brought the problem of condominiums and conversions to the attention of the Planning Commission, but no definitive action had been taken during that time. Concerning condominiums, Commissioner Jacobs noted she had requested some type of guidelines on Santa Monica for the March meeting. Chairman Kindig informed Commissioner Francard that Items 1, 10, and 12 on the Agenda were continued items from previous public hearings; and while the Commissioner was invited to enter into discussion, he should abstain from voting on them. Commissioner Francard elected to abstain from all voting for this initial meeting. - 2 - HEARINGS: I. PARCEL MAP OF PORTION OF LANDS OF KATHLEEN MYRA DORS AT MARSTEN ROAD AND ROLLINS ROAD (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 28, 1974.) Secretary Sine read letter dated February 20, 1974 from Mr. Don Yarbrough, Trust Officer at Bank of America, requesting a further continuance on this item to the meeting of March 25, 1974. There was no objection from the Commission. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF LOT NOS. 16,17,18,19, BLOCK 7 AND LOT 1, BLOCK 10, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO, 6. This parcel map was distributed to Commission members for inspection. Chairman Kindig invited David Keyston of Anza Pacific to explain details of the map. Mr. Keyston told the Commission that this involves the development of a new Parcel "A" by eliminating lot lines of former Lots 17,18, and 19, and portion of Lot 16, Block 7. The S.E. boundary line of this "Parcel A" will be 82.50' north of the former boundary of these lots. The remaining south portion of the lots would then be contained in Parcel C. He continued that the reason for this parcel map is the construction of a new office building on Parcel A and the present lot lines do not coincide with the project lines. Mr. Keyston thought the remaining parcels comply with the zoning ordinance. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to questions from Commissioners Jacobs and Taylor, Mr. Keyston stated that the south portion of the four lots is tied into Parcel C in order to pledge the minimum amount of land to finance the building. Anza also wants to keep the parcel as small as possible to comply with code on landscaping. Commissioner Mink questioned if the driveway between Blocks 7 and 8 was a part of Block No. 10. It was established that it is. City Engineer Davidson had no comment on the map. Commissioner Mink moved the adoption of Tentative Parcel Map of Lot Nos. 16,17,18,19, Block 7 and Lot 1, Block 10, Anza Airport Park Unit No. 6, as submitted by drawings prepared by H. G. Hickey, dated February 3, 1974. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous roll call vote. 3. TENTATIVE RESUBDIVISION MAP OF LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 9, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO, 6. This tentative resubdivision map was distributed to the Commission for their inspection. Chairman Kindig invited David Keyston to address the Commission. Mr. Keyston reported that this is a resubdivision map rather than a - 3 - parcel map since only a lot line is to be eliminated. This parcel is being created for the construction of the temporary gasoline station for Anza. The project could not be situated on only one of the present lots, and the future public gas station might also cross the property line. The project will be diagonally across the intersection from 433 Airport Boulevard. City Engineer Davidson had no comment on this resubdivision map. There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. There was little Commission comment. Commissioner Sine moved the Commission approve the tentative resub- division map of Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, Anza #6, as drawn by H. G. Hickey, and received by the City on February 5, 1974. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. It carried. on unanimous roll call vote. 4. TENTATIVE MAP OF 1477 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, A CONDOMINIUM, BEING LOT 8, BLOCK 9, OF MAP NO. 2, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY, ZONED R-3 BY JOHN M. JOHNSON, Attorney Wilson Wendt of Oakland, was present as applicant's representative. Chairman Kindig requested City Planner Swan to review the background of this application. City Planner Swan explained that the apartment plans for 1477 Floribunda were submitted for review some time ago. However, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City passed the emergency ordinance requiring 1h parking spaces per apartment. As a consequence, the developer redesigned the outside parking area to provide three more parking spaces, eliminating 1,000 square feet of landscaping. The building permit was approved for the apartment April 2, 1973. In early August, 1973, the municipal code was revised by Ordinance 990 to require at least 1'h parking spaces for one bedroom apartments, at least two spaces for two -bedrooms, and 80% of all parking spaces to be covered. This applies to apartments, apartment -hotels and condominiums. In the City Planner's opinion, while it could be said that the apartment permit was valid, it did not actually satisfy the requirement for condominiums. He held that a condominium is a private space - a cluster of single family living units in one building. He stated the City Council had directed staff some time ago to explore haw the City could control condominium conversions. However, the solution is still being sought. This was a case in point because of inadequate parking. Mr. Wendt took the position that Ordinance 990 did not apply to this conversion since the building permit had been issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance. He argued that the project as an apartment was within the law. The filing of this tentative map merely effects a change from single ownership to multiple ownership. There is no change in design of the structure. Mr. Wendt further stated the Civil Code provides that, unless contrary provisions are made in City ordinance, like properties shall be treated - 4 - in a like way. Ordinance 990 lumps all three types together - apartments, apartment hotels, and condominiums. He added that if the City wants to control condominiums, the Subdivision Map Act provides this can be done by passing an appropriate ordinance. There was no response to Chairman Kindig's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. City Engineer Davidson stated his personal opinion, specifying it was subject to verification from the City Attorney. He said that in all cases where subdivision maps are presented, staff checks to see if they meet=existing codes., In this case he thought they are violating an existing code, that of parking. City Attorney Karmel commented that the problem of condominium conversions is state-wide. He noted defeat of last year's SB430 which would have permitted local ordinances controlling approval of conversions of structures to condominiums. This legislation was sent back to committee for further study where it remains. The City Attorney went on to say that one of the pertinent factors involved in determining whether Ordinance 990 is applicable is determination of whether the applicant had done substantial construction work on the project at the time the ordinance became effective. Building permits may be revoked prior to an expenditure of substantial funds and effort. He gave an example of rezoning, which obviously could lead to cancellation of a building permit. The fact that money has been spent on plans is not a sufficient expenditure. The points to be considered are: Was the work actually commenced? Was it done substantially? His opinion was that if substantial work was done under the permit issued, the City probably has no right to stop it. In response to Chairman Kindig, Attorney Wendt stated considerable work had been done. The permit was obtained 4/2/73 and the parking Ordinance became effective 8/2/73. Commissioner Sine commented that the building was topped out a month ago. Mr. Wendt stated a representative of the construction company was present who could confirm amount of work done. commissioner Jacobs questioned when the developer decided to convert to condominium. The attorney said this was in June, 1973. On further questioning it was established that the first notice the City had of this was the present tentative map received early this year. Commissioner Mink indicated he would like to postpone discussion until exact status of construction was determined. City Engineer Davidson gave the following inspection dates: 8/13/73 - inspection for column pads, building setbackst 8/14/73 - inspection for footings; 8/28/73 - inspection for block and steel, floor sheathing; 10/26/73 - first floor slab. Attorney Wendt commented that other apartment houses in Burlingame had converted to condominiums under the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Taylor replied that they meet parking requirements, and hen ce did not come before the Planning Commission. He added that if this condominium came before the Planning Commission as an apartment today, it would - 5 - need a variance because of the parking. Commissioner Mink was unable to establish with Mr. Wendt the exact areas on the plans which would be assigned for parking for each unit. There followed a discussion of what constituted common areas, with Commissioner Mink declaring he thought there was too much ambiguity for any action. Mr. Wendt called upon Mr. Bill Stevenson with Kirker, Chapman & Associates, who explained that each unit was assigned at least one parking stall. The balance of the stalls were distributed among the units either by lottery= monthly assignment, or other methods. Crimissioner Sine stated he did not because of economic feasibility. He of separate zoning for condominiums, of conversions of apartments to the years ago, like the fact of the conversion suggested future consideration and added he had brought the matter attention of staff and Council two Mr. Wendt was questioned how the condominium owner would have evidence of ownership of parking space. Mr. Wendt replied that each owner has an undivided portion of the conmwn area included in his document as well as assignment of parking space. Attorney Karmel asked if these covenants, conditions and restrictions could be submitted to City staff for substantiation of parking space ownership. Mr. Wendt replied that this could be possible when the CC & R's are complete. City Engineer Davidson recalled that sometime during the latter part of the year the developer had approached the Engineering Department with the condominium suggestion. However, both City Engineer and City Planner believed that a parking variance would be required. Commissioner Sine stated he was not opposed to the condominium but they do not have the proper parking. He suggested a continuance of one month to give the developer time for definitive answers. Mr. Wendt asked what information would be considered definitive. He was informed he should bring the C C & R's. He then asked if the tentative map could be approved subject to the City Attorney's approval of the CC & R's since his client would incur considerable expense in preparing these if the map is not approved. Commissioner Taylor declared that the applicant should decide what he wants, and if it is a condominium, should come in with definite answers. Attorney Wendt protested he still believed that Ordinance 990 did not apply to this conversion, but he would present CC & R's. Commissioner Sine moved that this application be granted a continuance of one month to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission in March of 1974. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. Chairman Kindig informed Mr. Wendt it would be helpful to have information for the next study meeting, March 11, 1974. On a question of procedure from Commissioner Mink, the City Attorney reported that any conditions or changes in a map should be made on the tentative map. The approving authority should have no right to insist on any changes in the final map if the final map is substantially in accord with the tentative map. - 6 - 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP COMBINING ALL OF LOT 7 AND 3 FEET OF LOT 8, ALL OF LOT 9, AND THE .REMAINING 35 FEEL OF LOT 8, BLOCK 11, EASTON ADDITION NO, 1 AT 945 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BY WM. VOLKER & CO. Chairman Kindig announced consideration of this tentative map, and copies were distributed for Commission inspection. Mr. Robert M. Blincoe, Vice -President of the idn. Volker Fund, told the Commission that this latest map excluded consideration of Lots 9 and 10. City Planner Swan had no comments on the map. City Engineer Davidson approved it basically as meeting all city codes. He commented some additional technical details must be furnished. There were no audience comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine moved this tentative parcel map be approved with the omissimn::of Lots 9 and 10 as per map submitted February 25, 1974. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous roll call vote. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUCKING AND TRUCK STORAGE YARD IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1246 ROLLINS ROAD BY COVEY TRUCKING CO., LESSEE OF BANK OF AFRICA, TRUSTEE AND LESSOR. (ND -31P POSTED 2/14/74) Chairman Kindig announced public hearing on this application. Mr. Spencer Covey was present and was invited by the Chair to give his reasons for obtaining this special permit. Mr. Covey briefly stated he simply wished to continue his business as it had been operated for the past three years in this location. Chairman Kindig requested audience comments. Mr. Frank Walsh, owner of W. & W. Tool & Die, 1322 Marsten Place, told the Commission his only objection was the amount of dust and dirt that Covey's trucks and equipment bring into the area of his machine shop. This is bad for Mr. Walsh's equipment. He also stated there was inadequate turn- around room for this large equipment in the easement as presently maintained. Win. Nerli, owner of property at 1320 Marsten Road, which houses a number of businesses, agreed with Mr. Walsh on the -nuisance created by Mr. Covey's large rigs. Through the Chair, Commissioner Mink questioned Mr. Nerli if he would be agreeable to this business if he were assured that the easement would be properly paved. Mr. Nerli stated he would, if that would solve the problem. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor stated he would like to have this application considered along with the continued item for the Bank of America easement affecting this property. Commissioner Mink questioned Mr. Covey if he would be willing to fence the property and pave the easement or have the landowner do it. Mr. Covey indicated he was not aware of what the owner proposed to do with the property as far as the other lessees are concerned, and so could - 7 - not determine whether fencing would be practicable or not. Commissioner Sine questioned if the lease agreement included the parking area. Mr. Covey replied that it did and that in April, 1973 he had sent notice to the Bank of America requesting his lease be renewed for two years. The City Planner questioned Mr. Covey on his interpretation of lease terms ". . those certain premises with the appurtenances . on stating there is no specific leased parking area. Mr. Covey replied he had begun his business at that location by subleasing from Johnson Drywall. Johnson Drywall had always used this space for parking and there had been no problem. In addition, the lease states, ". . for the purpose of conducting therein a trucking and related business . ." Mr. Covey was questioned if he had cooking facilities and apartment furniture on an upper floor. He replied there were no cooking facilities and furniture was stored for a friend. Commissioner Sine referenced minutes of April 23, 1973 stating he asked Mr. Covey where his equipment would be stored and Mr. Covey replied heavy equipment was stored at project site. Commissioner Sine commented he had seen five rigs there in the last two months. He further referenced these minutes in which he stated that "Obviously the problem of circulation for entry and exit of Covey's trucks had not been solved." The, --Commissioner stated that in the last year this problem has become worse and he thought the permit should be denied. Commissioner Taylor still felt it would be premature to take action on this before action is taken on the Bank of America easement. He wanted the easement and this application considered at the same time. Chairman Kindig thought this would not change the aspects of the Covey application and he did not feel the business belonged in this location. Mr. Covey protested he was bearing the brunt of the other newer businesses in the area, stating that when the fence was constructed for Blue Chip Stamp, it was not built in a way to allow a radius for larger vehicles, and was a violation of the fire code. City Engineer Davidson stated that the Fire Department is concerned about fire protection for this site. The nearest fire hydrant is 600-700' distant. He also indicated the Fire Inspector had found furniture set up on the second floor, seemingly for a bedroom. There were no cooking facilities except a hot plate on the first floor. Mr. Covey stated this furniture was being stored for an employee of Johnson Drywall. Commissioner Sine moved that the special permit to allow trucking and truck storage yard for Covey Trucking Company be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Covey was informed by Chairman Kindig he had the right of appeal to the City Council. - 8 - 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE UNCIASSIFIED PROPERTY, THE COTTAGE PORTION OF S.P. BURLINGAME DEPOT, FOR OFFICE USE BY DON ANDERSON AGENCY. _(ND -32P POSTED 2/14/74) Chairman Kindig announced hearing of this application, and sketches of the property were distributed. Mr. Donald G. Anderson, upon invitation, told the Commission he planned to use this property for offices for his company. His business would be that of an employment agency dealing with employment of entertainment in quality chain hotels and restaurants. He noted accounts serviced presently include Rodeway Inns, Hungry Tiger Restaurants, Hyatt, Tia Maria, etc. His agency would also operate as artists' manager. The business currently employs four people and traffic is minimal, mostly by invitation. There were no audience comments either for or against, and the public hearing was declared closed. City Planner Swan reported that an E.I.R. was not necessary on this application, but a Negative Declaration had been prepared, from which he quoted, "This unclassified area is contiguous to C-1 and C-2 Districts of downtown Burlingame where office, service, and retail uses are permitted."' He noted that one of the terms of the lease is that the lessee is responsible for maintenance of the garden area. He questioned Mr. Anderson on the contemplated work of putting two doors in the cottage fronting on the garden. Mr. Anderson stated these would be interior doors, and their interest was to preserve the property rather than change it. In response to questions from Chairman Kindig, Mr. Anderson stated the agency is currently occupying the building, and that the garden definitely will be maintained. He spoke of employing the services of the S.P. Janitor in building upkeep. Commissioner Taylor commented that the Labor Commissioner's Office had no record of their license and Mr. Taylor replied that a change of address has been put in. Commissioner Mink questioned the amount of parking and if this permit included a variance on the parking for commercial use. City Planner Swan replied that there were three parking spaces, but this unclassified property is owned by S.P. and is not actually zoned commercial. However, the Commission might wish to stipulate that the applicant provide additional parking. Mr. Anderson commented that additional space is provided for commuters at the other side of the station, and he did not visualize any parking problem. Commissioner Sine stated he had no objection to the parking since there is an adequate amount of metered parking to the north. Commissioner Mink moved that the special permit to use unclassified property, the cottage portion of S.P. Burlingame Depot for office use by Don Anderson Agency be approved with the conditions that the garden - 9 - area be improved to the satisfaction of the Burlingame Park Department and maintained in that stater also with the knowledge that there is inadequate parking on this site and the applicant is to seek additional parking elsewhere. There is a further condition that there be no exterior alterations. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW SMALL BOAT DRY STORAGE IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1231 WHITETHORN WAY BY ROBERT C. HOMESLEY (ND -33P POSTED 2,214/74) Chairman Kindig announced this application for hearing. Sketches were distributed. Mr. Robert C. Homesley was present. At the invitation of the Chairman he told the Commission this is a quonset type building to be used for the storage of boats up to 201, single axle trailers only. The building has a sprinkler system which is hooked into the Fire Department. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Neithsr the City Planner nor the City Engineer had comments on this application. In reply to questions from Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Homesley stated there will be about 20-25 boats parked in the 40' high building. There would be no repairs except general maintance such as changing a trailer tire, no painting or washing. The street would not be used as a wash area because there are no washing facilities. He added that boat owners usually wash'. -their boats immediately after coming out of the Bay to remove salt water. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned the street would be blocked if many boats came in at once, but Mr. Homesley said this probably would never happen. Commissioner Sine had noted a boat parked in front but Mr. Homesley assured him this was a mistake on the part of the boat owner and would not be permitted. Commissioner Mink moved that this special permit be approved with the conditions that storage be for small boats under 20' and single axle trailers, and that no repairs, no painting or washing be allowed on the premises. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. It carried on unanimous roll call vote. - 10 - 9. APPROVAL OF UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN SETBACK AREA PER SECTION 25.62.080 FOR PROJECT AT 533 AIRPORT BOULEVARD BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION (REF. EIRE -23P BEFORE COUNCIL) Planes for the underground garage were distributed to the Commission. At the invitation of Chairman Kindig, David Keyston addressed the Commission. He told them the plans are for a five -story office building at 533 Airport Boulevard. This would be a twin building to the one already opened at 433 Airport Boulevard except that the fifth floor would contain offices instead of a restaurant. This building will be parallel to Airport Boulevard, and the entire frontage will be closer to the street than the other. The entire length of the lower level garage will protrude into the front setback. The plans for the garage show a retaining wall at base level which would be built at a distance of 15' from the building face. From this retaining wall the ground would slope up to curb and sidewalk level - which is approximately 9' above the base of the garage. The slope up to the curb is to be landscaped. At the further end of the proposed building, the planting is extended back an additional 15 feet. This is where the people will be walking through the lobby. Elimination of the parking in this area will be offset by landscaping. On a question from Commissioner Sine, Mr. Keyston stated the City Council had requested revisions to the building plan as submitted to them; Anza had determined that it should come to the Planning Commission for encroachment of the parking structure on the front setback. Pending Planning Commission hearing, Anza Pacific had requested continuance of Council consideration to March 4, 1974. It was established that the height of the curb varies between 8.2'+ and 91+ and that the first floor height is 216" above curb line. Mr. Keyston commented that the floor, curb line, and parking structure are designed so that they do not interfere with the line of vision of occupants of automobiles on the boulevard. When questioned about the height of the landscaping, he stated that Anza's policy is to plant small trees; however, if a specific height is desired, they will be glad to comply. He noted Council suggestion that the open area of the garage be covered and the soil sloped up from the curb line to the front of the building and landscaped. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment on this application. In response, Arnold Rodman, 905 Morrell, suggested the developer follow the suggestion of a covered garage with landscaping sloped up from the curb line to the building. He considered this an improvement in design. There was no further audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. City Engineer Davidson was concerned with the possible impact of landscaping, such as trees, on the sight distance on the driveways. He noted he could not determine from the plan what the height of the landscaping would be in the street areas. City Planner Swan told the Commission he found it difficult to make positive comments on the landscaping plan. He noted the reason the parcel map for this site had been considered at this meeting was that it delineated a specific land area on which to calculate the requirement of 15% landscaping. He added that the rear area would be temporarily landscaped to temporarily satisfy landscaping requirements: there would be different landscaping.at a different location at a different time. The area along the rear lot line constitutes half of the required landscaping. The total planted area shown on the plan satisfies the 15% requirement. He doubted much would be seen because of the slope arrangement. He thought a lawn area between the sidewalk and the building would-be more attractive. The present plan does not adequately provide street trees. It was recommended that the number, size, and type of trees be designated. He added he thought landscaping could not positively screen off autos parked below the ground level. The City Planner went on to question the possible ambiguity of terming this an "underground garage" when over half of it is open to the sky. In his opinion this is a parking area below grade, and it is a misnomer to call it a garage. The office building will have a FAR 00.94. Combined with the parking structure as proposed it would have a FAR of 1.45. If the open garage were totally covered, the FAR would be about 1.5. He noted that the office building covers 19% of the lot. Combined with the parking structure they cover 72% of the land area. Mr. Keyston spoke to the terminology "underground garage," stating it is considered such only because of the retaining wall which is considered a structure. He commented that if he had eliminated the retaining wall and did not have a "structure" he would not need a permit. He added it would be feasible to cover the open area, but stated it would be very expensive, quoting a price of $5 - $6 per square foot. There will be a total of three buildings such as this in the master plan. 7be rest of the buildings are set back further and will have plazas. He pointed out the overall plan provides for 33% green landscaping, which is twice city requirements. Chairman Kindig stated he did not like the uncovered garage, although he realized the expense of covering it. He questioned if the slope would definitely be mounded. Mr. Keyston stated he would agree to this condition. Commissioner Taylor remarked he was recently in the building at 433 Airport Boulevard on an upper floor with a view toward a sea of automobiles in the parking lot. In front of this proposed -building, the view would include 151 feet of automobiles. He thought this should be screened. Mr. Keyston replied it would be very difficult to get close enough to a window to see the hood of a car in this garage because of angles involved and the fact that the building is 70' high. He agreed that the hoods would possibly be visible from the first floor. Commissioner Mink stated he would prefer that this be a variance. In support of his opinion he referenced Code Section 25.62.08 which conditions underground garages in setback areas, and stressed two of these conditions: a. "The surface of the structure . . . shall be suitably landscaped ." b. "The uppermost portion of any structure or attachment thereto shall not extend above natural grade." - 12 - He commented he was very uncomfortable in dealing with this section of the code in this instance, and noted that if the garage were - covered (extending from the first floor) it would be above grade. Mr. Keyston replied, referring to "surface of structure," that the only "structure" is a retaining wall. He claimed there is no prohibition of having a parking lot in a front setback. He again stated if he removed the retaining wall there would be no problem and no necessity for permit, but the appearance would be bad;. Commissioner Sine suggested the retaining wall be raised 3'; the cars be roofed over with plank at this height and landscaping placed on top. Mr. Keyston protested this would leak. The Commissioner replied the present arrangement will also leak. Commissioner Mink questioned if Mr. Keyston had a drawing or specification of the proposed mounding. Mr. Keyston indicated there was none. The Commissioner remarked it is customary to require everyone to submit drawings. Commissioner Frencard, after determining the Park Director would not be involved in this landscape review, suggested the addition of another retaining wall about B' back from the sidewalk, the top of the wall to be brought up to the level of the sidewalk. A planting area could be placed there. He considered this would help control drainage, would not be as costly as mounding, and would also eliminate possible hazard along the sidewalk. Commissioner Sine suggested this wall could be of concrete block. Chairman Kindig questioned Mr. Keyston regarding height of trees. Mr. Keyston stated their practice has been to plant and trim where desirables but he specified nothing would be allowed to interfere with traffic. Chairman Kindig questioned the time limitation on this application. Mr. Keyston indicated he would appreciate conditional approval so that the project could again be heard by the Council on March 4. Commissioner Taylor remarked he would prefer to see plans for the second wall before voting; Mr. Keyston stated he would be glad to furnish them and suggested it be approved subject to these plans. Commissioner Taylor moved that conditional approval be granted to underground garage in setback area per Section 25.62.08 for project at 533 Airport Boulevard subject to Planning Commission review and approval of final plan and drawings for landscaping in front of building. These plans are to be in accordance with consensus of Commission opinion as expressed at this meeting. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. Commissioner Mink stated he was in agreement with the intent_of the motion, but this is really not an underground garage, but parking in a front setback with associated landscaping. He questioned when does a retaining wall become part of a structure and when is it part of the landscaping. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. 5 - 13 - 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALWW A PRIVATE GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AT 480 AIRPORT BOULEVARD BY ANZA PACIFIC CORP. (ND -30) POSTED 2/14/74) Plans were distributed to Commissioners. At the invitation of Chairman Kindig, Mr. David Keyston addressed the Commission. Mr.-Keyston stated that this will be a private gasoline service station temporarily, but Anza has endeavored to determine the most logical site for a permanent station, and make the private station a part of the permanent one. He noted submission. -of an additional plan showing the extent of construction and landscaping in this first phase. This station will be at the corner of Anza Pacific Boulevard and Airport Boulevard, and will be two level. The service level will be 5' below the curb. From this level there will be a ramp into the future underground parking which will be 8' below the level of the curb. Tentatively there will be no sign except one built into the stone base on the ground. Present plans are for underground tanks, parking ramps, a concrete slab and one pump. Chairman Kindig requested audience comments. Mr. Arnold Rodman of 905 Morrell, responded. He questioned Mr. Keyston as to the exact definition of "Private" gas station. Mr. Keyston said the station would be used by Anza Pacific, its employees and security. Mr. Rodman then suggested a condition of the permit be that when a future commercial station is bust, it be a complete station according to the plan. There were no further comments. Public hearing declared closed. City Engineer Davidson questioned if grades shown were the proposed future grades. Mr. Keyston stated they were. City Planner Swan noted the 30' landscaped yard, but commented that the Planning Commission had just set a precedent by allowing parking in the front setback in the Waterfront Commercial District. Commissioner Francard questioned the amount of daily traffic with the possibility of its blocking the islands. Mr. Keyston stated there would be no probability of blockage with only 10-12 cars per day. Commissioner Jacobs questioned conformance of this station to the zoning code. City Planner Swan referenced Code Amendment to Section 25.74.02, June 12, 1972. This amendment added sub -paragraph which specified that detailed development plans must be approved and be in the interests of the business community and the public. Commissioner Jacobs asked if gas stations would therefore have to serve the public. The City Planner replied that a private gasoline station might be permitted under the "other use" section of the code if found to be compatible with the purposes of the District. There followed Commission discussion on the compatibility of this use with the C-4 district. Commissioner Sine moved that the special permit to allow a private gasoline service station at 480 Airport Boulevard be approved in accordance with proposed plans submitted February 25, 1974, and with - 14 - the condition that once the private use is no longer private, the final phase of development as presented in the plans should be implemented. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 11. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 3 POLE SIGNS MORE THAN 20 FEET IN HEIGHT IN C-2 DISTRICT BY DICK BULLIS CHEVROLET. At the onset of the hearing, Commissioner Sine announced he did not feel he could participate or vote fairly in this hearing because of personal feelings regarding the applicant. He joined the audience. Mr. Glen Crum of Empire Permit Systems, San Leandro, represented the applicant. He was invited by the Chairman to address the Commission. Mr. Crum reported that two variances are included in this application - one for 137 Sr sign, 30' high at the main showroom at 100 California Drive] and one for two signs, each 92 SF, 22' high at the used car and truck location at 21 California Drive. All present signs on the buildings will be removed, including Chevrolet emblems and the large roof sign at 100 California Drive. He told the Commission the owner had decided to keep the painting of the main building as it is - black with white cutouts. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment. Arnold Rodman, 905 Morrell, responded. He was not too concerned with the height of the signs, but did think the overall size was too large for that location. He thought approval of this variance should be conditioned by repainting of the building and removal of the graphics. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Kindig asked the City Planner for comparison of these signs with those of Arata. The City Planner replied that Arata had two main signs, the larger 11' x 11' x 30' high, and the smaller used car sign 8' x 8' x 22' high. He commented that Arata had reduced these in size and height from a previous request. Commissioner -Jacobs and Chairman Kindig voiced concern about the large roof sign, and Mr. Crum reaffirmed that it would be taken down. Commissioner Taylor commented that at the recent League of California Cities convention it had been reported that it was possible for General Motors and others to easily modify their "standardized" signs. This opens the possibility of scaling down existing auto signs in this city. The previous concept had been that it was difficult for these companies to modify their nationalized sign programs. Mr. Crum commented the present application had been modified considerably as to size and height. Commissioner Mink stated he felt differently about Pontiac signs, since Pontiac is at the entrance to the business district, and these are at the entrance to the automobile district. Mr. Crum stated these signs are practically the same size as Arata. Commissioners Mink and Jacobs initiated a discussion of the painted building and its graphics, with Commissioner Mink commenting it was - 15 - appropriate to condition a variance, and in this instance the building could be a condition. After further discussion, Commissioner Mink moved that sign variance for three pole signs more than 20 feet in height in C-2 District by Dick Bullis Chevrolet be approved. Sign #1 is to have a marginal face size of 11' x 111; Signs #2 and #4 are to have a marginal face size of 818" x 818". These are to be double faced signs, internally illuminated, and located per the drawings submitted. Sign plan as outlined by applicant's representative is to be followed, with the condition that the graphics on the building at 100 California Drive be removed. Chairman Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK, TAYLOR, KINDIG NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERSi FRANCARD, SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG 12. SIGN PERMIT FOR BANK OF AMERICAN 400 EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 28, 1974) Secretary Sine read letter dated February 25, 1974 from Gene Izuno, architect with Continental Service Company requesting continuance on this application, and permission to appear before the March 11, 1974 study session. Commission members had no objection to the continuation of this application to March. 13. SIGN PERMIT FOR PENGUIN LOUNGE AT 261 CALIFORNIA DRIVE It was determined that there was no representative of the applicant present. Commissioner Sine commented that the applicant was informed at the study meeting it would be necessary to be at this hearing, and inquired if any communication had been received by staff. It was indicated none had been. Commissioner Taylor suggested that possibly he should be made to show cause why his permit should not be revoked. Commissioner Mink commented that the Planning Commission had originally found the sign acceptable. The permit was granted for six months only to determine community reaction. Commissioner Sine thought this sign was erected originally without a permit, and if the Planning Commission approved it, they would be condoning an illegal sign. Chairman Kindig did not agree, stating that the matter of the sign being erected without a permit was settled six months ago. Commissioner Mink felt the hearing should be on the merits of the sign, not the character of the applicant and requested that the record show - 16 - that at a previous hearing in January the community reaction had been favorable. City Planner Swan quoted summary of minutes as stating, "The applicant indicated he wished to continue existing graphic design without change." Commissioner Mink moved the sign permit for the Penguin Lounge be approved. Commissioner Taylor seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK,TAYLOR,KINDIG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS !:JACOBS, FRANCARD 14. SIGN PERMIT FOR YANKEE DOODLE SKATE COUNTRY AT 1250 ROLLINS ROAD Chairman Kindig announced consideration of this application and invited Mr. Lawrence L. Lockwood to make his presentation to the Commission. Sign Plans were distributed to the Commission. Mr. Lockwood stated he wished a permit for three signs: one plastic 4' x 8' pole sign with fluorescent tubing set at the top corner of the building= one 2' x 30' sign on the back of the building facing the freewayp and one lh' x 25' sign facing Rollins Road. The signs are white with blue lettering. The pole sign would be 9'+ higher than the roof. There was Commission discussion on the fact that advertising displays are prohibited facing the freeway. Commissioner Jacobs suggested the words, "roller skating" be eliminated from the sign on the building facing the freeway. This was agreeable to the applicant. There was no audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine suggested that the possibility of eliminating roof top signs be investigated in the -future. The applicant explained that in this case the roof is the only place for this sign because of the trees on the corner. Chairman Kindig stated he disliked roof top signs also, but in this case a pole sign would have to be as high as the roof sign and nothing would be gained. Commissioner Mink moved this sign permit be approved according to drawings submitted with the exception that the words, "Roller Skating" be eliminated from the sign facing the freeway,_and it show only "Yankee Doodle Skate Country." Colors to be white with blue lettering. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, MINK, TAYLOR, KINDIG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD - 17 - 15. SIGN PERMIT FOR THE EGGPLANT AT 1310 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Mr. Vincent Russo was present as applicant and told the Commission that this carved wooden sign was a part of the building facade and contained no illumination. There was Commission comment that this is a well-done and tasteful sign. There were no audience comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink moved.the sign permit for the Eggplant be approved as currently constructed. There was some facetious comment on the custom of erecting a sign and then applying for a permit. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. GENERAL City Planner Swan brought up the subject of a sign applicant whose sign measured 3'h' x 9' or 31h square feet. However, because of 3' x 3's around the edge of the sign, the actual sign dimensions would be 45 square feet. This raises the question of what is to be measured - inside or outside dimensions of a sign. Discussion followed. Commissioner Mink commented that the report on the League of California Cities again brought up consideration of an architectural committee. Both he and Commissioner Taylor thought this idea should again be considered in relation to visual impact. There was little discussion at this time of the EIR procedure transmitted to the Commissioners. Commissioner Mink announced he would be unable to attend the March study meeting because of prior commitments. City Planner Swan and Commissioner Taylor told the Commission they would report on their attendance at the League of California Cities Conference at the study meeting in March. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary