Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.02.23THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 1976 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Norberg (excused - City Planner Swan Jacobs family illness) Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P. M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of February 9, 1976 were approved as written. 1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 40, THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 39 AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 41, BLOCK 58, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7, AT 1348 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR JOHN DEVINE Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. City Planner Swan distributed copies of this tentative and final map, and reported to Commissioners that the house has been remodeled so that it fits Lhe requirements for side yards on a 50' wide lot. This map divides Mr. Devine's lots into two 50' wide lots. City Engineer Davidson confirmed that this map met all engineering 'standards. He suggested that approval of the tentative map be conditioned that the applicant is to provide sewer and water service for the vacant lot, or is to provide bond for these services. Commissioner Jacobs remarked that Mr. Devine was to be complimented for his solution. Mr. Devine was accorded the floor and remarked only that he was willing to meet the conditions required. There was no response to the Chairman's request for public comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved that this tentative and final map be approved with a condition that public utilities be installed on the vacant lot or a bond provided for their installation. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. - 2 - 2. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 6, 11 AND 12 AND A PORTION OF 7, 10, 13, BLOCK 8, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR FIR -FED SERVICE CORPORATION Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing and requested staff report. City Engineer Davidson reminded Commissioners they had approved the tentative map with conditions that the parcel line between Parcel 1 and 2 be removed - which has been done - and that structures on the property be removed, which is in the process of being done. All other conditions have been met, and this final map does satisfy the requirements of the Map Act. He noted there is only one structure on the property right now which meets regulations. There was no audience comment in response to Chairman Sine's query, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig moved that this final parcel map be approved. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 3. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-34P FOR FLORIBUNDA CASITAS, A PROPOSED 30 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, AT (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) 1515 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, BY "FLORIBUNDA DEVELOPERS" (NICOLAIDES & SON) In introducing this EIR City Planner Swan read Section 25.04.01 of the Municipal Code which establishes the purpose of the zoning code as protection of the property rights of the City's citizens. He commented that staff and Commission do attempt to satisfy the zoning code, and identified the purpose of an EIR as being to bring information into the public meeting. The City Planner reported to Commissioners that the Draft EIR for this 30 unit project had several revisions. The design has been revised to have a carriage entrance. There will be about 34' more curb openings than presently exist. There had been changes on PP. 9, 13, and 14 to establish additional widths in driveways. He commented on the magnitude of the project which will be three stories in height - 35'6" - and will occupy 39,215 SF. However, lot coverage does not exceed 50%, and there will be just enough parking to satisfy requirements. Staff has inspected the plan with attention to dens, and has included those which could become bedrooms in the parking calculations. He suggested that the nine exterior parking spaces not be allocated to condominium owners, but be designated for guest parking. The City Planner quoted from his project evaluation, "The Floribunda Casitas 30 -unit condominium project is expected to be of high quality construction, visually attractive, tastefully landscaped, and well maintained. Stable, mature adults will be attracted to become home owners at this close -to -Burlingame Avenue location. Project approval is recommended because it will provide net benefits to the local environment and to Burlingame." He added that the staff recommends Planning Commission approval of the draft EIR, and forwarding it on to Council for consideration. There followed a period of Commission - 3 - discussion. Commissioner Kindig thought statement on Page 13 that 34 additional feet of openings in the curb space would have a "minimal" impact on street parking space was illogical. Commissioner Mink suggested substitution of " . . . so that street parking space is mini -rally reduced." Commissioner Mink suggested the sentence preceding this be corrected to "The greatly increased number of offstreet parking spaces provided will take many parked cars off the streets . . ." The Commissioner also suggested the last sentence in Section 3, Page 10 be changed to "Thus, the potential enrollment in Burlingame schools will be reduced." Also, he wanted the last sentence in Section 1, Page 13 to be changed to end with the phr ase ". . eliminates any potential enrollment in the Burlingame schools. Page 10, Section 3, additional units should be listed as 11 rather than 9. Commissioner Mink questioned the item on storm sewer on Page 11, and received confirmation from the City Engineer that drainage water from this project must go under the sidewalks. Commissioner Taylor remarked that Page 10, Section 3, should show that the additional 11 units would add approximately 16-17 more people. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the size of the dens. Mr. Arthur Dudley introduced himself as representative of the developer, and told the Commissioner that the dens vary in size. The one bedroom, one bath and den units will have dens approximately 12' x 101. In the larger units the dens are increased in size to 11' x 12' and 11' x 13'. In every instance except in one type of unit, they are very definitely dens since they are located off the living rooms. In one unit on each floor, for a total of three units, the den is located in a hall area with the bedrooms and bath. However, this is definitely a den with wet bar and other accoutrements. Mrs. Jacobs received confirmation from City Planner Swan that even if the dens were considered as bedrooms, parking would be adequate. Chairman Sine questioned if Mr. Dudley was agreeable to the proposed changes in the EIR. Mr. Dudley affirmed he was and would revise the pages. There was no audience comment in response to the Chairman's request, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Planning Commission accept Draft EIR 34-P as amended for this project and recommend it to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR FLORIBUNDA CASITAS AT 1515 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (APN 029-111-020/030/040 AND PORTION OF 050) ZONED R-3, BY "FLORIBUNDA DEVELOPERS" (NICOLAIDES & SON, APPLICANT) AND FIR -FED SERVICE CORPORATION (PROPERTY OWNER). Chairman Sine introduced this subject for consideration. City Planner - 4 - Swan, commenting that this is the first condominium permit to be considered by the Planning Commission, drew attention to the two complete sets of plans before the Commission. He described the parking areas in detail for the fifty covered spaces underneath the building, the three uncovered underneath, and the nine surface spaces. He read from Ordinance 1015,"No condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the Planning Commission or City Council upon appeal or review, shall have reviewed and approved the following on the basis of their effect on sound community planning, the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community, and on public health, safety and general welfare:" Documentation specified included detailed development plan, a landscaping plan, lighting plan, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, and other information. He stated all of these documentation require- ments had been satisfied and the condominium application was complete. The City Planner stated the condominium conforms to zoning require- ments, and there should be a finding that it -is in conformity with the General Plan and residential zoning. A residential density of 33 units per net acre will be less than the 51 units or more per net residential acre shown on the General Plan Diagram. He suggested the nine surface parking spaces be reserved for guest parking. The City Planner told Commissioners the landscaping plan had been reviewed and approved by the Park Director. He pointed out detailed plans of the units, noting they have privacy, and that condominium guidelines have been followed, establishing types of separation wall, provisions for insulation, types of utilities, separate heating and air conditioning facilities for individual units, and other require- ments. The next step, he noted, would be a subdivision of the living space within the building to create individual properties. He went on to say he thought the anticipated noise level would satisfy the noise element requirement of less than 45 dcb. The CC&R's are consistent with those prepared in the past. With these comments, the City Planner stated he could wholeheartedly endorse the project, and recommended a favorable vote. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how the noise level could be anticipated. The City Planner told her this assumption was made from reviewing the floor plans. Commissioner Kindig questioned the use and security of the three uncovered parking spaces in the secured underground garage. Mr. Dudley explained these spaces are in the rear setback, and hence cannot be covered. However, there is a 6' fence at the top and there would be a 14' drop into the basement. Also, the basement elevator must be opened by a key, and intruders thus cannot get into the building proper. These three spaces are intended as second spaces for the less expensive apartments. Commissioner Jacobs questioned Mr. Dudley regarding the surface parking for guests. Mr. Dudley stated it would be so assigned if the Commission desired, but the applicant would prefer it be assigned to apartments, giving all apartments two parking spaces. He felt there was not much need for guest parking in that many owners have only one car, and parking averages in other condominiums have been 1.6 per unit. When questioned by Commissioner Kindig on the passibility of owners' renting their extra spaces, Mr. Dudley considered this would not be a problem, since condominium - 5 - owners are concerned with building security and would not want outsiders in the building. He suggested that four guest spaces would be more than adequate. There were no audience comments in response to the Chairman's inquiry and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the condominium permit be approved withihe condition that four of the outside spaces be designated as guest spaces. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. On the question, Commissioner Mink queried the City Planner as to requirements for guest parking. The City Planner replied that there is no stipulated figure. Guest parking is assumed to be included in the new parking requirements He had recommended that guest parking be available. Commissioner Taylor remarked he would like to approve the permit, but objected to voting for the additional restriction of guest parking when the restriction was already covered by parking regulations. Commissioners Jacobs and Kindig agreed to remove the four guest parking spaces from their motion and second. The amended motion then carried on unanimous roll call vote. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chairman Sine acknowledged the presence in the audience of Council candidates Irving Amstrup and Harry Graham, and candidate for Treasurer, Herbert Sommer. He commented that in the Planning Commission's usual tradition of quiet dignity and good taste there would be no public endorsement of candidates by any member of this commission. 5. VARIANCE TO COVER MORE THAN 40% OF AN R-1 LOT AT 419 DWIGHT ROAD (APN 029-181-110) BY MR. AND MRS. ERNEST SCHENONE. Chairman Sine introduced this application. City Planner Swan explained that lot coverage on an R-1 lot may be 40%. The Schenones' existing buildings cover 38;�$ of the lot, and they propose to add a family room that will increase lot coverage to 45&2$. The application is well documented and has a site plan. He introduced Mr. and Mrs. Schenone. Mr. Schenone was given permission to address the Commission. He told Commissioners all information was contained in his letter of appli- cation. Secretary Jacobs read letter of application from Mr. Schenone dated 1/30/76 in which he states his desire to have a family room for the convenience of his grandchildren. He also stated that he was of retimnent age and his present location is convenient to him. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Kindig Mr. Schenone verified that the addition would be only one story high. There was no audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig moved the variance be approved in accordance with - 6 - plans submitted. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AT 500-600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ON PORTIONS OF LOTS 9-19, BLOCK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. 6 AND PORTIONS OF STATE PARCELS 9 AND 10 (APN 026-342-210, 026-361-010 THROUGH 110 AND 26-361-140) ZONED C-4, BY ANZA PACIFIC CORP. Chairman Sine introduced this subject for hearing. City Planner Swan prefaced his review of the application with a reading of Code Section 25.41.01 - Scope and Purpose of Regulations for the Waterfront Commercial District. This provides for land uses, buildings and structures that will benefit from their proximity to San Francisco Bay." The City Planner then referenced Section 25.41.02, "Permitted Uses;" Section 25.41.025, "Conditional Uses Requiring a Special Permit;" and Section 25.41.03, "Prohibited Uses." He commented that this situation is unusual and the matter of this uncertain land use could be interpreted in different ways. It could be considered as prohibited, since that section specifically prohibits outdoor storage of merchandise. It might be considered under "other uses" but in that event must be found compatible with the area. He questioned if this use was compatible. He noted the applicant's stated purpose of obtaining a special permit at this early date was to take advantage of the availability of rock for paving. The City Planner noted that rock paving could be done without a building permit or a special permit. In the event the Commission found this type of use compatible with the district, he questioned its time limitation and the exact area where it would be conducted. He pointed out the general area outlined by Anza and noted that it includes area owned by the State. He questioned a temporary use in connection with the lease from the State. The City Planner then discussed the matter of precedent, emphasizing that if this is approved, other waterfront commercial property must be treated with the same consideration. Mr. David Keyston addressed the Commission, stating that Anza wants a high-quality use for this land and they consider this is a step in that direction. He stated he would accept as a condition the stipulation that this land be a substitute for other lands presently under permit for this type of use. Anza anticipates that lands south of Airport Boulevard will be developed before this section and present tenants there need an alternate space. Mr. Keyston told Commissioners that the State lease provides that no structure may extend more than 4' above the curb line. Thus the use of this land for automobile parking would not be inconsistent with State requirements, since in this low area no automobile would be parked with its roof above the curb line. Commissioner Kindig commented that Anza could fill this area without a special permit. Mr. Keyston agreed, but pointed out that they do not wish to go to the expense of good fill if the land cannot be - 7 - used. He assured the Commissioner that it would he good fill so that the area would not need paving for storage. He offered to delay the application if the Commission chose. Commissioner Jacobs commented she thought this area was away from the city enough for this use, and she did not think precedent would.be set, questioning what other areas have this much land. She queried the City Attorney as to whether responsibility for State lands lies with Anza or with the City. City Attorney Coleman replied that City laws must be complied with on State lands, but Anza's permit for their use would be legal. The Commissioner commented that the land is just setting there and she saw no reason to make Anza come back at a later time for a permit. Commissioner Taylor stated that this application dealt with a special and specific need and it should not have any impact on any.other pernanentiB e of quality, and he considered it compatible with the ultimate use of the property. Commissioner Mink objected, stating he did not find the use compatible, finding the storage of cars and the parking of cars quite different uses. He did not find this application in harmony with the Open Space Element of the General Plan; and did not wish to convey tacit approval by stating that Anza could come back with a later application for this use. While Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that this temporary use could have a time limit, Commissioner Mink declared that there were some uses he would not consider for C-4. He noted that this property lays between a major arterial and the Bay, and this use could interfere with the use of the Bay by fishermen. Again Commissioner Jacobs stated this was a temporary use only and Anza did own the land. The fishermen were merely on it. Commissioner Francard agreed with Commissioner Mink that there is quite a difference between a parking lot and this storage lot. Commissioner Kindig questioned Mr. K -:E!yston if this use would interfere with the access of the fishermen to the water. Mr. Keyston replied that it would not. There was access completely around the lagoon where he had not seen fishermen, and the area is 500-600' inland from the Bayfront. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor moved this application be approved with the condition that it be granted for not more than 18 months. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. Commissioner Mink questioned if the fence along Airport Boulevard would be set less than 4' above the curb. There was comment that State regulations would cover this. The Commissioner then questioned if there would be additional landscaping. Por. Keyston stated they would be happy to put any reasonable landscaping in. There was some that would be put in during the next few weeks, and Anza will proceed with landscaping any areas that are particularly unsightly. On a question from Commissioner Mink regarding sump pumps in the property, he replied that they are operative. City Planner Swan questioned if this permit should go with the land so that any buyer would have a valid permit. City Attorney Coleman replied that since permits usually go with the land, they could be conveyed by selling unless specifically restricted. Commissioner Taylor amended his motion to include the statement that this temporary permit would be limited to Anza Pacific and/or their Trust, and is non -assignable. Commissioner Kindig accepted this statement for his second, and the motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,TAYLOR,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG Commissioner Kindig remarked he had some reservations on the subject of precedents, and would like to discuss this at a future study meeting. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1320 MARSTEN ROAD (APN 026-134-030) ZONED M-1, BY SCOTT ERICKSON OF BAY AREA COMPACTS ONLY LESSEE, AND WILLIAM NERLI (PROPERTY OWNER.) After Chairman Sine had introduced this application, Assistant City Planner Yost explained that this car rental agency is proposed in an existing building which has three tenants. The agency will occupy the middle bay and have 200 SF of office space and 2,500 SF of warehouse for storage of compact cars. In front of the warehouse is a 5,000 SF area, half of which the applicant intends to lease. His hours of operation will be from 7:30 A. M. to 9:00 P. M. The Assistant City Planner quoted letter from Mr. Scott Erickson, dated February 3, 1976 setting forth the details of this proposed business. He proposes to operate a fleet of 35-40 rental cars, and anticipates his business will come half from the airport and half from local customers. Maintenance work for the fleet would be at the Santa Clara location, and no internal or external modifications would be made to the building.. Noting the site's proximity to the Dore property, the Assistant City Planner posed two questions about this application: Has this firm picked the right location? Will the facility to be leased be adequate for this firm? Mr. Scott Erickson told Commissioners his firm had researched the area between South San Francisco and Burlingame and had chosen this site because proximity to the airport is a requirement of the franchise. He thought the facilities were adequate, and pointed out that the staff of four full time and two part time employees is for two shifts. Commissioner Francard questioned if any of the Dore property is included in this lease. The reply was negative. Commissioner Jacobs commented on the photographs of the site which had been distributed. She thought the road to the site seemed in need of repair. Mr. Erickson considered that the road was adequate, and stated he did not intend to repave it. - 9 - Commissioner Mink stated he had visited the site and questioned how the applicant was going to partitition the fenced space. Again Mr. Erickson stated he considered he was entitled to one-half of the space, and since there was very little parking in that area, he anticipated no problem in getting it. The Commissioner asked if he intended to have outside overnight storage. The applicant replied he did not desire this; but in the event it was necessary he would consider lighting the area. He noted that it does have sliding gates for security. There was no audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig voiced sympathy for this type of facility, but noted the difficulties of the area with regard to congestion and other problems. He suggested this was the wrong area for the applicant. Commissioner Taylor shared this concern, noting that permits for this type of use had been granted on the other side of the freeway. He objected to the use in this area. On a question from Commissioner Francard, the applicant stated there would be no improvements to the property. Chairman Sine echoed Commissioner Kindig's thought that the'applicant had picked the wrong location. Commissioner Mink noted that Mr. Nerli had tried very hard to maintain his property and he did not like to see him condemned for his neighbors. However, until the Dore subdivision goes through, he thought it was not a good place for this business. Commissioner Kindig agreed that Mr. Nerli had been cooperative. He moved that the Commission deny this application for special permit. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Sine told Mr. Erickson he had the right of appeal to the City Council. Noting that he too, was sympathetic, he questioned if Mr. Erickson wished to remove the sign application, Item 14,.from the agenda. Mr. Erickson agreed. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF FOOD AT RETAIL AT 1461 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-111-110) ZONED M-1, BY WALTER SEELOS OF CLUB CATERING (LESSEE) AND UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FUND LTD. (PROPERTY OWNER) Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. Assistant City Planner Yost explained that this restaurant has 825 SF of existing work and kitchen space at 1461 Bayshore Highway. Mr. Seelos wishes to make a small cafe here, selling light meals and take-out food. Hours would be from 10:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M. He noted Commissioners had before them plans and some photos of the site. It is expected that the present employees can handle the additional business, and that 45 persons could be seated in the area. Most customers are expected to walk from nearby offices. The Assistant City Planner quoted Mr. Seelos' letter of application, and stated that Mr. Seelos had prepared a parking layout. - 10 - Mr. Seelos was accorded the floor, and presented a parking plan to Commissioners. He thought there was a need in this area for a low cost food service. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Harvey Carter, 2729 Trousdale, responded, stating he had known Mr. Seelos for many years, that he was a good citizen who would do as he promised. He thought the permit should be granted. There was no other comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if there could be a few more spaces in the parking area, and if Mr. Seelos could put in more landscaping. Mr. Seelos stated he intended to plant the strip along the parking lot fronting on Bayshore. Commissioner Taylor stated that in his opinion this use met an area need. As that area is developed, the tenants and employees must have access to quality food at modest prices. This type of food establishment has been allowed in other sections of the same area. This approval is consistent with prior actions and with long range planning. Commissioner Kindig commented the Commission has concerns with retail uses in the M-1 district, but he thought this use was justified. Commissioner Kindig moved that the special permit be granted subject to the condition that the 30" strip along the parking lot fronting on Bayshore be planted; and with the further condition that this permit be granted only to Mr. Seelos D/B/A Club Catering, and is not to run with the land. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BEAUTY SALON IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-321-370) BY NEIL VANNUCCI OF V & T INVESTMENTS. After Chairman Sine introduced this application, City Planner Swan distributed plans to the Commission. These showed a proposed partition that would isolate the NW rear corner of the building for use as a beauty shop. He also distributed photos showing different views of the building and parking area. The City Planner considered that parking would be an important consideration, noting a retail establishment requires one parking space per 400 SF and an office building, 1 space per 300 SF. This establishment would require at least 4 parking spaces. Eventually and assuming six stations, there would be a total of 12 people, six employees and six patrons. The City Planner broached the subject of precedent for a retail shop in this M-1 area, and quoted code purpose for this district. He commented the Commission must exercise discretion in determining whether or not this use is compatible with this district. Mr. Neil Vannucci was given permission to address the Commission. He pointed out that they have 7,000 SF warehouse, of which a large part is dead storage; in addition, much of the office building space is not useable building, being devoted to corridors and like areas. Therefore, he felt there was actually excessive parking. In justifying that use in that area, he noted that most businesses fronting on Bayshore are not M-1 in character, and many are on a special permit basis. He suggested the Commission consider rezoning of at least the frontage on Bayshore. He added that his tenant would have a clientele which would be very selective - a following of airline stewardesses. They would be quartered in nearby hotels and could be picked up by minibus. There would be some business from the office complexes and from the restaurant staffs in the area. Chairman Sine commented that even if the parking is adequate for this tenant, there is no assurance he will be there one year from now. Mr. Vannucci replied that in the event the use changed, the new lessee would have to appear before the Commission, and parking could again be studied. He mentioned his difficulties in renting this building and noted again the large amount of waste space in it devoted to lobby, halls, bathrooms, etc. Chairman Sine and Commissioner Jacobs noted the presence of beauty shops in three of the hotels, and Commissioner Jacobs questioned what "specialized services" were offered. Mr. Vannucci told her that the airline personnel has a certain criteria for appearance. His tenant is not interested in the street traffic as such. Commissioner Jacobs was reluctant to extend retail sales such as this without first addressing the question of rezoning. Mr. Vannucci pointed out that retail uses, such as restaurants, are on the street already. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor stated his objection was based on use. He believed the Commission should allow use exceptions where the service sought to be provided is needed by the tenants and employees of the area. He did not believe that the Commission should allow retail uses in an M-1 district where the customers are being solicited elsewhere, where the use is not necessarily designed to meet an area need. Commissioner Kindig said he would like to have Mr. Vannucci get his building leased, but he had reservations about that type of retail use in that area. Commissioner Francard voiced his concern with the parking. Commissioner Mink pointed out that this area is now a hodge-podge of mixed permitted uses which have given the area, piece by piece, a commercial character. He considered this use an appropriate use in this area, and moved the application for special permit be granted. Commissioner Jacobs seconded with the understanding she would vote against the motion. Commissioner Mink questioned if Mr. Vannucci had objection to specifying the permit for just this tenant. Mr. Vannucci stated he had none. The Commissioner amended his motion to include that the permit should be granted to Mr. Vannucci for the use of Jerry Norcia only. Commissioner Jacobs withdrew her second. There was no subsequent second and the motion failed. Commissioner Kindig moved the application be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll - 12 call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK,TAYLOR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG Mr. Vannucci was informed he had the right of appeal to the City Council. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SERVICING AND INSTALLATION OF MARINE ENGINES IN THE C-1 DISTRICT AT 247-251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (APN 029-211-040/050) BY THOR THORSTENSON (APPLICANT), R. A. WHITE (OWNER OF 251 CALIFORNIA), AND EUGENE AND LOUIS IVANI (OWNERS OF 247 CALIFORNIA. This application was introduced by Chairman Sine, who then requested staff report. City Planner Swan told Commissioners Mr. Thorstenson had initiated his business in 1967. Prior to his use there had been an auto repair service in the building. Now he wishes to expand his business and use the vacant building next door, since he had trouble finding a new location. City Planner Swan referenced site plan, floor plan of the two buildings and sketch of facade and front elevation. He noted Mr. Thorstenson had hoped to have wall openings between the two buildings to facilitate movement of equipment, but city codes do not permit this where there is a property line. The City Planner voiced concern over the respective percentages of retail use and repair use in the building. He noted that repair occupancy is a different fire classification and will require a one-hour protective ceiling. He also noted the retail area is projected at 31%, but stated he had not yet received figures on percentage of total gross receipts from retail, or man-hours devoted to retail. He considered the roll -up door proposed for the front delivery of boats on Califoknia Drive would contribute to traffic congestion. Mr. Joseph Salem of Sunnyvale, an employee of Mr. Thorstenson, addressed the Commission. He told Commissioners Mr. Thorstenson's business has been growing and he needs to expand. He pointed out that the area on both sides of California Drive is zoned C-2, but this isolated pocket not adjacent to Burlingame Avenue is zoned C-1. He reporte there would be no heavy duty equipment used in the installation service which consists mainly of the installation of motors. "Servicing" he defined as unsophisticated and confined to such things as the replacement of spark plugs and cables. He felt the question of installation and servicing had been misunderstood. Mr. Salem went on to say the curb at the front is painted yellow and maintained as a loading zone. The rollup door idea has been abandoned, and a sliding glass door is proposed as more acceptable. Boats would be brought in the front at infrequent intervals for display purposes. - 13 - He noted that both buildings had previously been used as a machine shop. He thought this building had grown beyond its C-1 use and could more appropriately be classified in a C-2 zone as well as the other buildings in the block. He stated the entry from Hatch Lane looks difficult, but 25' boats with trailers can be successfully maneuvered in there. Mr. Salem pointed out that the service area had to be larger than the retail area because of the length of the boats. He also noted there would be only one mechanic with two full time and one part time employees devoted to retail sales. The function of the store is primarily retail sales and servicing is secondary. Chairman Sine noted that Hatch Lane in back of the store is one-way southbound. He considered the store would have only two entrances: one from California Drive, the other from Burlingame Avenue via Hatch Lane. He noted the exiting would cause problems since boats must be taken out on Hatch Lane south to Howard, or must exit on Highland and go south to Howard. He considered this traffic situation sometimes perilous. Commissioner Kindig questioned how many boats would be brought in from California Drive for display. He was also concerned with Hatch Lane. Mr. Salem replied that maybe one or two boats would be brought in for display over several weeks' time. He noted that speed of traffic through Hatch Lane is limited to 15 MPH. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned with the traffic hazards in moving the merchandise in and out and noted this is an area where there are already problems with the municipal buses. There was Commission question if this use could be permitted in this zone if the repair were more than incidental to the sales. City Planner Swan replied that it could not. City Attorney Coleman remarked that boat sales are not permitted specifically in a C-1 zone and come under the broad general category of uses which are not obnoxious or detri- mental to the neighborhood. Mr. Salem told Commissioner Francard the distance from the building to the curb line at Hatch Lane was 2-22' at most. Commissioner Mink stated he was not concerned about the use so much as the traffic. On questioning, Mr. Salem assured him that heavy mechanical work was not performed here, but only at the marina, and he would accept a condition that the service be limited in this respect. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink remarked this is ideally a C-4 use, and while it might be inconvenient for Mr. Thorstenson to move, he would like to see him consider his business in the proper zone rather than expanding in this one. (Automobile repair shops and specialty tire shops are permitted in C-2 districts.) Chairman Sine questioned the exact location of the entries. Mr. Salem informed that entry from California Drive would be from 247 California only, and entry from Hatch Lane would be at 251 California Drive only. On question from Commissioner Taylor as to auto repair, - 14 - Mr. Salem stated that during the winter months when they do not have boats, they will do some auto repair. Commissioner Taylor stated he did not think the present use is a permitted use in C-1. He said that it is not only retail sales. The applicant has been running an auto repair shop there since 1967, and the introduction of the boats is additional. The Commissioner had reservations on expanding this use. Chairman Sine noted a past recommendation of his survey of downtown parking that the driveway at 247 be closed in to get two more parking spaces. However, this recommendation had been ignored. Commissioner Mink moved that this permit be denied in light of the information submitted by Commissioner Taylor. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Sine informed the applicant he could appeal this decision to the City Council. He then suggested that staff consider the possibility of rezoning this area. Commissioner Mink further suggested that staff follow up on the statement made by Commissioner Taylor, and if an illegal use is found, to refer back to the Commission for consider- ation of abatement. 11. VARIANCE FOR FRONT ADDITION TO HOUSE .WITH NON -CONFORMING REAR YARD AT 848 NEWHALL ROAD (PER SEC. 25.50.080) APN 028-133-280) ZONED R-1 BY DONALD H. CANTONE. Chairman Sine presented this application for Commission hearing. City Planner Swan preceded his report by a reading of Code Section 25.50.080 i,-Wn-Conforming Uses - Additions and Enlargements." This provides a non -conforming building may be enlarged only if it is made to conform to all the regulations of its district. He reported that Mr. Cantone recently bought this house which has only 12' between the rear wall and rear property line. It is not large enough for his needs and he wishes to extend it. The City Planner saw no reason to deny this application for variance since it does not change the non -conformity but merely recognizes it. Mr. Cantone was given permission to address the Commission. He stated he needed more room for his two minor children and his two cars. Commissioner Jacobs stated she had visited the site and questioned when Mr. Cantone had put up the 6' fence on the front. Mr. Cantone confirmed he had recently removed old boards on the fence and had replaced them with new. He stated he had approached the building department for a permit; they had referred him to the Planning Department because the fence was over 5' high, and the Planning Department had issued a permit. City Planner Swan confirmed he had signed a building permit for Mr. Cantone since normal maintenance and repairs are permitted to a non -conforming structure such as this fence. Commissioners were concerned over the height of this fence in the front yard. City Attorney Coleman noted the permit could be conditioned on the fence's being taken down to the proper height. City Planner - 15 - Swan noted that a 5' fence is permitted right up to the property line. A 6' fence is permitted 15' back from the property line. Mr. Cantone protested that if the fence was lowered his dogs could jump over it. Commissioner Francard questioned how close the fence was to the house. It was established that the fence was about 47' from the front of the addition. Chairman Sine stated he saw no problem with the application except the fence. Commissioner Taylor was also concerned with it. Secretary Jacobs read correspondence from Joe S. Giron, 852 Newhall; and William Balestrasi, 844 Newhall. Both letters indicated no objection to this variance. There was no audience comment when requested by the Chairman, and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Sine considered that the lack of communication between the applicant and staff had brought about this situation, and that the applicant had done what he thought was right. Commissioner Taylor considered that if more than 50% of.the fence boards were replaced, this non -conforming structure would have been replaced. Therefore he thought the approval could be conditioned upon the reduction in height of the fence. Commissioner Mink questioned the mechanics of this type of conditioning and questioned if the concern was the extra height or the unsightly nature of the fence. Commissioner Taylor considered the Commission objection was the visual impact of the fence which, he stated, was now illegal, not non -conforming. Mr. Cantone protested he had applied for and received a permit forthis fence. City Attorney Coleman stated the fence could be considered illegal if more than 50% was reconstructed. Chairman Sine remarked he disliked seeing the applicant penalized for a routine variance for his house by locking in a fence that to him was debatable in the area of whether staff or applicant was at fault. He considered the applicant would be penalized by continuing this application. Commissioners Francard and Kindig agreed this application should not be continued. Commissioner Kindig moved the application for variance be approved with the condition that the fence be brought into conformance with the zoning code. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG The applicant was informed he could appeal to the City Council or make the fence comply with the existing code. - 16 - 12. SIGN PERMIT FOR TWO WALL SIGNS AT 1215 BURLINGAME AVENUE BY OTSEN SIGNS FOR JAMES GOBETS OF FASHION LADY DRESS SHOP. Chairman Sine introduced the application for hearing and requested staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost stated this is a replacement of three older signs with two wall signs, one of 75 SF facing Burlingame Avenue, and the other 40 SF facing the parking lot at the rear of the building. He noted the front sign is larger than the draft ordinance allows, but the applicant feels that since the existing sign panel is this large, the sign should be permitted. Apart from this, the non -illuminated -sign conforms to the sign code, as does the sign on the rear wall. Mr. George Pope of Otsen Signs, addressed the Commission. He stated that the area of the front sign would be reduced to 50 SF by reducing the size of the lettering and putting a border around it. The original sign cabinet would still be used. There was little Commission discussion. There was no.audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig moved that the sign permit for these two wall signs be approved with the understanding that Sign #A on Burlingame Avenue be reduced to 50 SF with a border painted around the lettering. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 13. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE GROUND SIGN WITH 240 SF OF COPY AT 1021 BURLINGAME AVENUE BY MICHAEL MULLERY OF LEE OLDSMOBILE AMERICAN MOTORS Assistant City Planner Yost distributed drawings, two location plans, and site photographs for this application. He stated the request is to allow advertising copy to be painted on an existing fence 9' high by 170' long. He noted that "fence" is a misnomer, since by definition this is a ground sign, as it has 5' clearance between it and the ground. The structure was constructed without a building permit. Proposed copy is "Lee Oldsmobile/AMC Quality Used Cars" with letters of 3'. He noted the colors and that this would have 240 SF of copy. The Assistant City Planner told Commissioners there are six other existing signs at this site, adding up to 165 SF. Five are wall signs and one is a roof sign. With the new sign, the total would be 405 SF. There is also an existing offsite directional sign located at Burlingame Avenue and California Drive which contains approximately 120 SF of copy, and a second directional sign at 609 California Drive which contains approximately 80 SF of copy. Chairman Sine commented that the sign on the building next to the City parking lot was granted by the Planning Commission a number of years ago and the signs on the roof at 1021 Burlingame Avenue have been there for many years, although the name of the dealership has been changed five times. Mr. Michael Mullery, manager of the Oldsmobile dealership, addressed the Commission. He told them this ground sign is needed for better - 17 - identification which is important to the continuing existence of this company which is off Automobile Row. He stated there would be better lighting and better cleanup of the area in addition to the sign. Also plans are made for resurfacing of the building, which will add to the appearance. He conceded that the roof sign and the two building signs were not aesthetic, but they were necessary in terms of visibility from California Drive. Commissioner Kindig commented he appreciated Mr. Mullery's efforts in making the site more attractive, but he did not think that the ground sign would attract trade since it is set back from the street and possibly visible only from East Lane. City Attorney Coleman noted that the offsite directional signs have been illegal for a number of years. On the Chair's request for audience comment, Harry Graham commented that the Commission might be fortunate that Mr. Mullery was not asking for a 50' pole sign so that he could join Auto Row. There was no further comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink commented that the offsite directional signs could be dealt with separately, but he considered that the existing roof sign was a reasonable consideration for a condition. He stated he would support a motion to condition the granting of this permit on the removal of the roof sign. Mr. Mullerp disagreed, stating he felt the roof sign was quite important to the dealership for identification and visibility. Commissioner Jacobs commented her problem was what the Commission was doing with everyone else regarding roof signs. Commissioner Mink moved that the sign permit requested by Lee Olds be granted with the condition of removal of the roof sign. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Mink then moved that the sign permit requested by Lee Olds be granted. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. DISCUSSION Following disposition of this application, Commissioner Jacobs raised the point that the Commision is working on a new sign code, and if the Commission is going to continue to grant roof signs, this section should be kept out of the code. Chairman Sine remarked that the Commission had not approved any new roof signs. He noted that the Council had delayed for over a year on making a decision on roof sign amortization. Commissioner Jacobs noted that in that case possibly the sign code should address only new roof signs. CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan stated that Mr. Stocher is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission that an EIR is required to the City Council. Mr. Geller has requested his application be continued to the March study session. The City Planner referred to questions at this meeting regarding zoning. He noted that the zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. In Burlingame R-1 districts the zoning must be identical to the General Plan. He spoke of four industrial and commercial areas that might be considered by the Commission for rezoning or amending the General Plan. The areas mentioned were the west side of Bayshore Highway, north side of Airport Boulevard, the M-1 District south of Broadway and between Carolan and Rollins Road, and the area between Hatch Lane and California Drive from the City parking lot to Howard Avenue. He stated the staff would report on these at a later date. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:00 A. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary