HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.01.26THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
January 26, 1976
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Francard Taylor (excused - out City Planner Swan
Jacobs of town on business) Asst. City Planner Yost
Kindig City Engineer Davidson
Mink City Attorney Coleman
Norberg
Sine
unr.r. rnr.r.
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 7:35 P.M.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1976 were approved as written
after correction of sentence, last paragraph, page 3, ". . .it has a
freeway exposure . ." instead of ". . .it has a three way exposure . ."
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Sine introduced Mr. Clarence Rusch, candidate for City Clerk,
who was in the audience.
1. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1,2,3 & 4, BLOCK
NO. 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (RSM VOL. 70/33) AT 433 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD, ZONED M-1, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing and requested
staff report. City Engineer Davidson stated this parcel map is for
the purpose of eliminating interior lot lines for the Kee Joon parcel.
There are no conditions, and he recommended it for Commission approval.
Commissioner Mink moved the adoption of this final map. Commissioner
Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
2. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP, PORTION OF LANDS OF KATHLEEN DORE AT MARSTEN
AND ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-134-100) ZONED M-1 BY W. M. WRIGHT FOR
BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA (TRUSTEE) AND KATHLEEN DORE (OWNER.)
After Chairman Sine presented this application for hearing, City Engineer
Davidson reported that insufficient information had been received, and
recommended that this application be removed from the agenda and the
application resubmitted when the proper information was available.
Commissioner Jacobs was concerned with the people who lease property
on this site. She moved to have this item removed from the agenda.
City Planner Swan pointed out that the R & R Garage, granted a special
permit in September of 1975, seemed to have many vehicles stored on
- 2 -
this site. One of the concerns of the permit hearing was that there be
no dead storage. He suggested the possibility of review of their
special permit, granted for one year. This suggestion was in the light
of the delay of the parcel map.
In response to question from Commissioner Jacobs, City Attorney Coleman
remarked he would continue pushing the Dore trust for finalization of
this map.
Commissioners agreed to take this application off the agenda, and indicated
that staff should prepare a report on the activities of the R & R
Garage. Chairman Sine so directed staff.
3. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 12, 13 & 14,
BLOCK NO. 21, TOWN OF BURLINGAME AT 250 MYRTLE ROAD, ZONED R-3,
FOR CASA AMIGO-BURLINGAME
City Engineer Davidson told Commissioners this map is technically
correct and ready for their consideration. He noted the applicant
desired to handle the conditions of the map through escrow, and
questioned if the City had received an agreement. City Attorney
Coleman verified that a signed agreement had been received, and handling
the conditions through escrow presented no problem. He noted that the
$10,000 to be contributed to the sewer fund and the $2,000 bond for
demolition of one of the buildings would come out of escrow when financing
is completed.
Commissioner Kindig moved this parcel map be approved. Commissioner Mink
seconded the motion. Chairman Sine remarked he had previously voted
against this project, which he considered not good for the City, and
would do so again. The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCKING ESTABLISHMENT AT 1660 ROLLINS ROAD
(APN 025-262-250) ZONED M-1, BY H. JOHN WINTSCH OF TRAFFIC INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION (REF.ND-70) POSTED JANUARY 16, 1976)
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing. Assistant City
Planner Yost reviewed the proposal for this freight forwarding firm
which has been housed at 1216 Rollins Road since June, 1974. He stated
they have recently purchased the property at 1660 Rollins Road and have
a building permit to install four new truck ramps at the rear of the
existing building. On-site parking will conform to code. Site coverage
and vehicle circulation will be better than average. He referenced
letter of application and site plan circulated to Commissioners and stated
there were no staff problems with this appliestion. He noted it seemed
unlikely to cause a problem with neighboring properties, and that a
negative declaration had been filed on January 16, 1976.
Mr. John Wintsch, president of the corporation, appeared before the
Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Francard, he
stated trucks used would be 20' bobtails or semis with a 27' trailer.
- 3 -
He noted the facility could accommodate a 40' rig. Commissioner Francard
remarked he had been in the area this date and there seemed to be a
shortage of street parking. Chairman Sine considered this company
would have more than adequate parking in the rear, and questioned the
applicant if the ramps were for loading and unloading. Mr. Wintsch
affirmed they were. This would eliminate blocking traffic on the street.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and
the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned how many deliveries would be made per
day. Mr. Wintsch considered there might be one or two and they would
all be in the back. In response to a question from Commissioner Kindig,
Mr. Wintsch stated the existing loading platform would be retained and
used occasionally.
Commissioner Jacobs moved this special permit be approved, Commissioner
Mink seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BEAUTY CULTURE TRAINING FACILITY AT BAYPORT
OFFICE CENTER, 1575 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-321-520) ZONED M-1,
BY BOMAR INVESTMENT COMPANY AND THE GLEMBY COMPANY, INCORPORATED
(ND -71) POSTED JANUARY 16, 1976)
Chairman Sine introduced this application and requested staff report.
Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners this proposal was judged
to be a trade school, which is a conditional use in an M-1 area. He
noted a problem with the application had been to arrive at a figure
for the expected occupant load. The letter of application refers to
four staff members plus ten trainees, the majority of whom will be from
out of town. However, each trainee will need a model. Questions are:
Where will these models come from? How many models will there be per
day? Will any fee be charged? Will they be arriving by car and need
parking space? The Assistant City Planner also raised the question of
how the new facility will function. He referred Commissioners to
building plans which -indicate large areas for reception, director's
office, conference areas, and classroom. The Assistant City Planner
stated that according to building plans the company would be entitled
to seven spaces in the lot. With a possible occupant load of 25, parking
could be a problem.
Mr. Daniel J. Olian, 744 Foothill Drive, San Mateo, Senior Vice President
of Glemby International, was accorded the floor. He confirmed that there
would be only four employees most of the time and noted that one of the
"offices" was basically a visitors' office. In response to Commission
questions he stated that there would be no temporary workers, average
class of trainees would be 10 and not likely to be larger; basic
training is in haircutting; most trainees would be from out of town,
ranging from Los Angeles to Seattle. Occasionally people would come
from as far away as Denver. He estimated that out of ten trainees
3-4 might be driving. Models would be advertised for in the local papers,
notices would be posted at the airport, they would be recruited from
school teachers, nurses, etc. Mr. Olian referred Commissioners to Mr.
Boone for questions on parking and stated that trainees would be already
licensed, and.this is an inhouse training program. Similar programs have
been conducted in Toronto, London, and New York. The peak load for
models for one day would be 20.
- 4 -
Charles Boone, Bomar Investment Company, addressed the problem of
parking at the site. He told Commissioners he had never seen the lot
full; that the rear two rows were nearly always vacant. The percentage
of occupancy of the lot was approximately 75%. With this use, the lot
might be 90% full. Mr. Boone stated they do not give exclusive parking
rights to any tenant. Other tenants in the building are standard
office uses, and he did not consider them very high density. Commissioner
Mink suggested allocating certain spaces for visitors for the entire
building. The Assistant City Planner questioned if this could be
enforced, and suggested that only time would determine whether it is
a lot that is above capacity. He established that the lot had 64
parking spaces.
Commissioner Kindig was wary of designating parking areas, and Chairman
Sine suggested the permit be conditioned by a time limit which would
give an opportunity for review of the parking situation. He asked the
applicant to consider this option.
There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Francard suggested putting up signs with tow -away provisions
for control of parking. Chairman Sine did not consider this was within
control of the Commission. He questioned the applicant's opinion of
the time limit.
Mr. Olian told the Commissioners that after conference with another
company official present, he had decided the time limit would not be
feasible because of the investment in fixtures, amounting to some
$70,000, which is non-recoverable.
In response to a request from Commissioner Jacobs for a clearer picture
of the parking, Mr. Boone stated he had observed that the average daily
parking would not be more than 2/3 of the lot. There are approximately
60 spaces. He estimated that 40 are being used.
Commissioner Kindig moved this special permit be approved in compliance
with letter of application and proposed plan. Commissioner Francard
seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote.
Chairman Sine reminded the applicant that any signage must come before
the Commission for a special permit.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF BOATS AND BOAT ACCESSORIES AT
1331 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-132-050/060) ZONED M-1 BY RICH DIODATI
(OWNER) FOR FRAHS PERFORMANCE BOATS (LESSEE.) (ND -72P POSTED
JANUARY 16, 1976)
Chairman Sine introduced this item for hearing. At his request Secretary
Jacobs read correspondence in the file. This included letter of 1/19/76
from the City Planner to Frahs Performance Boats advising of the
impropriety in displaying boats for sale before special permit has been
granted, and installation of a sign without a building permit. Also
read was letter of 1/23/76 from Rich Diodati, in reply to the City
Planner's letter, advising of temporary coincidence and their intention
to cooperate with the City; and a communication dated 1/20/76 from
- 5 -
from Jack A. Burt, property owner at 1347 North Carolan which stated
he had no objection to the use if it did not cause traffic congestion.
City Planner Swan reviewed that the previous special permit for this
property, granted 7/28/75, was for ". .vehicles of not more than two
axles and subject to the restriction that the entire building be limited
to auto service . . .and any other related uses must come in for variance
or amendment of this use permit." He reported that the present
application is to allow a use other than automotive. It is sale of
boats and accessories. He noted environmental assessment report filed
on the previous special permit which declared no environmental impact
and stated there would be no additional impact by this use. The plot
plan shows show room space for about ten boats. The City Planner
stated he had visited the site and there was no activity but the boats
were already there. None of the interior remodeling was commenced.
The City Planner questioned if Commissioners wished to grant this temporary
use for two years. He noted the present tenants already have a lease
for a two year period and this application is after the fact.
Mr. Rich Diodati, 3140 Canyon Road, Burlingame, was given permission to
address the Commission. He stated they were issued a permit on the
improvements inside the building, and 90% had been completed when they
were informed there was problem with the permit. Mr. Diodati thought
that service on boats and their equipment would be considered just as
much automotive as cars. He stated they did not realize that having
retail sales was against the code, and no attempt had been made to conceal
facts.
Commissioner Jacobs remarked she remembered from the July hearing she
had specifically asked what Mr. Ostertag intended to put in the two
vacant bays, and the answer had been automotive uses. Mr. Diodati answered
his recollection was that the statement had been they would like to make
it automotive.
Mr. Willy Ostertag, 1315 Rollins Road, was granted permission to address
the Commission. He stated that his intent was for the remaining two
stalls to be automotive. However, he thought he had made it clear
at the time of the July meeting that stalls 4 and 5 were vacant because
he did not yet have the right specialists. He stated it made sense to him
that if he did not have the right people for the eventual use that
someone could be put in temporarily to aid in the financial aspect.
Commissioner Kindig added that it was his impression Mr. Ostertag had
stated he hoped to get automotive uses in the two stalls, and the
Commission had commented that if he wished to put something else in
he would have to come back for approval. Mr. Ostertag confirmed that a
lease had been signed with Frahs Boats and they had been permitted to
come in the building becuase of a misunderstanding.
Mr. John Ross, realtor, was present as representative of Frahs. Mr.
Butch Barnes, of Frahs Performance Boats announced his availability
for questions. Commissioner Francard established that no motors would
be repaired. In reply to questions from Commissioner Mink, Mr. Barnes
stated that their intention is to sell boats and accessories and that
they intended to have no more than 10 boats on display at one time.
Commissioner Mink wished to go_ on record as informing the applicant that
if this permit was granted, it would be conditioned upon the proposal
being followed exactly. The Commissioner asked how many customers
- 6 -
were anticipated in a given period of time. Mr. Barnes replied that five
customers a day would be an average. He noted they have been in business
for six months with a gross sales of $300,000 which he anticipated is
60-70% of the potential. He said that most of the accessory sales were
for boats. He indicated customers stay an average of half an hour and
it would be unusual for more than two people to be there at the same
time.
Chairman Sine requested audience comment. There was no response and the
public meeting was declared closed.
Discussion on parking followed. Mr. Diodati stated there were 35
parking places in the whole complex. Commissioner Mink summarized that
the applicant is leasing 5,400 SF and there would be approximately 6
spaces for this particular rented space. Commissioner Kindig questioned
if Mr. Barnes had any comments on the two year time limitation. Mr.
Barnes replied that if the business goes as expected, the quarters will
be too small in two years. Mr. Diodati interjected that Frahs had asked
for a five-year lease but were told they could have only two years
becau3e of the intention to rent the space to an automotive service
establishment.
Commissioner Sine was concerned with the increasing number of special
permits granted in the M-1 district and called this one a "special permit
on a special permit." He stated he had voted against the original permit
and would vote against this one.
Commissioner Mink moved that this special permit be approved with the
conditions that this permit will be for two years from the effective
date and that the activity related to boat sales be restricted exactly
to the 5,400 SF floor area as specified by Mr. Diodati.
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,SINE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR
7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE
AT 261 PARK ROAD (APN 029-203-020) ZONED C-1, BY A. EBNER OF RORKE'S
(LESSEE) AND WELLS FARGO BANK (OWNER). (ND -73P POSTED JANUARY 16,
1976)
Chairman Sine introduced this application for consideration. City
Planner Swan told Commissioners that this parcel is within the Burlingame
Avenue Assessment District and comes under zoning regulations as a
building exceeding 75% lot coverage and requiring a special permit.
This application is for a building addition. The existing building
covers about 64.4% of the lot. With the addition, -total lot coverage
will be 81.7%. This will be a two story addition locating an office and
additional storage space at the rear of the existing building. Behind
the building the vacant unimproved area which is presently used for off-
street parking will be reduced. There will still be the possibility
- 7 -
of parking five vehicles and a delivery truck could be unloaded as well.
Mr. Albert Ebner, 660 West Santa Inez, Hillsborough, appeared
the Commission and announced his a-Alability for questioning.
to questions from Commissioner Kindig he said that the height
addition would be the same as the back of the building is now.
outlined spaces for the five cars at the back of the building
there would be room for a delivery truck to unload.
before
In reply
of the
He
and confirmed
In response to question from Commissioner Mink the City Planner affirmed
that Rorke's has been assessed and is paying into the parking assessment
district. Rorke's does not claim credit for the parking it has provided
and there is no difficulty in removing some of the parking.
Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mrs. Evelyn Herman, owner of
the property at 251 Park Road told Commissioners she was opposed to
the addition because it would mean loss of parking from Rorke's lot.
She also questioned if the addition was going to cut off light and access
to the windows on the north side of her building. Mr. Ebner noted the
areaway between his building and that of Mrs. Herman. This is 4' wide,
and he considered that with it the structure could not affect her light.
At the direction of the chair he showed Mrs. Herman the details of the
plan. Chairman Sine suggested Mrs. Herman contact staff if she had
further questions. The Chairman noted that Mr. Ebner was in the parking
district and had not taken credit for his parking. Consequently, the
parking he does have is voluntary on his part. Mrs. Herman repeated that
parking would be affected. Rorke's people would be parking in public
parking, and she objected.
Bruce Herman, son of Mrs. Evelyn Herman, raised structural questions
about the present building. The Chairman informed him that had nothing
to do with the permit at hand and that Mr. Ebner's request was legal.
He added a structural engineer would have to research the building to
determine if the foundations were capable of carrying the load of an
addition. Commissioner Jacobs commented that Mr. Ebner is paying into
the parking district the same as the Hermans. Bruce Herman again
protested the lack of parking.
Mr. Harry Graham, 1224 Burlingame Avenue, spoke in favor of the special
permit. He considered Mr. Ebner should be commended because he could
have taken credit against the parking district, and actually would be
allowed to have no parking on the lot.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Commissioner Mink questioned if this addition would necessitate that
windows be closed in the Herman building. City Engineer Davidson replied
that the addition will affect any neighboring building in no way.
Commissioner Jacobs moved that the special permit be granted in accor-
dance with all information received. Commissioner Mink seconded the
motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Mink
then commended Mr. Ebner for doing everything he could to aid the
parking district. Chairman Sine added he approved of this enlargement
of a Burlingame institution.
- 8 -
RECESS
The meeting reconvened after a short recess at 9:15 P.M.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF ANZA AIRPORT PARKING SERVICE AT
615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD FROM LOTS 3-13, BLOCK 7 TO LOTS 8-12 OF BLOCK 5;
LOTS 1,2,14,15 AND PARCEL B OF BLOCK 7; AND PARCEL C OF BLOCK 10,
ALL OF ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6, ZONED C-4, UNTIL AUGUST 3,
1977 BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION (REF.ND-74P POSTED JANUARY 16, 1976)
Chairman Sine introduced this application for Commission hearing.
Upon his request, City Planner Swan commented on what he acknowledged
as a complicated application. He told Commissioners the area under
consideration is presently subject to several special permits. Referring
to exhibits, he pointed out the Airport Parking Service area, Lots 3 - 13,
Block 7, Airport Park No. 6. Special permit for this area had been approve6
on 7/26/71, and he quoted minutes from this meeting. This permit
expires in August, 1976. He noted former City Planner Mann's comments
a few years previous with regard to Anza's "interim" and "temporary"
uses which tend to set precedents.
The City Planner went on to say that on April 14, 1975 the Planning
Commission had approved a special permit to allow automobile parking
on practically all of the undeveloped land south of Airport Boulevard,
which would include_ the previous special permit. He referenced
Exhibit A, which shows area proposed for this present special permit
which includes area approved in 1971 and most of area approved in 1975.
He suggested this permit be granted until August 2, 1977, and considered
the following conditions could be imposed:
1. Continue the waiver of liability. This protects the city from
damage occurring from flooding or a seismic event.
2. Project plans should show the location and type of surfacing,
fencing, landscaping.
3. Cars are not to be parked in the front setback, 30' from the
property line.
4. Cars should be parked a reasonable distance from existing buildings
and major structures.
5. There should be no new signs.
6. No on -street unloading or loading of vehicles
7. Special permit should be revoked for a lot or parcel should a
building permit be issued for that parcel. Permanent uses will be
coming along, but the parking permit should become invalid if a
building permit is issued.
He made the final point that parking is not a permitted use in the
Waterfront Commercial District, but the Commission may permit it under
the section which states ". . .other uses which, after public hearing
have been found compatible ."
- 9 -
Mr. David Keyston addressed the Commission. He confirmed that the
permit application covers only the Airport Parking operation and not
the long term storage north of Airport Boulevard which Anza proposes.
He specified the area outlined on Exhibit A. With regard to the conditions
proposed by the City Planner, Mr. Keyston stated he believed Anza's
hold harmless agreement is openended, and extends indefinitely. How-
ever, Anza will be glad to extend it if the City Attorney finds this
necessary.
Mr. Keyston went on to state that they do not propose to put on any
new surfacing by this permit, since this is an extension to cover the
area presently being used. He noted that the parking covered by this
permit comes to approximately 50' from the end of the concrete structure
at 433 Airport Boulevard. Installation of new signs is not anti-
cipated. There will be no unloading on any public street, and Anza
is willing to accept the condition that the permit will be revoked
for parcels receiving a building permit.
Commissioner Mink questioned if Anza intends to follow through on
landscaping and lighting. Mr. Keyston considered that lighting had
been done on both areas and some landscaping. In reply to further
questions from the Commissioner he stated that the entire area is graded
and there are sump pump catch basins. He specified types of surfacing
for different areas and confirmed that the entire area is fenced with 2
gates. There will be one egress -ingress area. Commissioner Mink was
concerned with the tracking of dirt from the parking areas to the
public streets, but City Engineer Davidson did not think there would be
much problem.
There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment. The
public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Mink raised the question of fire safety, pointing out
the many vehicles parked there and the danger of gas igniting. Mr.
Keyston affirmed he would be glad to work with the Fire Department on
this problem. In response to a question from Commissioner Jacobs,
he stated the Fire Department did have access for their vehicles in
this area. Chairman Sine observed that with the efficiency of the
fire department, any hazards would have already been noted by them.
City Planner Swan suggested the Commission might like the area of the
permit to be more clearly defined. Commissioner Mink suggested the
use of Parcel 10 be limited to that portion which is paved. Mr.
Keyston agreed to send an addendum to the application, possibly an
aerial photograph, which could be attached to the minutes of this meeting
and would clearly define the area involved.
Commissioner Mink moved that the special permit for expansion of Anza
Airport Parking Service at 615 Airport Boulevard for Lots 3-13,
Block 7 to Lots 8-12 of Block 5; Lots 1,2,14,15 and Parcel B of Block 7,
and that portion of Parcel C, Block 10 which is currently paved,
Anza Airport Park Unit No. 6, zoned C-4, be approved until August 3,
1977 for Anza Pacific Corporation with conditions that there be a
continuance of the waiver of liability, there be no parking in front
setbacks, there be no new signs added, this special permit be voided
for those lots for which a building permit has been granted, and that
no cars be parked within 35' of structures either completed or under
- 10 -
construction. A further condition is that the applicant is to submit
drawing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which defines this
area.
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous
roll call vote.
9. SIGN PERMIT FOR SIX NON -ILLUMINATED WALL SIGNS WITH 190 SF TOTAL
AREA AND ONE GROUND SIGN OF 75 SF ON EACH FACE FOR AUTOHAUS BURLINGAME
AT 1315 ROLLINS ROAD, BY WILLY OSTERTAG.
Chairman Sine introduced this application for sign permit for hearing.
Assistant City Planner Yost reported to Commissioners that drawings had
come in for the signs and they are somewhat different from the signs
dimensioned on the original application. He reviewed signs as follows:
Sign A, "Goodyear", reported on application as 18" x 22'. Drawing
scales 18" x 19'. Sign B "Mercedes Benz" reported on application as
18" x 25'. Drawing shows 18" x 22'. Sign C, "Bosch Fuel Injection
Service", application reports top line of copy as 18" x 9'; second line
to be 8" x 141. On the drawing, the top line is only 6' long and the
second line is increased: Sign D, "imported cars" is 20' wide on applica-
tion; 22' wide on drawing. Signs E and F are both blank with copy to
be added later. The area for each is 33 SF. The six wall signs as
shown on the application total 190 SF, as opposed to 165 SF per the
drawings.
The Assistant City Planner suggested that if these signs were approved,
it should be specified whether it is according to application or drawings.
He went on to say that in addition to the wall signs the application
made request for a ground sign, Sign G. This sign, "Autohaus
Burlingame" is to be in an existing sign cabinet and is 75 SF on each
of its two faces. Since the time of application, a new drawing has been
submitted changing this ground sign into a pole sign 18' high. Sign
cabinet would be the same.
The Assistant City Planner noted Mr. Ostertag's property has a frontage
of 300'.' Signs total 340 SF, a little over 1 SF per 1' linear frontage.
Mr. Willy Ostertag was accorded the floor by Chairman Sine. He
apologized for the drawings, explaining that he had to change sign
companies. He said that signs should be as proposed on the application
and offered to furnish amended drawings. Mr. Ostertag said he would
not put up the pole sign at present since there is some question if he
can use the name "Autohaus Burlingame", and asked that the Commission
consider the total signage area he could use for signs with application
for the pole sign to be made later.
Chairman Sine asked Mr. Ostertag's intentions toward the non -conforming
illegal sign that is now up on the site. Mr. Ostertag replied he had
been informed he could put up a temporary sign. However, it would be
removed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the size of lettering
could be reduced so that the entire signage package would conform to
M-1 guidelines. Mr. Ostertag replied that he had compared sizes, and the
18" letter was in proportion to the size of the building. Commissioner
Kindig was concerned that the signs be well separated from one another
and questioned why the ground sign had been changed to a pole sign.
Mr. Ostertag indicated this was the result of a misunderstanding by the
new sign company. Commissioner Francard received confirmation that the
total signage included the signs for the boat sales.
In response to questions from Commissioner Jacobs, the Assistant City
Planner stated the review line for signs in M-1 has been set at 200 SF
and while there is now a setback regulation in M-1, Title 25 specifically
exempts signs from its application.
Commissioner Mink suggested Mr. Ostertag reduce the total signage on
the front to conform with 1 SF signage per 1 linear foot. He would be
able to have additional signage on the secondary frontage. The
Commissioner indicated willingness to consider Signs A through F with
reconsideration of the pole sign at a later date. Commissioner Kindig
agreed, and Commissioner Jacobs questioned Mr. Ostertag what he could
do so that there was less signage. Upon being informed that 300 SF
would be allowed for the entire property, Mr. Ostertag suggested the
Commission consider the existing signs applied for since he had to wait
on the pole sign. Commissioner Mink added he would be more satisfied if
the staff reviewedthe copy for the two blank signs when it was determined.
If staff had concerns then, they should come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Kindig questioned if the two blank signs would be of the
same material as the others, and was informed they would be.
There was no response to Chairman Sine's request for audience comment,
and the public hearing was delcared closed.
Commissioner Jacobs noted that additional signage would be allowed on
the second frontage, and questioned how this would be handled.
Assistant City Planner Yost stated his impression that the present
signage application would be the master permit for the whole project.
City Attorney Coleman suggested the motion include the removal of
present illegal signs.
Commissioner Mink moved that the sign permit for the specific property
known as 1315 through 1331 Rollins Road, be granted; that it be
considered a master signage plan and that it be limited to Signs A
through F on the sign permit presented 1/26/76; that when the copy for
Signs E and F is determined by the applicant it be reviewed by staff
for general consistency with the overall sign plan, and if there is a
difference of opinion, these signs will be referred to the Commission.
Also, that all signs are to be constructed in general conformance
with the application; that they be plastic signs, blue letters with gold
trim, non -illuminated; and that all illegal signs on the property be
removed forthwith. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it
carried on unanimous roll call vote.
Commissioner Mink questioned if the applicant understood the motion
and if he was in agreement: Mr. Ostertag protested he would like to
leave the present sign up for identification until he had some wall
signs up. The Assistant City Planner remarked that the sign ordinance
had a provision for temporary signs, provided such signs were erected after
a building permit was obtained. To his knowledge, no building permit
had been obtained for this sign.
In response to.a question from Chairman Sine, Mr. Ostertag estimated
- 12
it would be between the 10th and 20.th. of February before,any wall signs
could be up. The Chairman commented that Mr. Ostertag had put up
the signs illegally with. no building permit and it was not reasonable
to expect the Commission to continue the useage. Commissioner Mink
pointed out that Pair. Ostertag should come in for a building permit for
a temporary sign. Chairman Sine suggested the illegal signs be taken
down the morning of January 27.
10. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE ILLUMINATED,WALL SIGN OF 44 SF FOR FOUNDERS
TITLE COMPANY AT 1300 HOWARD AVENUE, BY SAN FRANCISCO NEON
Chairman Sine announced that this application would be heard, and requested
report from staff. Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners
this company had recently moved into new quarters at this address.
They had received a building permit to install new copy in an existing
projecting sign cabinet with interior illumination, with two faces,
16 SF on each face, for a total of 32 SF. The permit before the Commission
is to install new copy in the cabinet of an existingwall sign of
22' x 2'. The cabinet has interior illumination. The total signage
for this property would be 76 SF; it has 75 linear feet frontage. He
remarked that this is the type of application which, under the new sign
code, the staff could approve without a hearing before the Commission.
Ms. Marie Weckerle, branch manager of Founders Title, was present as
applicant's representative.
Commissioner Kindig questioned whyihe sign would be illuminated since
the firm does not do business at night, and if the permit were approved,
what are the hours of illumination proposed. Ms. Weckerle replied that
the present sign is illuminated from 4:45 P. M. until 1:00 A. M., and
she presumed the wall sign would be on the same schedule.
Commissioner Francard raised the point that no owner's permission is
shown for this sign. Chairman Sine agreed this was necessary, noting that
at one time when tenants had changed, the corner sign had been painted out
rather than removed.
Commissioner Mink stated he had no problem with the size of the signage
since it meets new guidelines, but he was concerned about the hours
of illumination and thought they should be rescheduled. .
Commissioner Francard considered the owner's permission should be obtained
before the sign permit was heard. City Attorney Coleman suggested that
this could be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Mink moved that this sign permit for one illuminated wall
sign be approved contingent upon getting approval of the owner of the
building. Hours of illumination are to be 1/2 hour before sunset to
11:00 P. M. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on
unanimous roll call vote.
11. AZTEC RENT -A -CAR: REVIEW OF JANUARY 27, 1975 SPECIAL PERMIT
CONDITIONS
Chairman Sine declared this special permit up for review. Assistant
City Planner Yost quoted motion made by Commissioner Taylor at planning
- 13 -
commission meeting of January 27, 1975 which provided that this special
permit be reviewed at the end of one year. He noted that the year had
expired, and it could be reported that Aztec had abided by the conditions
of the permit. He told Commissioners that Aztec is in the process of
looking for new offices in Burlingame and is proposing a move within
the next few months.- At that time they will come in with a new special
permit application. The Assistant City Planner introduced Mr. Dennis
Russell, the local manager of Aztec.
Mr. Russell confirmed that Aztec is in the process of looking for a
new office in Burlingame. He stated they have nearly closed negotiations
for a new site, and will keep in touch with the planning department.
He affirmed they had kept the conditions of the special permit granted
them.
Commissioner Mink questioned if there were a fee for this review procedure.
The City Planner explained there would be a fee for an amendment to a
special permit but none for review. The Commissioner then indicated
he was satisfied with the staff report stating they had complied with
conditions. Commissioner Kindig cautioned that if this special permit
were extended it could be only to Aztec, and not to any future occupant.
City Attorney Coleman pointed out this should be emphasized since some
special permits go with the land and not with the tenant.
Commissioner Mink moved that the special permit be continued for Aztec
Rent-A-Car at this.location. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion
and it carried on voice vote.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
The City Planner reported that the appeal on 1525 Cypress, Adolpho Lopez,
had gone to Council, and they had sustained the Planning Commission
decision. Discussion of the Lopez application followed.
City Planner Swan told Commissioners an inquiry had been received from
a tenant in an accessory building as to its legality. The Planning
Department is investigating the site and history of the construction.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:00 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary