Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.03.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, March 23, 1987 at 7:31 P.M. unr.r. rar.r. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: Commissioner S. Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer MINUTES - The minutes of the March 9, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. REQUEST TO EXTEND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE USE AT 1722 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/23/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed special permit effective January 21, 1986 with conditions; applicant's request for extension and reason for failure to meet extension deadline; Commission action this evening. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant, Robert H. Brown, was present. He noted his letter of March 9, 1987 clearly stated his misunderstanding of city requirements (he had thought as long as the building was continually offered for lease and there was no intervening use the special permit would not expire). There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the comment this building was constructed prior to the code change limiting office use in M-1, the special permit was granted in 1986 and there has been no change in use during the past year, C. Jacobs moved to extend the special permit for office use to January 21, 1988 with all conditions of the original action. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 3/23/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request for a 10' tall, 6' diameter dish antenna placed within Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1987 the rooftop mechanical equipment enclosure; she discussed details of the request, previous application which was denied without prejudice by the City Council, letters from the applicant, property owner and conditional tenant, staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: CE's requirements; Council's concern about granting a use permit in anticipation of a tenant; possibility of including a condition addressing installation of the dish for the particular tenant (Prudential-Bache). Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Peter Pfau, Holt & Hinshaw, Architects, stated they had hired a satellite consultant who helped them determine that they could screen the dish within the rooftop equipment enclosure. Commission complimented applicant on this determination. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 21 and March 16, 1987 memos and the Chief Building Inspector's January 6 and March 16, 1987 memos shall be met; (2) that the 6' diameter dish mounted so that the top of the dish does not exceed 10' from the surface of the roof shall be fully enclosed by the fence structure around the mechanical equipment on the roof and placed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 12, 1987; (3) that the dish shall be painted a nonreflective matte white and the color and nonreflective quality shall be maintained by the property owner; (4) that this shall be the only dish antenna to be placed on the roof of this structure; and (5) that the dish shall not be installed until the mechanical enclosure is in place and a lease agreement signed with Prudential-Bache, and it shall be removed at the termination of the lease with Prudential-Bache. Second C. Leahy. Question on the motion: since the dish will be located wholly within the four sided structure on the roof, why is the condition requiring it be painted a nonreflective matte white necessary; staff commented this is mainly because of glare from above, it could be painted any color. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. REVIEW OF LIGHTING PLAN FOR AUTO SALES LOT AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB -AREA D Reference staff report, 3/23/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed lighting on this site, zoning code provisions for review of lighting plans for automobile sales lots, staff review, Planning staff site inspection and site lighting fixture plan, Police Department survey of timing of the on-site lighting. Planning staff felt the recommendations of a lighting specialist were needed and proposed three items for this action. Three action alternatives were suggested for consideration following the public hearing. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1987 Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. George Avanessian, architect for the project, addressed Commission: he apologized to the neighbors who were unhappy about the lighting situation and stated that problem will be taken care of; the three lights on Peninsula are high pressure sodium lights, they serve as street lights for the sidewalk and could be turned off if there is a problem; they did not apply for a lighting permit because they were merely replacing what had been there previously; the lights on the deck are within one foot of the height of previous fixtures when mounted on the ground; wattage of all lights on the lot was reduced by 30%, they are using new more energy efficient lights. It was felt the problem arose from neighbors' shock when the lights were turned on after being off for two years and at the time of year when there was no foliage to shield them. Mr. Avanessian continued: to mitigate the problem applicants propose shading the lights (shades are on order), this should address the problem of indirect light, and they will turn out lights on the deck at 9:00 P.M.; applicant would like the California Drive lights to remain on until 11:00 P.M., these are 200' from adjacent property, and they will tilt these lights; regarding hiring an expert to analyze the lighting, they felt this would create a problem since there are no regulations for minimum or maximum lighting on the premises, there are no guidelines. Mr. Avanessian requested time to resolve the problems; if, in the opinion of staff and Commission, the problem has still not been resolved, they would be happy to hire an expert; the manufacturer of the light fixtures is advising them at present. Commission/applicant discussion: data is sent to the lighting fixture manufacturer and processed through a computer; this computer would show light spillage that is bothering the neighbors; order for the shades was placed about two weeks ago; applicant has seen the letter from adjacent neighbor on Highland Avenue but has not talked to the neighbors; applicant would like an opportunity to determine which lights are causing the problem and resolve it. Commission felt a solution should be reached as soon as possible; discussion continued concerning which lights were a problem, those not shown on the lighting plan, lights with high wattage which shine through the site to Highland, when the various lights are turned off. It was noted residents in San Mateo on Jefferson Court have not complained. Architect commented that because a light fixture is visible from three blocks away does not necessarily mean it is a problem to someone that far away and, if tilted, it would be less of a problem. If there is a problem in future architect requested information be given them on the allowable foot-candle. Joseph Putnam, applicant, stated the lights on California Drive are on the previous poles and the new fixtures are much smaller, the old fixtures were much more visible; there was a row of trees next to the apartment houses which has been trimmed, eliminating some screening; the old lights on California Drive were there for many years with no complaints received. It was his belief the lack of foliage screening was the big difference and questioned there is more light now than in the past. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1987 Commission commented on the height of lights on the deck and the fact that the deck and balconies of adjacent apartments are about the same height, it would seem that even with shading there would be spillage of light, has a fence at that point been considered; architect replied they had considered a fence, it would eliminate almost all direct or indirect light, they would prefer to shade the lights rather than put a fence in front of neighbors' windows, if a fence is put in it would be very dark; a fence would, however, provide privacy and shield the apartments from customers on the roof. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: Lee Correy, 16 Highland Avenue - she stated she has lost her privacy, customers and sales people look over from the parking deck directly into her balcony, she cannot open her shades to let light in, the new lights are higher than the previous ones, need a fence to restore privacy and diminish illumination; she believed 18 Highland is similarly affected. She was not objecting to the building itself and understood the effects of coexistence with commercial parcels but she felt residents should be taken into consideration. Responding to Commissioners' questions, she lives on the second floor of 16 Highland; there is a need for a fence on the parking deck to retain privacy; parking deck lighting is the problem, not California Drive lights; deck lights have been turned off at 9:00 P.M. recently, lumens could be reduced on these lights; the basic problem is privacy. Carl Curtis, 872 Jefferson Court, San Mateo - he felt lighting on this site is excessive; Peninsula Avenue lights are visible when driving down Jefferson Court; there is excessive light from the service end of the structure, suggest these lights be shaded, light from inside is a bother, possibly door of the service area could be adjusted to shield the light; he also felt there are more street lights than necessary. Resident of 16 Highland Avenue (moved in two weeks ago) - stated lighting is O.K. if turned off at 9:00 P.M.; residents on the upper level have no privacy, installation of a fence or shades would be much better; her comments refer to the lights in the back on the parking deck. Architect and Commission continued their discussion: Mr. Avanessian commented that it appeared lighting was not the only problem; they would like to install a fence to give privacy to the apartments in the rear; creating a 7-1/2' fence from the top of the deck might not screen indirect light, they would need to go higher for that; they would still put shades on the light fixtures; they would also tilt the lights on California Drive but would need enough light to illuminate the parking lot, it is a sales area; the sales lot closes at 11:00-11:30 P.M., sometimes at 10:00 P.M. if there are no customers. The need for a public hearing on the fence was discussed. Architect requested a change to 11:00 P.M. in staff's recommendation that all Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1987 exterior lights on site except those along Peninsula Avenue be turned off at 9:00 P.M. until final action on the lighting plan. Some Commissioners felt they could approve applicant's proposal this evening if he pursued this proposal, obtained a building permit and complied with all conditions. Others felt more specific direction should be given the applicant with a request for a specific plan for Commission review and determination. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: think applicant has been more than willing to resolve this problem but question Commission's authority over spillage of light on adjacent properties, over impacts outside the site itself unless for safety reasons; one of Commission's considerations in any application is the effect on neighboring properties; have certain problems with the fence on the parking deck, is this situation any different than an apartment next door with a matching balcony; difference is that one may know the people living in the apartment but in this case there are strangers coming and going all the time. It was noted when Mike Harvey developed his Rollins Road site a plan for fencing to protect neighbors on Toyon was agreed upon, in this case why can't the applicant talk to the people involved, draw up a plan and bring it back to the Commission. Discussion continued while formulating a motion. C. H.Graham moved that the applicant return to Commission in 30 days with a plan for shading the lights on the parking deck, a fence design adequate for providing privacy to the residents in the adjacent apartments and for tilting the lights on California Drive; that during the 30 day period the lights on the deck be turned off at 9:00 P.M. and the California Drive lights be turned off at 11:00 P.M.; and that the report include a timing plan for all lights on site. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: opposed due to the manner in which the motion was framed and the fact that it does not address a permit for the lighting; staff noted a fence exception will be brought forward to Commission if found necessary. Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting, C. S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. Recess 8:52 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M. PLANNER REPORTS Review and Discussion of Signage Regulations for Auto Dealerships CP Monroe referred to her staff report (3/23/87) which noted Commission concerns,,provisions of other communities, items for discussion. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1987 Commenting on the problems with more than one franchise per site, one Commissioner suggested the concept of signage for a franchise rather than length of frontage. He proposed the following for Rollins Road: one 40' pole sign per franchise with 24 SF each side; all other signs a maximum height of 30'; total signage of 500 SF per franchise; maximum number of signs, seven; and delete reference in the sign code to auto row frontages. For California Drive and Carolan Avenue: one 20' pole sign per franchise with 24 SF each side; all other signs a maximum height of 201; total signage 400 SF per franchise; maximum number of signs, seven. These figures were arrived at by talking to franchisers and expressed the concern that dealers on Rollins needed exposure to passers-by on 101. The Commissioner believed this would reduce substantially the number of sign exception applications. Commission comment: if allowed 400 SF wouldn't each franchise ask for 400 SF; the city is extremely lenient with car dealers, would propose one good sign per franchise, with 500 SF per franchise the area could look worse than it does now; all other signage in the city is related to the width of the lot; present business indications are that manufacturers are either going to be very large in the future or fold, when this happens it will require each dealer to have more than one franchise to survive; one problem has been sign exceptions which resulted in too much signage; would like to have a workable code for auto dealerships, stick to it and not grant exceptions. Another Commissioner proposed provisions based on both lot use and property frontage: total signage 500 SF; one pole sign 20' in height, 80 SF total; for each additional franchise on the same property allow signage based on 50% of the lineal frontage. Comment: some dealerships take up a whole block, using lineal frontage would not be fair to smaller sites. Provisions for granting sign exceptions were read and discussed. A further suggestion was made that signage could be based on square footage per franchise limited by the linear frontage. Staff will prepare a comparative table of the suggestions this evening for Commission's review at its next meeting. - C. H.Graham reviewed City Council actions at its March 16, 1987 regular meeting. - CP Monroe reviewed the March 18, 1987 Council study meeting. - C. H.Graham reported on his attendance at the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute held March 11-13, 1987 in Sacramento. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary