Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.02.12MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, February 12, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the January 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed February 2, 1996. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. It was noted that Item #1, 260 El Camino Real is continued to the March 11;1996 meeting, and Item #2, 2 Anita Road has been continued to the February 26, 1996 meeting. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR A SNACK SHOP IN THE CHEVRON STATION AT 260 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (CHEVRON, USA, INC., PROPERTY OWNER AND NANETTE NAMES, REPRESENTING R. H. LEE & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT). APPLICATION CONTINUED TO MARCH 11, 1996 MEETING CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 1996 2. APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 2 ANITA ROAD, ZONED R-3, (MARK AND SANDRA CURTIS, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). APPLICATION CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 26, 1996 MEETING. 3. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF OFFICE AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1, (ANTHONY AND ANNIE TSOU, PROPERTY OWNER AND GREG CAPLAN, APPLICANT). Requests: what is unusual other than the shape of the property, the applicant should respond; are they required to meet ADA requirements, how do they, do a parking lot occupancy count, how many spaces are in the lot now; landscaping on David frontage needs maintenance; how would additional landscaping be maintained, schedule, irrigation location; need more detail on tree, how can parking be relaid out around the tree increasing number of spaces, would this affect the number of compact stalls; applicant has revised request 3 times in a year, is this the last conference area needed for employees, and what would be the space needs for future growth; Item set for public hearing Wednesday, February 26 1996. ACTION ITEMS 4. APPLICATION FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND THREE (3) SIGN EXCEPTIONS, AT 1300-1304 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A, (RENATO ROCCUCCI, ET AL, PROPERTY OWNERS AND GURDIAL JOHAL, APPLICANT. Reference staff report, 2.12.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. CA Coleman explained it is appropriate if commission wants to require removal of the roof sign in approving the Master Signage Program because it is part of the sites signage request and the removal of the awning would compel the removal or folding back of the support bar. Commission discussed the condition of the roof sign including broken lighting and need for paint. Chin. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Gurdial Johal noted he has owned the Wine Shop since 1993. He asked that the commission consider the signage allotment as if these were two separate businesses. He noted that the window sign they wished to retain identifies the business. Wine Stop, as well as shipping costs and prices. It has been there since 1993. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 1996 C. Mink moved that this application be denied without prejudice, stating that any exception allowing the roof sign would constitute a grant of special privilege not given other businesses on Burlingame Avenue. Approval this motion would require the removal of the roof sign. Direction was given to the applicant that if denied then this application could come back with signage conforming to current code and get a sign permit. Motion was seconded by C. Wellford. On the motion the commissioners noted that at the study meeting the applicant was asked for additional justification for retention of the roof sign and the size of the master signage program, he provided no additional reasons for consideration; the roof sign constitutes a grant of special privilege because others don't have and cannot have, giving the applicant an unfair advantage. The roof sign, if fixed up, would contribute to the character of Burlingame Avenue, it's a part of the historic fabric, but not in its present condition; the era of the roof sign is past; having two distinct stores within a single store front should be considered, there is a difference between a liquor store and a wine store. The signs on the awnings cannot be seen from the sidewalk, in fact can only be seen from Park, would like to see a ,program closer to sign code requirements. Sign code was revised because of the proliferation of signs and the fact that they hid the shops; the roof sign is inappropriate today, few remain today, present approach in this application is inappropriate; application needs to go far beyond what is there, need a significant explanation of what they will do to the roof sign to refurbish it in order to retain the antique, how they will reduce other signage to better meet current code requirements with the roof sign retained and what are the special circumstances for retention of the sign. There are lots of awnings on Burlingame Avenue but not lots of signs on them, these signs can be easily removed. Antique is usually defined as 100 years old. Since there are two stores on the site it might be appropriate to consider the total signage of 100 SF rather than 60 SF dictated by the street frontage. The Commission called for the question. The motion to deny without prejudice amended (with the agreement of the second) to include the removal of the roof sign and submittal of a new master sign plan within 60 days or the action would change to denial and the city would proceed with code enforcement failed on a 3-4 (Cers. Deal, Ellis, Galligan and Key dissenting) roll call vote. C. Key then moved that this application be denied without prejudice and that the revised application include a plan to renovate the roof sign including an estimate of the cost of repair and the repair program for the roof sign, the new master plan should incorporate the roof sign into the overall signage program, and that a resubmittal of a new master sign plan should be submitted within 60 days or the denial without prejudice would change to a denial and the city would proceed with code enforcement. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -3- CITY OF BURLING"E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 1996 The meeting adjourned to Conference Room A at 8:15 p.m. - Discussion meeting Planning Commission and M-1 Committee regarding the revisions to the M-1 District regulations proposed by the committee. Dick Lavenstein, Terry Timberlake, Herman Christensen, and Mike Coffey of the M-1 district review committee appointed by the City Council introduced themselves and their experience in the M-1 district to the members of the Planning Commission. The Committee suggested that the group review a list of items which the committee had developed from the Commissions initial comments on their proposed draft. They noted in their introduction that the committee had had three goals in revising the existing M-1 district regulations: (1) to simplify uses and standardize criteria for use throughout the city; (2) to recognize changes that had taken place in the area since 1941 and changes likely to take place in the future; and (3) to upgrade the areas appearance i.e. more landscaping, adequate on site parking, etc. They want to make a better industrial area and a better balanced community. Issues discussed from the list included: modification of the performance standards for manufacturing to add 'obnoxious" to the criteria for prohibited odors; rather than a prohibited use they would like to have car rental and leasing uses as a conditional use assuming that the same criteria applicable in the O-M district would apply which preclude the small players; they would like the minimum size of "incidental" food establishments to be larger, 1500 SF since that is more consistent with the module size of most warehouses; not want service businesses limited to janitorial and contractors so add back "and other support services" since these uses will be major players in the future and impacts are handled with on site parking requirements for company and employee vehidles as well as space for loading; permitted percentage of office use should be increased to 75 % because the nature of business space has changed and they need less warehousing especially high tech. and sufficient parking is required so no impacts; outdoor storage of goods should be allowed in front of buildings south of Mills Creek because early subdivision was small lots, pattern established cannot be rebuilt competitively, upgrade discouraged by economics, if storage enclosed in opaque fence not in parking, lesser impact; criteria for outdoor storage needs to be made consistent throughout M-1 re sections .020-9,.030- to, .030-11; vehicle rental and leasing are similar activities and both should be allowed in the district, a definition of leasing needs to be added to the code; fencing requirements for auto storage should be opaque as required for enclosing other storage; all aspects of incidental food establishments including being free standing should be allowed with a conditional use permit, this would avoid creating a nonconforming use of an existing business; development criteria for motor freight terminals should be the same as for air couriers, a definition of motor freight terminals is needed; the lots south of Mills Creek should, be allowed to use zero lot line development because the pattern of smaller lots is consistent throughout this area; the 5 % limit -5- C= OF BURLING"E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 1996 on incidental sales is not meaningful, hard to determine, would require a lot of use permits since so low, prefer 25%; the parking requirement for health clubs should be 1:250 GSF for area within a structure and there should be no parking requirement for outdoor recreation areas, new parking requirements should only be applied to new floor area added, nonconforming regulations should be changed to reflect this; all criteria for conditional uses should be subject to variance except parking and landscaping standards. The group decided to set the Planning Commission's public hearing on the proposed revisions to the M-1 District Regulations as proposed by the M-1 District Committee for February 26, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Staff will advertise as required by law. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. MI14UfE,92.12(2) as amended ® 2.12 meeting and restored @ 2.26 meeting in Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary