Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.11.22COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Jacobs Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 22, 1976 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Kindig OTHERS PRESENT C. P. Swan Asst. C. P. Yost C. A. Coleman C. E. Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chm. Taylor at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL The above members were present; C. Kindig necessarily absent. MINUTES The minutes of the November 8, 1976 meeting were approved as mailed. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOT 20 AND A PORTION OF ADJACENT AREA IPJ BLOCK 11, EASTON ADDITION NO. 1 (APN 026-201-140) AT 958 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR TH94AS MC LAUGHLIN C. E. Kirkup told Commission this parcel map was conditionally required by them when approving variances at this location at their September 27, 1976 meeting. Contrary to the C.E.'s remarks at the study meeting, only a tentative map may be acted upon at this time. He recommended approval of this tentative map subject to dedication of adequate easements for sewer and drainage facilities at their existing locations, and mentioned the alternative of relocating the sewer underneath the building to another acceptable location. C. P. Swan had no comments with regard to this item. There were no audience comments and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Plink moved approval of this Tentative Parcel Map with the condition that the easements recommended in the Assistant City Engineer's memo of November 12, 1976 be granted. Second C. Cistulli, and approved by unanimous roll call vote of Commission members present. C. Jacobs was told by staff the fee for a tentative or final map is the same regardless of whether an easement is required or not, and that the fee for a parcel map is $50.00 plus $3.00 per parcel or lot in the case of subdivision. 2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION TO COMBINE LOTS H AND I, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME TERRACE (APN 029-012-200/210) AT 828/832 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY REDMOND WALSH FOR FRANK P. DONAHUE AND THOMAS VANNONI The C. E. reported this map is a subdivision to combine two existing parcels in order that an apartment building could be constructed on the resulting parcel. It had come Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 22, 1976 to the Engineer's attention when a building permit was applied for. He said the final parcel map had been received the afternoon of this meeting and that both tentative and final maps,are correct. No easements or improvements are required, and there is adequate sewer and water for the proposed development. He recommended approval of both maps. There were no comments by Planning staff. In response to Chm. Taylor, a member of the audience inquired as to the proposed location of the planned apartment building. He was told by Chm. Taylor the project would be required to meet Burlingame Zoning and Building Codes and that the City had no control over the existing trees once the property was sold. The Chm. then declared the public hearing closed. C. Sine moved approval of the Tentative and Final Parcel Map, second C. Jacobs, and approved by unanimous roll call vote of members present. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 33, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 (PORTION OF APN 026-185-080), AT (TENTATIVE ADDRESS) 1012/1016 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. BY GLEN D. HAGEY FOR TED FARLEY. C. E. Kirkup discussed this resubdivision of one parcel into two. He advised that part of the lot frontage is unimproved and Engineering would require extension of curb, gutter, sidewalk and adjoining street paving. With regard to the creek which cuts through the side of Parcel A, this would not affect the map; however, it will be a very difficult building site in future when the lot is developed. Parcel A is without a sanitary sewer; it is recommended a sewer be instal.led along Bernal to serve both Parcels A and B. Water mains in the area are adequate; the C. E. would recommend payment of the fee for new water service to each parcel. The map will require a drainage easement, and the fence along the alley should be shown on the map. Since improvements are required, the tentative map must go to City Council; the C. E. recommended approval be conditioned by improvements to be made. He also indicated that normal procedure on subdivisions is that improvements are put in at the time of the final map or guaranteed by bond. Replying to a question from Chm. Taylor, C. P. Swan told him an environmental impact report is not required. A minor street alteration within established rights-of-way can be considered to be categorically exempt unless there is an expansion of use. Without knowing the extent of street improvements, it appears that an environmental assessment would show that a negative declaration is adequate. (Approval of a parcel map is deemed to be a ministerial action.) C. Jacobs had concern about the stability of the creek when work is started there. The C.A. and C.E. told her the City has control through its building codes and authority to keep anyone from blocking drainage in a creek. The C.E. told Commission the owner proposes to extend his fence to include Parcel B of Lot 6. He advised that if this tentative map is approved by Commission and Council, all conditions will have been met prior to bringing in the final map. At the present time Mr. Farley could build on any portion of Lot 6, but until this parcel map is approved he could not build two dwelling units. The C.A. added that Mr. Farley could build a home over the creek today. C. Jacobs stated she was reluctant to adopt a map with so many concerns. At the request of the Chairman, Secretary Sine read into the record a letter dated November 22, 1976 signed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert D. Shafer of 1008 Bernal Avenue. This letter opposed the subdivision because they felt it would result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area, and listed several of these adverse effects on this unique section of Burlingame. Concern was expressed about the size of the small lots in this area and development over the creek area. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 22, 1976 Chm. Taylor next requested audience comments in favor. Ted Farley, the owner of the property, addressed Commission, stating he lives at 1915 Carmelita. He said he does not plan to obstruct the creek and will build on piers according to City code. The required sewer development, streets and sidewalks will not be objectionable; a bond will be put up. Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in opposition and Mr. Robert Shafer of 1008 Bernal Avenue addressed Commission. He stated they had purchased this property in Burlingame specifically because Burlingame has been known for maintaining creeks and property. He objected to anyone building totally over the creek, and it was his belief the ecology of the whole area would go. Mrs. Lydia Dozier of 1000 Bernal Avenue also spoke protesting this subdivision, and presented a letter dated November 22, 1976 voicing her concerns. She noted the short dead end street which is paved for only 100 feet, the large trees located there, the sloping banks of the creek; and felt there was not adequate parking space for additional family homes. She believed two additional homes would create considerable traffic with parking congestion in this dead end area, and that it would inevitably lead to the major problem of -vehicles blocking the bridge acess which crosses the creek at the very end of this dead end street. She noted this bridge is the only access to her home. It was further noted that all lots are large in this area. There being no further audience comments in opposition, Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. In reply to C. Jacobs, the C.A. commented that average lot size was one of the points Commission could consider when acting on any parcel map. There was considerable Commission discussion. The C.E. told Chm. Taylor that the developer would pay the cost of the street improvements, and there was no intention by the City to remove existing trees located within the street right-of-way. He told Commission the bridge is privately owned but it does exit onto the right-of-way. C. Sine was told by C.E. Kirkup that if the trees in the street were declared a hazard, then the City would have to take them out. C. Jacobs remarked that Commission does have concern with regard to this unique area of the City; and Mr. Shafer commented from the audience that as developments increase in the upper hills the level of the creek will rise. C. Mink determined from staff that once the improvements are made and subdivision approved by the City, these lots would be legal lots. The Commissioner brought up the point that if the lots are legal, why should Mr. Farley bear the burden for the surrounding environment, and he also noted Mr. Farley currently is paying taxes on Lot 6. Chm. Taylor commented that although most members of the Commission might share the views of those opposing this subdivision, there was a question of Commission's authority to refuse the applicant. He then asked for a motion or a suggestion of how to resolve this dilemma, stating it was his feeling that no parcel map should be approved with a set of conditions. C. Cistulli moved that this application be continued to the meeting of December 13, commenting that he would like to inspect the property personally. Second C. Sine. Since the public hearing had been closed, C.A. Coleman cautioned Commissioners if they visited the site to be very careful and only view the property, not interview any of the parties involved. Replying to C. Jacobs' request, C.E. Kirkup said more definitive proposed improvements would be shown on the map when it is submitted again in December or a supplemental drawing would be made. C. Cistulli's motion to continue this item to the meeting of December 13, 1976 was then approved by unanimous roll call vote of members present. C. Mink requested further information from staff at the December 13 meeting covering the surrounding neighborhood, residences served by the dead end street and traffic. It was the advice of the C.A. that a separate map indicating these concerns would be the best approach. C. Sine informed members of the audience opposed to this application that December 13 was the only P.C. meeting scheduled for the month of December. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1976 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONDUCT AWARENESS TRAINING SEMINARS AT 850 STANTON ROAD (APN 026-302-510), ZONED M-1, BY STEVE BAILEY OF THE CYBERNETIC WAY (APPLICANT) WITH ROBERT E. JAMES (PROPERTY OWNER) Chairman Taylor determined that the applicant, Steve Bailey, was in the audience and requested review of this application by Asst. C. P. Yost. Mr. Yost stated that 840-852 Stanton Road is a warehouse type building; two manufacturing firms are located on the ground floor and Mr. Bailey rents an office suite of 572 square feet on a second floor mezzanine. Awareness training seminars are held weekends with hours as follows: Friday - 6:30 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight; Saturdays and Sundays - 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. There are also workshops Monday and Tuesday evenings from 7:45 P.M. to 10:30 P.M. The applicant has reported 6 to 12 students, with a maximum of 15, can be expected to attend the seminars. Copies of Mr. Bailey's program notes had been circulated to Commission. Staff wished to point out the following: (1) The negative declaration noted that because the seminars will be limited to evenings and weekends, ample off- street parking is available for the students; (2) The Police Department has reported this type of weekend and evening use will cause no problems to their watch commanders in the industrial area; (3) An inspection by the Chief Fire Inspector prompted a letter dated November 16, 1976 to Mr. Bailey. This letter advised it would be necessary to restrict the number of persons on the second floor of this building to 10 as a second qualifying exit from the second floor was not provided. The building manager, in discussion with the Fire Inspector, had agreed to post a sign which reads "Occupant Load Not To Exceed 10 Persons." Should the application be approved, staff suggests that the seminars be restricted to evenings and weekends, and that not more than nine students be enrolled and in attendance at one time. The applicant, Steve Bailey, addressed Commission, reporting he had spoken with the Fire Inspector after receiving his letter. At the present time class attendance is about six people. He noted that if enrollment reaches more than nine persons there are several hotels in the area with meeting.rooms available. The Building Inspector has said he would favor putting a small ladder up to the windows of the second floor rather than using the second exit which goes into the food processing plant below. Mr. Bailey stated he had no objection to the proposed conditions of approval. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in favor of this application. Fred Nerio of 932 Laguna Avenue stated he had taken the course, had found it very beneficial, the workshops were orderly and he felt many people are helped by the classes. He added that he had known Mr. Bailey for some 10 years and knew he was accredited. There were no audience comments in opposition, and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs moved approval of this special permit with the condition that no more than nine persons be enrolled and in attendance at one time, and that the hours be limited as follows: Mondays and Tuesdays - 7:45 P.M. to 10:30 P.M.; Fridays - 6:30 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight; Saturdays and Sundays - 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Seconded by C. Mink and approved by unanimous roll call vote of Commission members present. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO STORE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES ON THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION PROPERTY AT 988 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-214-220), ZONED C-2, BY RICHARD STURIZA AND MARSHALL PRUETT (APPLICANTS) WITH RAYMOND KLIEWER (OWNER) Chm. Taylor ascertained that the applicants were not present this evening, and it was noted by the Asst. C.P. that they were requested to be in attendance. C. P. Swan advised that since autos are being stored at this location staff had requested an application be brought to the Commission. C. A. Coleman stated this sort of thing Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 22, 1976 happens often, that is, running a business without a permit. In review, the C. P. said this is a complete application which has been submitted by the tenant of a portion of the property behind Pruett's Old Country Exxon for an ancillary use; it is for storage of vehicles owned by Burlingame Imports. He noted it has been Commission policy to review proposed development plans for uses in conjunction with gasoline service stations and cited ND-96P.which concluded it would not have a significant effect on the environment. He reminded Commission that several years ago there had been considerable concern by the P.C. regarding what constitutes compatible service station use; the matter had been studied and Resolution No. 6-72 had been adopted in June of 1972. Findings attached to -this resolution included the following: "A Gasoline Service Station is the premises and the use thereof, for the retail distribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles, oils, greases, tires and batteries, greasing and washing, the sale of minor accessories, and the services incidental thereto." Also, "Special Permits should be required for other business uses . . .," and "There is need for more comprehensive review of the design of each gasoline service station to promote excellence of development." This proposal is to store from 30 to 40 vehicles which will be serviced to a minor degree by operators of the service station. After the study meeting, additional information had been requested, but nothing had been received to date. He remarked that Commission could choose to say this is a legitimate use at a service station, which could infer Commission has no further interest in review of service stations; however, review seemed advisable as this situation is applicable to many other service stations in the City. Chm. Taylor enumerated possible courses of action. Commission could hear the application on its merits at this time and the applicant would then be bound, subject to the right of appeal; P.C. could also determine the matter should not be heard without the applicant in attendance, or it could table the matter. It was noted that storage of automobiles is an appropriate use in C-2. C. Mink referred to Sec. 25.16 of the code which refers to development of service stations and mentions off-street parking. He was reluctant to proceed with this application since the original application for service station use met Sec. 25.16; without further information Commission would be unable to determine if requirements would be met with this additional use. He suggested delaying the action to December 13, 1976 and, if further information is not received, proceeding with abatement. The C.A. commented this is a zoning violation and no public hearing is necessary in abatement proceedings. C. Mink then moved that Item #5 on tonight's agenda be continued until December 13, 1976 and, further, between this date and December 13 staff once again request information regarding parking spaces required by Sec. 25.16 of the code and a specific plan for the area of the proposed operation as defined by the applicant. Second C. Cistulli. Chm. Taylor announced that since no public hearing had been opened or closed, the public hearing would be conducted at the December 13 meeting. C. Mink's motion passed by unanimous voice vote of members present. A short recess was called at 9:00 P.M., after which the meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M. 6. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT TWO 8' HIGH FENCES ALONG SIDE PROPERTY LINES AT 1551 CYPRESS AVENUE (APN 028-301-200), ZONED R-1, BY BARTO B. PRICE, JR. Chm. Taylor determined that the applicant was present and asked C. P. Swan for review of this application. Mr. Swan noted Mr. Price's petition for a fence exception was well documented. The property was vacant in the 1972 Directory and the Prices took up residence there in 1973. Photographs taken by staff on November 10 were distributed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 22, 1976 which showed the existing fences around the rear portion of the yard and a view looking from the street down the driveway. Mr. Swan commented that an alternative to the applicant's petition had been indicated on the diagram sent to Commission by staff. It would limit the 8 foot fence to the rear yard only. This fence exception could be approved if four conditions are satisfied: (1) that there are exceptional circumstances; (2) that there is no public hazard; (3) that neighboring property will not be materially damaged; and (4) that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Mr. Price told Commission that an existing fence on the south side of his property had collapsed and his main objective was to replace this fence in addition to making his property as consistent as possible, doing this within the required procedures of the code. His property line abuts five other properties and presently at the rear of his lot, which is 140 feet deep, there are two fences of 8 feet and one 8-1/2 feet. The Prices plan to build a deck off the rear of their house in future which would be four feet above ground level as is the inside of his home. He felt a six foot fence would allow no privacy to either his neighbors or themselves. Future plans also include a swimming pool in the backyard with the need for security and privacy. The diagram submitted by Mr. Price proposes an 8 foot fence for 25 feet on the northerly side at the rear of the house and on the southerly side 24 feet of 5 foot fence beginning at the front property line, then 66 feet of 8 foot fencing. The Chairman requested audience comments. Lawrence H. Putman of 1547 Cypress Avenue spoke in favor, stating it would result in consistency of the property lines on Mr. Price's property. He felt it would also enhance his own property and certainly would aid Mr. Price in development of his lot. There were no comments in opposition and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. There was considerable discussion between Commission and the applicant. Mr. Price said he had no objection to the suggested alternative. C. Sine advised he had inspected the property and remarked that the properties in this area do have a problem, particularly with regard to rear fences dividing them. The Commissioner suggested the applicant consider a 5 foot fence in the first 24 feet from Cypress, then a 6 foot fence from the building setback line. C. Jacobs noted a six foot fence would give approximately two feet of privacy which she felt was sufficient. C. Mink suggested the alternative of an 8 foot fence on both sides, using the 25 feet on the northerly side as proposed and an 8 foot fence on the southerly side in essentially the same position. Discussion continued regarding the applicant's plans for an automatic garage door opener attached to the fence at the front corner of the house, and his plans to demolish the old garage and put a carport in the back part of his large lot. C. Mink thought any improvements Mr. Price might make would not be detrimental to the neighborhood but he was concerned about access for emergency crews of the city. His previous suggestion regarding location of 8 foot fences would leave access the full length of the driveway. He was reluctant to have an 8 foot fence all the way out to the setback line. C. Mink moved approval of a fence exception for fences 8 feet in height for Barto B. Price, Jr. at 1551 Cypress Avenue; one fence between 1551 and 1547 Cypress Avenue as submitted in the drawing by the applicant, and another for a section of fence beginning at the same distance back from the curb line at a similar location between 1551 and 1555 Cypress Avenue. Second C. Cistulli, and approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, FRANCARD, JACOBS, MINK, TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1976 7. FENCE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCTA 3'6" HIGH FENCE AROUND THE FRONT YARD AT 1256 LAGUNA AVENUE (APN 026-091-260), ZONED R-1, BY VLADIMIR MATOV Chm. Taylor ascertained that the applicant was present, and asked Asst. C. P. Yost for review of this item. The Asst. C. P. pointed out Chap. 25.78 of the Zoning Ordinance which states that a fence in the front setback of a property shall not exceed 5 feet in height. The code also states that on corner lots no fence shall exceed 3' in height within 15' from the corner. This application is to construct a 3'6" high chain link fence around the front property line of a corner lot. He noted there is about 50' along the Lincoln Avenue frontage and about the same along the Laguna Avenue frontage. Mr. Yost stated the four findings Commission must make in approving this fence exception; Mr. Matov had addressed several of these points in his letter of November 1, 1976 to the Commission. The Traffic Engineer reported that as the applicant's property line is 12 feet back from the curb, as there is a stop sign on this corner for traffic proceeding north on Laguna, and as the proposed fence is of a chain link type which offers some visibility, he sees no objection to it. Mr. Matov had no further remarks to add to Asst. C. P. Yost's review. During discussion C. Mink determined that the applicant intended to build this fence in the same location as the plot plan submitted to Commission one year ago (copy of this plan had been sent to Commissioners). Mr. Matov also told C. Francard that the top of the fence would not be of barbed wire There were no audience comments in favor or opposed, and the Chm. declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs moved approval of this fence exception to construct a 3'6" high chain link fence in accordance with the application submitted. Second C. Mink, and approved by unanimous roll call vote of members present. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR ONE PAINTED WALL SIGN OF 172 SF BY GRINNELL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC. AT 189 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, PROPERTY ZONED M-1 Chm. Taylor announced this item and asked Asst. C. P. Yost for comments. Mr. Yost noted that since the Council's adoption of the Interim Sign Ordinance No. 1077 this is the first application received for a Sign Exception. Grinnell has recently leased 189 Airport Boulevard; this building has an entrance and offices on Airport Boulevard, and a side wall that runs back parallel to Lang Road and the freeway. Mr. Mulder, the Burlingame manager for Grinnell, has decided that a painted wall sign on the side elevation facing the freeway would be superior to a sign on Airport Boulevard. It was his decision to apply to the Commission for a 172 SF painted wall sign rather than taking out a building permit for a smaller sign. The Asst. C. P. reminded Commission of two requirements specified for an exception in the new draft sign code: (1) that the sign area shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, and (2) that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, it is deprived of advantages enjoyed by the other properties in the area. In connection with the first point, Commission had approved on February 24, 1975 an exception for a painted wall sign of 288 SF for the Hamerslag Equipment Co. building at 370 Lang Road. Mr. Yost pointed out that the Hamerslag sign occupies 22% of the surface of the side wall on which it is painted; this present application proposes a sign that would cover 8% of its respective side wall. With regard to the second criterion, Commission should determine if there are any special circumstances which require a sign larger than permitted by code; two high power line poles near this wall might obstruct a smaller sign. Christianes Mulder addressed Commission. He stated he understood that the code allows 105 SF at the front and 75 SF at the side (when there is a secondary frontage), and it was his hope to put all of this on one side as it was not practical to install a sign in front. He believed Grinnell had a problem with customers and suppliers being able to locate this new office. It was hoped a sign visible from the freeway would Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 22, 1976 help alleviate this problem. He told Commission that Grinnell has been there for 30 days and has been receiving many calls inquiring where they were located. It is planned to use earth colors in this sign. C. Sine noted this problem is one of the occupational hazards of moving, and felt a firm as well known as Grinnellreally didn't need advertising; the applicant must have been cognizant of this particular problem. C. Jacobs determined the applicant was aware that he is allowed a 75 square foot sign; Mr. Mulder told the Commissioner he did not believe 75 square feet would be visible from the freeway, and if it was not visible from the freeway it had no purpose to Grinnell. C. Cistulli suggested that shrubs and trees along the freeway might grow and block view of the sign; the applicant believed it would take a considerable amount of time for the shrubs to grow. He also told C. Cistulli the proposed sign could be considered 75 percent for advertising and 25 percent for locating their place of business. There were no audience comments in favor or opposed, and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed. C. Mink inquired if a dimensioned sketch had been received with the proposed colors for this sign. He was told a sign company sketch had been received but no colors were attached. This sketch was shown; there would be black letters on the existing background. C. Mink suggested using only the name "Grinnell" and a logo. The Commissioner also requested some sort of dimensioned sketch of the sign. C. Jacobs agreed with C. Mink regarding the copy to be used for such a sign since it might scale the signage down to an appropriate size. She suggested letters of sufficient height and clarity to locate the building. C. Mink said he would like to know the size of letters appropriate for visibility from a vehicle traveling at high speed along the freeway. C. A. Coleman discussed the Sign Code, noting that Sec. 22.24.020 states no advertising displays shall be maintained if such advertising is designed primarily to be viewed from a main traveled roadway or freeway. He also noted Sec. 22.24.030 which gives Exceptions and states that Sec. 22.24.020 shall not apply for any advertising display used exclusively to designate the name of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which such advertising display is placed or to identify such premises. The C.A. believed, in spite of the applicant's statement, it is the name of the business and the sign would be an Exception. C. Cistulli thought Commission would be setting a precedent by approving this sign, and moved the Sign Exception be denied. The motion died for want of a second. C. Sine remarked the application appeared incomplete. He suggested continuing the application to January in order to give Grinnell a chance to consult with the sign company. C. Jacobs asked the applicant if there was another alternative he would consider. Mr. Mulder replied it was his belief they are allowed 75 square feet on the side and 105 square feet in the front. He thought this sign gave them the best advantage and would be the most conservative in comparison with installing a sign in front and one on the side. If Grinnell were required to stay within 75 square feet on the side, they would probably put a sign on the front; however, the proposed sign is the one they wish to have. C. Cistulli believed Commission should take action at this meeting since it appeared the applicant would not submit any alternative. He then moved that the Sign Exception for one painted wall sign of 172 square feet for Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, Inc. at 189 Airport Boulevard be denied. C. Sine seconded, stating the reason he did not second C. Cistulli's first motion was that he wanted to give the applicant a fair opportunity. Motion to deny was approved by the following roll call vote: Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1976 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG C. Jacobs requested that the minutes reflect carefully that an attempt had been made to reach an alternative between 75 square feet and 175 square feet. At this point in the meeting Chm. Taylor congratulated C. Sine on completion of his 8th full year as a member of the Planning Commission as well as wishing him a happy 68th birthday. MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY 9(A). SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 833 MAHLER ROAD BY DAVID WEISS Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this study item. He stated that for 10 years between October, 1963 and 1973 there had been a restaurant called the Blue Carrot Cafe at this location; since 1973 the 1800 SF of space has been vacant. This application by David Weiss is to lease this area for a cafe to be open from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. weekdays, specializing in health foods, with no grilling or frying on the premises. The applicant has stated his objective is to serve walk-in business from several adjacent office buildings; the site plan submitted suggests off-street parking will be available to code standards. David Weiss addressed Commission. He said this space meets current codes for ventilation and that all electrical and plumbing requirements are in the building at the present time. He is planning a kitchen open to the public view, and he plans to upgrade the flooring and walls. He has been in the food service business for about 10 years; is currently a licensed building contractor, and plans to do the development work himself as well as operate the business. There was very little Commission discussion and Chm. Taylor set this item for public hearing on December 13, 1976. 9(B). SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (ON PORTION OF DORE PROPERTY) BY JOSEPH C. WHITE The Chm. determined that Richard Ambrosio of R&R Auto Repair was in the audience and asked C. P. Swan for review of this item. Mr. Swan discussed the problems of enforcement on the Dore property. He reviewed the special permit granted R&R Auto Repair Service at 1244 Rollins Road. This permit expired on the 16th of September this year. It had been hoped that the public improvements would have been installed on the Dore property to improve access, fire protection and attractiveness; however, these have not yet been completed. The Tentative Subdivision Map by Bank of America for the property owner was approved 9/8/75 for five parcels; in September, 1976 a six months' extension to the tentative subdivision was granted by Commission. He stated the Bank of America is planning to construct these improvements including paving and striping on the five lots; the area requested for this new auto repair business would occupy one of the parcels. He reported the applicant had given staff a letter from the Bank of America authorizing his use of this property contingent upon issuance of a use permit by the City of Burlingame; no site plan had been received. The business license application may not be approved prior to approval of the use permit. Mr. Swan stated the applicant is doing business under the name of R&R Auto Repair, and referenced a legal ad in the San Mateo Times this evening. Mr. Ambrosio was told by the Bank the improvements Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 November 22, 1976 are to be made in the near future. The applicant added that he understood the Bank had already put out bids for the -required work. During Commission discussion C. Jacobs expressed her concern over the unattractiveness of this area. It was the C.A.'s hope that when the Bank of America completed the improvements most of the wrecked cars would be removed. C. Mink stated his understanding for Commission consideration of a special permit was to .determine if a particular use seemed an appropriate use for a specific area under the given conditions. He suggested the applicant be directed to be totally aware of the conditions Commission has found lacking in this area and be prepared to establish hard time lines for alleviation of the conditions which are not satisfactory, or be prepared to go elsewhere. Mr. Ambrosio stated that he understood. There was considerable discussion between Commission and staff regarding this problem. It was noted Mr. Ambrosio is merely a victim of the Bank of America's unwillingness to move on improvements; however, it is the applicant's obligation to get the .Bank to clean up the area. The present disposition of the Commission is to turn down any application until the Bank does so. C.A. Coleman stated staff would have a full report on the status of the Dore parcel map at the next P.C. meeting. He suggested Commission might make the Bank move by denying this permit; and added the applicant must understand the Bank of America is the one that is holding up his application. Commission members assured Mr. Ambrosio their feeling on the matter had nothing to do with his application as such; it was unfortunate he was caught in the middle in this situation. With no objection, Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing December 13, 1976 and remarked, if the plans of the Bank of America are available at that time, it is conceivable Commission requirements might be met. C. Mink noted that if the Bank was serious about leasing this property to the applicant, a representative of the Bank would be present at the December 13 meeting. 9(C). SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR SLEEPING ROOM FOR A MEMBER OF THE .FAMILY IN THE R-1 DISTRICT AT 401 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE BY MR. AND MRS. JON B. EREMEEF Dropped from the agenda. 9(D). SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A DELICATESSEN IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1501 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY DAN FRANKO AND DAN OLIAN Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed this item, noting staff had received this evening a special permit application form, environmental assessment form, letter from the applicants and a letter from Earthdata, the current lessees who are proposing to sublease to the applicants. The application is for a delicatessen and cafe; two permanent employees; possibly 175 customers are estimated per day; two cars parked all day and possibly nine short term autos parked at this location. Estimated peak hour vehicle movements at noontime are 12 to 15 autos. There was some Commission discussion which indicated the application was deficient for evaluation purposes. Mr. Yost listed information required as (1) site plan showing existing building, existing parking spaces in the parking lot, landscaping, etc.; (2) floor plan of existing building; (3) a breakdown of employees for each of the existing tenants in the building would be desirable; (4) schematic layout of proposed cafe area with customer seating and food preparation areas; (5) written authority to sublease from the property owner. It was pointed out by C. Cistulli that this proposed use could create a creat deal of rush hour traffic in the area. Chm. Taylor then set this item for hearing on December 13, 1976. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes OTHER BUSINESS Page 11 November 22, 1976 10. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE PAINTED WALL SIGN OF 960 SF BY DICK BULLIS CHEVROLET AT 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (ALONG THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY), PROPERTY ZONED C-2 Asst. C. P. Yost advised Commission this item was on the agenda for information rather than action. He said a few months ago a painted wall sign was put up on the back of the old dairy building at 100 California Drive. Subsequently, the Building Inspector issued an abatement notice on September 30, 1976. November 9 an application to allow the existing sign to remain was submitted to the City. Mr. Yost noted Commission's authority to review this application appeared limited. In November of 1975 Dick Bullis came to the P.C. for a master sign permit for his entire property. Commission had approved that application with one of the conditions being no additional wall signs allowed on the building. This decision was appealed and City Council sustained P.C. approval with conditions, one of these being ". . . (4) 20% of surface of old dairy building wall facing Southern Pacific right-of-way may be covered with painted sign limited to one word: 'Chevrolet' or 'Chevy."' The Asst. C. P. advised that 20% of the wall in question is 320 square feet; the present.sign is 960 square feet or three times larger. This sign also says "Be Happy - Buy from Bullis Chevrolet." In view of the Council limitation it would appear to be a matter for Council consideration. C. A. Coleman reported no answer to the abatement notice had been received from Mr. Bullis; however, after a letter from the C.A. this application had been made. He hoped to put this matter on the agenda for Council's next meeting. C. Sine commented the P.C. decision last November was a unanimous opinion of those members voting, but that C. Sine was sitting in the audience and abstained. Chm. Taylor again brought up the matter of the Dore property parcel map, and asked staff if the City could go ahead and do the work, and charge it against the Bank of America. C. A. Coleman told the Chm. he had prepared an agreement which states the Bank of America will do the required work. They have had this agreement for several weeks but it has not yet been signed and returned. The C.A. also indicated perhaps Chm. Taylor's suggestion could be used as an ultimate weapon. CITY PLANNER REPORT C.P. Swan reported that several people have contacted staff regarding the Ad Hoc Committee to Recommend Housing Element of the General Plan. He asked each of the Commissioners to recruit a member or suggest someone who would be able to serve. The C.P. will be asking Council members for suggestions at their study meeting. Mr. Swan noted several items on the Council study meeting agenda for December 1 (rescheduled to December 8): (1) the Ad Hoc Housing Committee; (2) the new Sign Ordinance which was placed on the agenda by Mayor Mangini; (3) taking of Planning Commission minutes. He told Commission a revised progress report on P.C. priorities would be on the Commission December 13 agenda. He also displayed a print of the proposed convention center project and told Commission they would be directly involved since the preliminary plan of the project requires public hearing before the City Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary