Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.04.26THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 26, 1976 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Sine Taylor ROLL CA T.T. The above named members were present. Chairman Sine thanked Commissioners and staff for their concern, cards, and visits during his recent hospital visit. He congratulated Commission Clerk Bernice Geralds on her birthday. The Chairman then requested confirmation from the City Attorney that his absence at the previous meEting did not negate his vote at this one. City Attorney Coleman gave the opinion that the evidence taken at the study meeting did not have any bearingon his voting privileges. The evidence presented at tonight's meeting is for voting. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:40 P. M. MINTTTFS The minutes of April 12, 1976 were approved as written with the following correction: Page 4, second paragraph - City Planner Swan requested his remark concerning zoning on Rollins Road be changed to: "The frontage on Rollins Road could be considered for C-2. . ." Commissioner Kindig requested that in the future some separation be shown in the minutes between study items and action items. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. RECOMMENDED NEW SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 22 Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the progress of the sign code since its inception in 1956. The only major change in recent years has been the passage of Ordinance 979 establishing a review line of 32 SF for all signs. He noted the preparation in 1973 of a draft code by Planning Intern Charles Eley, which draft was tabled after study by Council committee. He pointed out that review of signs has been a time-consuming process, and after considerable study and discussion by the Commission, a consensus was reached that a new sign code was needed. First draft of the code was submitted in December, 1975 with revisions on January 6 and March 31, 1976. Copies of present draft have been made available to the Chamber of Commerce, San Mateo Board of - 2 - Realtors, sign company representatives and the public. The Assistant City Planner reviewed the format of the draft code which is divided into three parts - general regulations, regulations by zoning districts, and regulations by sign type. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Alex Smith, San Mateo Board of Realtors responded. He voiced appreciation of the Board for the opportunity to contribute input and the Board's approval of the code with the exception of Section 22.34.070, exempt real estate signs.. Mr. Smith stated that the Board felt that the 9 SF figure should be increased to 16 SF since most commercial signs are on large lots and large buildings and more than 9 SF is needed for readability. He considered the average industrial commercial sign is 16 SF. Addressing fees and time permitted for signs in Chapter 22.52, he pointed out that if a permit is given for a 10 SF sign, a $25.00 fee would be charged and the sign could stay up for only 4 months. Most commercial signs stay up for a long period of time, which would mean renewal of permit time and additional fees. For example, a 10 SF sign for a one-year period would cost $75.00. He suggested that 16 SF signs be allowed for this type of property, with $5.00 fee for four months and $5.00 for renewal. Mr. Richard Lavenstein, realtor, seconded Mr. Smith's comments and also suggested that provision be made with respect to commercial and industrial properties for a "tract sign" of a permanent nature, advertising the sale or lease of several properties at various locations. He noted that some properties may have as many as 5-6 signs on them; one sign per property was adequate. He also suggested that no sign permit be issued without the approval of the property owner. He referred Commissioners to his communication of April 9, 1976 with suggestions for inclusion of real estate tract or development signs in the new sign ordinance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs requested confirmation that code section on political signs had been revised. Assist. City Planner Yost stated that it is now, "22.46.010 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In all zoning districts politcal and campaign signs shall be limited to window signs, which may only be displayed during periods of campaign activity." Commissioner Jacobs questioned the inclusion of fin signs in the roof sign designation. The Assistant City Planner stated that projecting signs are classified as roof signs. Commissioner Mink stated he would be more receptive to industrial real estate sign limit of 16 SF if real estate companies would police them. Commissioner Francard questioned if spotlights could be included in "Sky Signs" regulations. 'The Assistant City Planner indicated this would be possible. Commissioner Kindig did not object to the 16 SF for real estate signs but was concerned about their control. He felt there should be more opportunity to consider - 3 - Mr. Lavenstein's proposal for ieal estate development signs. Commissioner Taylor also had no objection to the 16 SF limit, but did object to reducing the fees, since he felt the taxpayer should not be required to assume the burden of policing the signs. Chairman Sine had no objection to the 16 SF and suggested that it would actually be to the best interest of the real estate companies to do their own policing. There followed discussion on political signs, but with no change in this revised section. City Attorney Coleman suggested that section on Sky Signs be limited to such signs as are on an object or vehicle secured or located within the City of Burlingame. There followed considerable Commission discussion on the proposal of 16 SF for commercial real estate signs. The major criticism was the difficulty of control, and the statement was made that unless there was some method of control the proposal by Mr. Smith doe*hot comply with the objectives of the sign code. Chairman Sine inferred that the feeling of the Commission was to go with the sign ordinance as it is, with the exception of sky signs which should be amended to incorporate the City Attorney's suggestion. There followed discussion pro and con of Mr. Lavenstein's proposal on real estate development signs. Chairman Sine suggested that the present draft be considered only, with additional detail such as this to be handled by amendment, since so much time has already been spent on this ordinance. Commissioner Taylor agreed, stating for the record that no EIR is required in this type of ministerial action; no negative declaration is required; public notice has been published; and input has been received from concerned individuals and groups. He moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of this revised sign ordinance. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, with Commissioner Jacobs qualifying her "Aye" vote with the statement she was concerned about the following: 1. Section 22.04.290, Page 8 - fin sign classified under roof sign. 2. Section 22.06.020, Page 11 - Who is going to enforce? How comprehensive will enforcement be? 3. Page 26 - Window signs. 4. There should still be consideration of real estate tract or development signs. Chairman Sine thanked staff and Commissioners for long hours spent in consideration of this code. Commissioner Kindig added he considered that Mr. Lavenstein's proposal be studied with a possibility of amending the code. RESOLUTION At this point, Chairman Sine read resolution prepared by Commissioner Taylor commending City Engineer Davidson for his service to the City. Commissioner Taylor moved this resolution be adopted; Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried by voice vote. Chairman Sine voiced his personal thanks to City Engineer Davidson for the opportunity and pleasure of working with him, and stated the good wishes of Commission and staff go with him in his new position. - 4 - 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL PARK (RSM VOL. 58/43) AT 1410 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR ROBERT HAMMETT OF HAMMETT & EDISON REAL ESTATE (PROPERTY OWNER). After Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing, City Planner Swan reviewed this tentative map application. He referred Commissioners to location diagram for the proposed parcels, noting they were at the end of Marsten Road and across the drainage channel. Access to Parcel 2 must be by bridge from Marsten Road across the channel. He stated that Agreement had been entered into by the City and Hammett and Edison for construction of this private bridge on March 1, 1976. He read key paragraphs of this Agreement: No. 1 which relates to the conditions of approval, and No. 9, relating to the maintenance of the bridge. The City Planner stated that staff had reviewed the application and had written to Mr. Hammett expressing concerns relative to Public Works. These concerns should be satisfied before the final map is approved. He referred review of these points to City Engineer Davidson. City Engineer Davidson suggested the following conditions: Show an existing drainage maintenance easement along the SE property line of Parcels 1 and 2. Bridge and street improvements to be submitted to the City Engineer and be bonded before the final map is approved. Correct a drainage problem on the NE boundary of Parcel 2. Should be controlled by catch basin. The City Engineer commented that it will be rather difficult to sewer this property, noting the option of sewering the property underneath the drainage channel on Marsten Road. He noted this is technically difficult and might be quite expensive. Mr. Robert Hammett, 1408 Alvarado, announced his availability for Commission questions, and commented he foresaw no problem in meeting the City Engineer's conditions. The City Engineer added that a concern would be the necessary raising of the grade of Marsten Road in order to construct the bridge. This could create an access problem to the SW corner of the property. Mr. Hammett stated his engineers are aware of the problems, and he was assured they could be met. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if at one time there had been consid- eration of joining Marsten Road and Edwards Court. The City Engineer said it had been discussed, but was not a serious consideration at any time. City Attorney Coleman reminded Commissioners of the Fire Department's condition that any buildings on the property should be fully sprinklered. Mr. Hammett indicated he had no objections to this. Commissioner Mink questioned the drainage access easement. City Engineer Davidson noted this is in the Agreement between the City and Hammett, but it does not show on the present map. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Andrew Morrow, 25 Edwards Court, identified himself as the owner of the property to the north of these two parcels. He was concerned with the traffic which would come across the bridge and which might trespass on his - 5 - parking lot and driveway. He also questioned responsibility for the maintenance of the bridge. The City Planner stated that it would be part of the contractual obligation of Hammett and Edison to maintain the bridge. City Attorney Coleman noted that the Agreement has already been consummated, and it is a matter of enforcement by the City which has several other contracts of this type. He noted that the property itself is a lien if it is necessary to go to the property owner. There were no other comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Both Chairman Sine and Commissioner Jacobs commented on the lack of circulation plan for this property; and Commissioner Mink was concerned about the access of emergency vehicles to Parcel 2, if Marsten Road was blocked, and a fence or barrier was erected between Parcels 1 and 2. There followed discussion, during which Mr. Hammett suggested the use of the 20' channel maintenance easement for emergency vehicles. He stated there would be a fence between 1 and 2 but was amenable to the suggestion of the Chairman that there be a gate. He went on to say he had no intention of crossing on Mr. Morrow's property. City Attorney Coleman suggested the condition of emergency access between Parcels l and 2 to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Mr. Hammett stated that would be agreeable. Commissioner Taylor objected to the entire concept of this parcel map, stating it was unacceptable from the standpoint of good planning. He cited the crowded traffic conditions on Marsten Road which con- tribute to the difficulty of access to the parcel, the possibility that Mr. Morrow's property may be subject to trespass, and the extreme difficulty of providing access for emergency vehicles. He stated the idea was unsound as a planning device, and he could not support such a proposal. Much discussion followed, with Mr. Hammett commenting at one point that he and Mr. Morrow had several discussions in the past regarding the joint uses of driveways, but could not agree. Following more discussion, City Attorney Coleman reminded Commissioners that this map will be considered by Council, and Planning Commission acceptance is for the purpose of recommending the map to the Council. Commissioner Mink moved that the Commission recommend approval of this tentative parcel map and that the conditions placed upon the tentative parcel map and the signing of the final map be as follows: 1. Improvement plans for the bridge and paved approach areas should show width, grade and drainage for the access road. 2. An approximate cross section of the Easton Creek Drainage Channel should be submitted with calculations showing adequate capacity. 3. There shall be a grading plan and adequate provisions to collect and convey storm drainage to a storm drain facility. 4. Bridge and street improvements to be built to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Engineer. 5. Any building built on Parcel 2 to have an approved and supervised automatic sprinkler system. - 6 - 6. Emergency access shall be created between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. 7. An access easement for maintenance of the drainage channel shall be shown. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,MINK,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,TAYLOR RECESS There was a short recess at 9:15 P.M., after which the meeting reconvened. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Sine exercised the prerogative of office in considering this item out of agenda order. He requested nominations from the floor. Commissioner Kindig nominated Commissioner Taylor for Chairman. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion, and nominations were closed by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Taylor nominated Commissioner Jacobs for Vice -Chairman. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion, and nominations were closed by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Kindig nominated present Chairman Sine for Secretary. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and nominations were closed by unanimous voice vote. Chairman Sine announced the officers for the coming year would be: Chairman - Commissioner Taylor Vice -Chairman Commissioner Jacobs Secretary - Commissioner Sine 3. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 1280 CORTEZ AVENUE (APN 026-152-120) ZONED R-1 BY PETER E. GORT. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. Upon his request for staff report, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application. His remarks are contained in staff report dated 4/26/76, exhibit attached to last page of these minutes and incorporated herein by reference. He noted that the Traffic Engineer had recommended that if a new garage is permitted within the front setback, the new curb cut and driveway should be from Cortez Avenue. He then introduced Mr. Gort. Mr. Gort reviewed his application letter of April 6, 1976, repeating his basic reason for the application as necessary enlargement of the house for his family of five adults, which includes three grown children. Also the present garage interferes with the accessibility of the pool. He stated he understood he would have to build a two car garage, and there was no other place for it except in the front 7 - setback. He added he had no objection to the driveway coming off Cortez. Commissioner Mink questioned if any trees would be affected by the new driveway, and Mr. Gort stated they would not. Secretary Jacobs read communication dated April 15, 1976 from Hamilton Hatfield, 1808 Easton Drive, urging approval of the variance. She then readpetition dated April 15, 1976 indicating no objection to Mr. Gort's proposal, and signed by members of 15 households in the neighborhood. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Attorney Cyrus McMillan responded on behalf of Mr. Bernard J. Friel, 1616 Easton Drive. He stated he also represented Mrs. J. J. Higgins, 1700 Easton Drive, who is opposed. He pointed out the average setback of 29h' on Easton, and considered that requirements for a variance were not met because the lot is not unusual or exceptional, it is level, the Gorts have lived there for 13 years, and there are no unusual circumstances. He did not believe that Mr. Gort could show undue property loss if this variance were not granted. He noted that Mr. Gort wishes a view of the pool from the proposed family room, but pointed out that the pool was built in 1968, and considered that if there is a hardship in this case, it is a self-imposed one. He urged the Commission to deny the variance, stating it is unfair to have one property owner reduce his setback to 9 feet when all the others have an average of 29�'. Mr. McMillan then introduced Mrs. Norma Norland of 1609 Easton. Mrs. Norland told Commissioners she had lived on Easton Drive for some 32 years. She stated there is not a garage on Easton Drive that does not have a setback of some 60 to 120 feet; there is not a home with the exception of one that does not have a generous setback. If the Commission allowed this variance, standards on the block would be lowered. She urged this variance not be allowed on the most historic drive in Burlingame. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor questioned the existence of a deck built to the property line, and Mr. Gort told him this was approved in 1968, pointing out that his lot is about 22% smaller than the average in the neighborhood. Commissioner Francard questioned the adequacy of the present garage. Mr. Gort stated it was only a one car garage and by present standards, non -conforming. However, it was there when he bought the house. There are four cars in the family now, and he noted that a new garage would get them off the street. Commissioner Kindig noted the argument that because the lot is smaller, more coverage should be allowed. He recognized the improvements planned, especially as regards room for more autos, but disapproved of the encroachment on the setback, and questioned if variance requirements could be met. Commissioner Mink thought something within the 15' setback would be acceptable, but not the present proposal. He considered Mr. McMillan's and Mrs. Norland's point well taken. Commissioner Jacobs questioned specifics of the distance to the curb if the garage fronted on Cortez, and was informed it would be 31.7' 8 - to the curb. She suggested this fulfilled open space requirements. Commissioner Taylor considered that the proposed use would improve the property and the idea was good, but he stated he had heard nothing that directed toward fulfilling the four requirements for a variance. Chairman Sine, stating he had visited the property, agreed that Mr. Gort had some excellent ideas, but he had not met any of the requirements for a variance. Commissioner Kindig moved that the variance be denied; Commissioner Francard seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 4. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING REAR YARD AT 1545 LA MESA DRIVE (APN 027-021-030) ZONED R-1 BY RICHARD E. WARNE. Chairman Sine announced consideration of this application and requested staff report. Assistant City Planner Yost stated that this house was built in 1953 only 5' away from the rear property line. Now the owners wish to add a second floor addition over the existing garage; a variance is required since additions to non -conforming structures are prohibited. He distributed plans for the addition and cross section of the house on the lot which illustrate the unusual situation of this hillside house, which has the garage on the same level as the second floor. Photos of the site were also distributed. He raised the consideration of whether or not this addition would reduce the privacy of the neighboring properties. Mr. Warne stated one of the reasons he had purchased the house was its view of the Bay. Another home had been built in front of his house, and his view was lost. The proposed addition would regain the view and also give him additional needed room for his family. Mr. Warne presented petition signed by his neighbors. Secretary Jacobs read this communication signed by three immediate neighbors of the Warnes, and voicing no objections to the addition. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Harry Graham, 1555 Alturas Drive, spoke on behalf of his neighbor, Ms. Hellen Trout, 1552 Alturas, stating she had intended to attend the meeting, and she did object to the height of the addition which would block off her view. Mr. Warne replied that he had subsequently visited with Mr. and Mrs. Trout who had been under the impression that the addition would go entirely across the roof. They had no objections when they found it would be just over the garage. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned if the addition would block the view of houses up the hill, but was assured by the Assistant City Planner that it would not. Commissioner Taylor commented that the photos of the site before and after construction of a house below Mr. Warne's indicate that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to this particular piece of property. He considered that a denial of this application would result in a property loss to the applicant. He stated that from the testimony given he thought the granting of a variance is necessary for the enjoyment of the property right of the owner that he had at the time he acquired the property. It - 9 - would not be detrimental to any other property owner except the one uphill, and he has indicated he is satisfied. It is quite clear that this variance would not interfere with the General Plan. On the basis of these findings, Commissioner Taylor believed this appli- cation should be approved. Commissioner Mink moved that this application be approved, incorporating the findings of fact as stated by Commissioner Taylor. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A NURSERY SCHOOL AT 900 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 029-011-020) ZONED R-3 BY ELISABETH FAIRWEATHER. Assistant City Planner Yost announced receipt of letter dated April 13, 1976 from Ms. Elisabeth Fairweather requesting that this application be withdrawn and removed from the agenda. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF FOOD AT RETAIL AT 1881-A AND B ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-162-010) ZONED M-1, BY JOE MUSETTI, ART MARCOTTE AND JIM USELMAN OF BACKALLEY DELI (APPLICANTS) WITH G. J. AMOROSO (PROPERTY OWNER). ND -82P POSTED APRIL 16, 1976. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. Assistant City Planner Yost reported on this proposed operation, which would be to remodel an existing 2,300 SF vacant office building into a lunch room seating about 30 people. Takeout food would also be prepared. Hours would be from 7:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. This is a large lot of 122,000 SF and four other businesses are located on the site: Mueller Brass Company, Chrysler Motor Company, Barker Supply Company, and Roy Grandey. Total on-site parking, excluding truck dock parking, is about 70 spaces. He suggested 12-15 spaces might be needed for this business. The Assistant City Planner noted receipt of three supporting documents: 1. Photograph of existing deli in Oakland run by these three applicants. 2. Letter of recommendation from Johnstown Properties, manager of the building at the Oakland location. 3.Peti'tioip4ted 4/15/76 from eleven owners of businesses representing more than 1,000 employees on Rollins Road, urging approval of this food service facility. The Assistant City Planner noted two concerns: Amount of traffic generated during peak hours, and future advertising of the business. He uiged that approval be conditioned upon striping and marking of parking spaces. Mr. Robert Lavenstein addressed the Commission on behalf of Messrs. Mussetti and Uselman, who were also present. He distributed a map showing the location of eating places serving lunches under - 10 - under $2.00 in the industrial area on both sides of the freeway in Burlingame. He pointed out that in East Milldale there are four such establishments, but in West Millsdale there are no such facilities. Also indicated on the map are locations of firms employing more than 40 people, a good percentage of whom signed the petition.. He stated many more signatures could have been gathered if smaller businesses had been contacted. He noted that this business would be located 40.0' from Rollins Road and would be surrounded by its own parking lot. The business has a lease agreement, subject to permit approval, wherein the premises include exclusive use of parking adjoining the building for eleven cars, and clear access for such parking from Rollins Road. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. Mr. Harry Graham stated he was not against this particular business,:.- but usiness:but he was concerned if it were allowed in the M-1 district, other retail establishments would follow. Mrs. Peter Campanile, Tower Delicatessen, Broadway, told Commissioners there were two delicatessens and many restaurants on Broadway available for the use of this industrial area. Commissioner Jacobs noted that previous special permits had been granted for the purpose of serving the people in the M-1 area. Commissioner Mink questioned if it would be possible to get more than the 11 marked spaces, in view of staff recommendation for 12-15 marked spaces. Mr. Lavenstein replied that in view of the fact that there are less than 25 employees on the site and some 85 parking spaces, there shouldn't be any problem in people using too many spaces. He noted that 75% of the proposed business is take out, and that the 25% of people who came there for sit-down lunches usually would come in car lots. There are only 30 seats, which he computed would be an average of 7-8 car loads at one time, which would make the 11 spaces adequate. Commissioner Mink noted that business would be heaviest during the noon hour and requested the dedication of additional parking from 11:30 A. M. to 1:30 P. M. Mr. Lavenstein did not see the necessity, since there are 27 parking spaces in the immediate area of the building. Commissioner Mink asked if he would be willing to stripe all 27 spaces for exclusive use from 11:30 A. M. to 1:30 P. M. Mr. Lavenstein replied that would be subject to the property owner's approval, and he would take it up with him. Commissioner Francard questioned if the Commission would be opening up an area along Rollins Road similar to that along Old Bayshore. He thought some of the area should be rezoned so that the Commission could stop granting special permits. Commissioner Taylor approved this use. Commissioner Kindig considered more parking was needed, but pointed out that this was so far from Broadway that no businesses would be hurt there and he thought it was needed in this area. Chairman Sine objected to having a representative of the owner instead of the owner himself. Commissioner Taylor moved that this application be approved subject to the condition that there will be available on the premises 20 spaces striped and marked and identified for that purpose only, and that hours of operation be as specified from 7:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SINE 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF CLOTHES AT RETAIL AT 27 EDWARDS COURT (APN 026-102-100) ZONED M-1, BY MARTIN KANTOFF (APPLICANT) WITH ANDREW MORROW (PROPERTY OWNER) ND -83P POSTED APRIL 16, 1976. Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing and requested staff report. City Planner Swan reviewed this application for retail sales on weekends of factory outlet wearing apparel in a space occupying 1/2 of partitioned warehouse leased by Mr. Kantoff. The other half of the warehouse would be used by the applicant for wholesale distri- bution of automotive parts during the normal work week. The City Planner noted the property owner, Mr. Andrew Morrow, had given written consent to this use of his property; and referred Commissioners to Mr. Kantoff's letter of application of April 1, 1976. He noted the property is about one block east of Rollins Road, and the space leased would not be visible from Rollins Road. This might lead to a problem with signs. Hours of operation for sale of clothing would be Fridays 4:00 P. M. to 10:00 P. M. and Saturdays and Sundays, 9:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. There are about 24 parking spaces. The City Planner pointed out that sale of apparel would only be permitted as a conditional use that should be found compatible with the useage of M-1. He stated the applicant had only two employees at present, and estimated 15 to 25 customers at the site. Parking for these might require 10-15 parking spaces. Mr. Kantoff addressed the Commission stating his business was established in this location and he was not free to choose another location. He went on to say that the factory outlet type of operation only lends itself to the low rent district or a warehouse type of building, and hours had been chosen so that traffic would not be increased. He corrected the impression that he would have 15-25 customers at one time,. stating he meant he would have this many over a period of a working day. In reply to question from Commissioner Taylor, he stated he would put a 6' partition down the center of the building and would have dressing rooms and a toilet in the clothing section. The newly established Lohman's clothing outlet was discussed, but Mr. Kantoff declared his operation would not be comparable in confusion and crowding. He noted that people would be interested in his store for economic reasons - the ability to buy better clothing at reduced prices. It would be primarily women's clothing, but he would carry some men's shirts and slacks. Chairman Sine requested audience comments. Ms. Doreen Back, of Paloma Avenue, stated that this type of outlet was definitely needed in Burlingame. Mr. Don Stewart, no address given, commented that the hours of operation are such that they do not interfere with other traffic and a store like this is needed in the area. Mr. Harry Graham, Burlingame merchant, considered this merchandising did not serve the immediate purpose of the area, and - 12 - hoped that the Commission would bear in mind the.zoning of this site. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs liked the idea of a factory outlet, but considered it was in an improper zone and also would draw customers away from the business area. Commissioner Mink stated he did not find the use compatible with the purpose of the zone. Commissioner Francard also disapproved; commenting this would be encouraging another area like that along Old Bayshore, and questioned who would police the hours of operation. Commissioner Kindig was sympathetic toward Mr. Kantoff, but thought the business went against the zoning in the area. Commissioner Taylor tended to agree with some of these remarks but emphasized that Mr. Kantoff came in and made an application according to law. In contrast, there are several businesses doing retail sales at Edwards Court, and they are not being penalized because they haven't bothered to make application. He stated he had just found out about them - "Sansara" is selling fabrics; "Mooney" is selling rugs. He questioned if they even had business licenses. He considered that Mr. Kantoff's business would be an improved use. City Attorney Coleman questioned if the Commission wished staff to make a determination on these uses, and Chairman Sine suggested that staff take the proper remedial measures. He then pointed out that the only application in front of the Commission was that of Mr. Kantoff. Commissioner Mink commented he had visited the property in the company of Commissioner Taylor and Assistant City Planner Yost on April 23. Commissioner Kindig moved that the special permit be denied. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR Mr. David Keyston commented he could remember when commercial uses were legal in M-1, thought some of these uses would be an advantage, and suggested it might be time to reassess the zoning. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A BRAKE AND TIRE SHOP AT 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-240-290) ZONED M-1, BY JOHN ROMERO (APPLICANT) WITH OSCAR PERSON (PROPERTY OWNER). ND -84P POSTED APRIL 16, 1976. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. City Planner Swan told Commissioners this brake and tire shop site is located between Northpark Apartments and the police station site. Mr. Romero will lease all of the property except that reserved for Woodcraft and two parking spaces. He considered this use to be similar to the one previously approved for Peninsula General Tire at this location in November of 1971 and thought that it could be approved. - 13 - Mr. Romero addressed the Commission, stating he had been in this type of business for 33 years and was well qualified. He, too, noted there had been a tire and brake shop at this site for about three years. He thought it was a good location for this business. He stated he would do only brake work, front end work, and tune ups, but no major overhauls. There is parking at the back for 30-40 cars. In answer to Commissioner Kindig's question about the sign which Peninsula General Tire had for "Complete Auto Service", he stated he had taken the sign down to repair and paint the building, and he would come.in for a permit for his own sign. Commissioner Francard wanted confirmation that he would not fill up the parking lot with wrecked cars. Mr. Romero affirmed he would not. There was no response to the Chairman's request for ausience comment. Commissioner Mink moved this application for special permit be approved. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A XEROX COPY CENTER AT 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-321-370) ZONED M-1, BY PAUL WHITE OF REPRODUCTION CENTERS OF AMERICA (APPLICANT) AND NEIL J. VANNUCCI (PROPERTY OWNER). ND -85P POSTED APRIL 16, 1976. Chairman Sine introduced this application to the Commission for their consideration. City Planner Swan referenced his negative declaration in stating that this use could serve the existing business establishments located in the M-1 and C-4 districts. He cautioned that although parking requirements for a retail service establishment are less than for office space, a copy center would have high turnover and is more apt to have peak loads. The City Planner displayed an exhibit prepared by the applicant showing the area of the building to be converted. He thought most of the customers would park in front of the building, but requested Mr. White to explain if the spaces would be provided for their exclusive use and where they would be. Mr. White addressed the Commission, stating he thought his business would be an asset to the merchants in the Burlingame area, since there are no adequate copy centers here. He reviewed his equip- ment which would consist of a 9200 Xerox for quantity copying jobs, a 6500 Color Xerox, and a 400 Xerox for smaller jobs and individual copies. He mentioned Cron's Print and Copy Center in San Mateo as being the only comparable copy center in the area. In response to a question from Commissioner Kindig about the parking, Mr. White said that parking was more than adequate. He thought there were two spaces near the rear entrances, approximately 12 spaces in the back of the building and 4-5 in the front. In reply to question from Commissioner Jacobs, he stated he did not know how many would be allowed for this operation. Commissioner Taylor was concerned that this business would be comparable to Cron's volume business in the amount of traffic engendered. Mr. White volunteered that people using his facility would be dropping off their orders and returning for them later when - 14 - filled. There would not be many people staying in his shop for any length of time. Again, he noted the availability of parking, and remarked he had never seen this lot filled. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink remarked that in this case he did find the use proposed compatible with the general uses of the area. Commissioner Kindig considered that such a service was needed. Commissioner Jacobs moved that this special permit be approved conditional upon five parking spaces being assigned for the business. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion. City Attorney Coleman questioned if the special permit was to be granted to the applicants only. Commissioner Jacobs, with the concurrence of the second, Commissioner Mink, amended her motion to state that the special permit was to be granted specifically to Paul White of Reproduction Centers of America and Neil J. Vannucci. The motion carried on unanimous roll call vote. 10. SIGN PERMIT FOR 3 NON -ILLUMINATED SIGNS ON AN EXISTING CANOPY, TOTAL FACE AREA OF 14h SF AT AVENUE ARCADE, 1110 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY RONALD A. HARRIS. After Chairman Sine had introduced this application for hearing, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed its background. He stated that in 1974 a sign permit was authorized on Burlingame Avenue for the Avenue Arcade, which included an entrance sign of 12 SF, copy "Avenue Arcade." This property has recently been purchased by Mr. Harris, the entrance sign has been removed, and its place taken by a sheet metal canopy. Mr. Harris wishes to use three sides of the canopy to identify the building. There would be one sign on each side and one sign facing the street. Each sign would be under 5 SF for a total signage of 143� SF, and copy for each would be "Avenue Arcade." The Assistant City Planner commented that the requested signage area is not a significant change from the signage approved under the previous permit. He introduced Mr. Ronald Harris. Mr. Harris presented for Commission inspection a color illustration of the canopy with signs. Background would be yellow with copy in rust red, wooden letters. He emphasized that there would be no illumination on these signs. In response to question from Commissioner Kindig, he confirmed that letters would be 8" high. Commissioner Jacobs remarked she thought the sign attractive. There was no response to request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved that this sign permit be approved. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 11. SIGN PERMIT FOR 240 SF OF COPY ON AN 18' HIGH POLE SIGN AT 1766 EL CAMINO REAL, BY DOMENIC MUZZI Assistant City Planner Yost reminded Commissioners that the Planning Commission had approved a variance from parking at this site in September of 1975. This approval was conditioned upon review of - 15 - parking in two years, maintenance of the existing landscaping, and removal of the existing sign. On April 9, 1976 the City sent a reminder to the new owner, Mr. Muzzi, that this sign still had not been removed. The Assistant City Planner read this letter. He told Commissioners the present application is requested to allow the existing sign to remain but with new copy. Referring to the drawing sent to Commissioners, he pointed out that the three faces of the sign would each have 80 SF of area. Copy would be simply "1766 E1 Camino Building." This sign would be illuminated and no additional signs are proposed for this building. The total frontage for this lot is 248' and the new sign code would allow up to 200 SF signage without a permit. The present request would go over the proposed code by only 40 SF. Mr. Vincent Muzzi, son of Domenic Muzzi, the applicant, was granted permission to address the Commission. He stated his father had purchased the property in March, 1976, and the seller had told them of the necessity to take the sign down. However, Mr. Muzzi would like to keep the existing sign, change copy, and comply with City code. While the sign has been vandalized, the sign could be repaired and would be quite costly to replace completely. Chairman Sine, noting that Mr. Muzzi was the second or third owner of the building since the granting of the original permit, requested audience comment. There was none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs suggested the Commission would not have this application if the abatement of the sign had been followed through, and questioned vi'_*y the sign was to have been taken down. Commission discussion established that this had been an abandoned building and the sign had been damaged. Commissioner Taylor commented that the application seemed straightforward. In reply to questions from Commissioner Kindig, Mr. Muzzi replied that it is proposed to lease the entire building, and there would be no objection to a non -illuminated sign. It is desired to use as much of the old sign as possible to save costs. Commissioner Kindig then indicated he had no objection to the sign. Commissioner Mink commented that the objection to the sign was that it came under the code section referring to abandoned or obsolete signs, and not to the sign as such. Chairman Sine approved of the sign because it identified the building merely by address. Commissioner Kindig moved that this sign permit be approved in accordance with design presented, and with the specification that the sign not be illuminated. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. ACKNOWLEDGMENT At this point Chairman Sine voiced his appreciation for the cooperation of staff and of Planning Commissioners during his year as Chairman of this Commission. He then presented the gavel to Chairman -elect Taylor who chaired the balance of the meeting. Commissioner Mink thanked Commissioner Sine for a fine job as Chairman during the preceding year. art CITY PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan congratulated Chairman Taylor on his election, and on behalf of staff expressed appreciation of the concern that Commissioner Sine had exhibited for the City during his tenure as Chairman. The City Planner noted receipt of communication from a citizen requesting a stop sign at a corner on Paloma, and noted it would be referred to the Traffic Commission. Another communication noted was from the County of San Mateo relative to the 1976 special census, noting questions included as to race, income, marital status. He noted that the census committee has asked for suggestions as to other pertinent questions, and requested input from the Commission as to data they might wish included. He considered that a status of employment in the City of Burlingame might be valuable, since in his opinion the population of the City was higher in the daytime than at night. This economic data could be helpful. Commissioner Mink suggested as a census question the length of time citizens had resided in the City. This would give information as to the trend in transient and permanent population. The City Planner reported on attendance at the Air Quality Control Conference where highly specialized and detailed information was received. The City Planner told Commissioners that his attendance at the Planners Conference in Sacramento allowed him to attend a workshop meeting reviewing revised guidelines for preparation of EIRs. From information received he intended to prepare detailed procedures to be used to comply with CEQA regulations. The City Planner remarked that the San Francisco Airport is requesting a variance from State Noise Regulations, which have not yet been determined. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Taylor adjourned the meeting at 11:30 P. M. in memory of Mrs. Bernice Good, long-time Engineering Department secretary. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary EXHIBIT MEMO TO: Planning Commission "ROM: City Planner P.C. 4/26/76 Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Variance to construct a garage within the front setback at 1280 Cu rtez Avenue SUMMARY Mr. and Mrs. Peter Gort have three objectives in bringing this application to the Commission: 1. They wish tc convert the-nresent nonconforming garage (only 13'6" wide) Into a family room overlooking their backyard swimming pool. 2. They would like to a�J a second ftear room over this new family room (they have a single s`ory.house at presentN. 3. A new two car garage is proposed, with access from Easton Drive. It would ..ncroach a full 2G' into the required setback. The Commis=ion has four alternatives: 1. Approve this application for a variance from Sec. 25.62.040, which requires a 2916" front setback, and permit a new garage as shiwn on Mr. Gort's plan with access from Epston Drive. 2. Approve this application for a variance from Sec. 25.62.040, but require that the new garage have access from Cortez Avenue 3.. Deny both the above (i.e. deny the family room as proposed) but allow the Gorts a second floor addition by granting a variance from Sec. 25.70.030, which requires the present garage be enlarged if a new full size garage is not constructed. 4. Deny all variances, thereby requiring the existing non -conforming garage be widened by 6'6" before any enlargements to the presen_ house are permitted. BACKGROUND 1274 and 1280 Cortez, with 1613 Easton Drive, were ori%•:nally two lots with an average depth of 207'. A parcel map was approved by the City of Bu.-i;ngame in April 1952 which split these lots into 3 new lots, resulting in 1280 Cortez being approximately 50' x 116' (5,800 SF). A survey of the 38 lots adjacent to 1280 Cortez, and within approximately 200', shows an average lot size of 7,166 SF. Mr. and Mrs. Gort's lot is 22.7% smaller than this average. With reference to the legal requirements for a variance, Sec. 25.54.020(a.) states that "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances (must be) applicable to the property -evolved." Within the above sample of 38 lots, 4 (10.5%) are smaller than 1280 Cortez. Me great majority of R-1 lots in the Easton Addition are 6,000 SF, which is very close to the 5,800 SF at 1280 Cortez. A finding of exceptional circumstances would be hard to substantiate. s A claim of hardship is based on the size of the present house (3 bedrooms, 2 baths) In relatijn to Mr. Gort's family (three children: 15, 20 and 23 years of age) and number of automobiles (4 at present with a 1 car garage). Future additions to the present house were made more complex by a 1968 Building Permit which authorized a 17' x 36' swimming pool in the rear -yard. Present hardship would seem to be self- imposed, and a conscious trade-off for the benefits of the swimming pool. Both Tom Moore and Sgt. O'Brien visited this property and recommend that if a new garage is permitted within, the front setback, the new curb cut and -driveway should be from Cortez Avenue, not Easton Drive. iney further recommend *.fiat the position o4� any new garage should be as shown on Mr. Gort's drawings (but with the entrance do%:r relocated), which permits a driveway of maximum length between the new garage and sidewalk. Tr, determine the required setback on Easton Drive, all properties on the southeast side of the street between Balbor, and Cortez.wc'-e field checKed b. the Building Department. The observed existing setbacks are: 1601 Easton 22.8' 1605 Easton 15.8' 1609 Easton 53.8' Average per Sec. 25.62.040 1613 Easton 30.8' 2916" 1280 Cortez 2r:.3' One corner of the existing house at 1280 Cortez is within a distance of 27'6" from the Easton Drive property line, and this is 2' closer to Easton Drive than the above setback. No extensions toward Easton Drive can therefore be authorized by staff unless this variance application is approved. if this application is denied, any future extension to the house will have to be either to the rear (toward 'the swimming tool) or as a second floor addition over the present nouse. A second floor addition to this house will require that the existing garage be widened by 66", or that a variance be gra ted by the Commission from Sec. 25./0.030. WMS/JRY/s rn Wayne_ M. Swan