Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.04.12THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink Taylor ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Sine (excused) April 12, 1976 OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan Asst. City Planner Yost Asst. City Eng. Rebarchik City Attorney Coleman The above named members were present. City Planner Swan announced that Chairman Sine was in the hospital for a checkup, and commented that this was virtually his first absence since his initial appointment to the Commission. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Taylor on the above date at 7:30 P. M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 22, 1976 were approved as written. 1. FINAL DRAFT: NEW SIGN ORDINANCE, TITLE 22 Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners the amended draft in their hands contained revisions suggested at the special meeting of March 27. He requested Commission comment, suggestions or concerns with the edited version. He considered that there was a consensus that this draft is better than the present ordinance, and that the Commission's primary objective has been to prepare a code which clearly identifies a series of criteria and review lines below which the more routine applications may be dealt with on an administrative basis. Chairman Taylor found the draft code more than adequate. Commissioner Jacobs had several concerns. One was the section on roof signs, page 8. She understood that the present definition of a roof sign would include fin signs, and therefore prohibit them; she considered this unnecessary. Assistant City Planner Yost replied that this was one of the points that the Chamber of Commerce had mentioned. They had suggested that a sign on the roof of a building and a sign attached to the front wall, projecting above the level of the parapet or roof adjacent to the sign, should be treated differently; the first should be prohibited, but the second type should be allowed. Chairman Taylor considered the Commission had agreed that any kind of sign which projects above the parapet or lowest level of the adjacent roof was to be treated as a roof sign. Commissioner Jacobs made the point that there are many fin signs in the city, she did not find them objectionable, and they represented a lot of money invested. Commissioner Mink thought the prohibition of roof signs as such was a valid one. He suggested that projecting signs could be dealt with by describing some limit to which they could project above the parapet. He did not think the reasons for prohibiting roof signs were valid - 2 - for projecting signs. Commissioner Kindig thought that some fin signs were as objectionable as roof signs. He thought there should be some kind of restriction on them. Commissioner Francard suggested that fin signs should be limited on weight and should not project too far above the roof. Commissioner Mink agreed that for roof signs the major criteria was the weight of a sign on a roof and the possibility of a sign coming loose in an emergency situation and creating a public hazard. He thought the same criteria should hold for fin signs. Commissioner Jacobs repeated she would like to have fin signs allowed, within specified limits. Assistant City Planner Yost stated a definition could be prepared for this type of projecting sign. Chairman Taylor agreed.this section could be amended. However, he did not wish to be in the position of adopting an ordinance from which variances are constantly granted. Commissioner Jacobs then questioned Section 22.06.02 "Sign Permit Required." Assistant City Planner Yost explained that the new code provides that all applications for new signs would be reviewed by the Planning Department. Commissioner Jacobs questioned who would be enforcing the code. She considered that if it is in the code it should be enforced, otherwise it is just words. City Attorney Coleman pointed out that the way the code is written the Planners would enforce it; and that staff does enforce as much as possible with the time allotted. Chairman Taylor commented that if consideration were given as to how a law would be enforced before it was adopted, very few laws would be adopted. Commissioner Jacobs questioned Section 22.54 "Temporary Signs", which has no mention of garage sale signs. City Attorney Coleman reviewed Code Section 6.22 which sets forth time limits for garage sales and specifies that a sign no larger than 3 SF may be displayed for the period of the sale. Commissioner Jacobs objected to Section 22.46, "Political and Campaign Signs" with its detailed requirements on sign placement, size and numbers. She stated she did not think the Commission had a right to tell people what to put in their windows or in their houses, and that there was too much legislation already. There followed much discussion pro and con restricting these signs, and it was decided that while a policy of laissez faire could not be followed, general requirements could be that in all zoning districts political and campaign signs shall be limited to window signs, which may only be displayed during periods of campaign activity. There was some discussion of Section 22.58 "Window Signs" with its limitation that 25% of window may be obscured by "Sale" signs without a sign permit, and up to 50% could be obscured with a permit. Commissioner Kindig received confirmation from Assistant City Planner Yost that flashing lights are definitely prohibited. Commissioner Mink requested confirmation that certain signs were exempt in Section 22.36 "Freeway Signs." There were name of occupant or owner of property, identification of premises, advertisement of sale or lease of property on which the sign is placed. - 3 - City Planner Swan noted that Redwood City has been experiencing problems with balloon signs; a draft section to cover such sky signs will be prepared. Assistant City Planner Yost noted receipt of letter from Richard Lavenstein requesting that the Commission re-examine the code with relation to real estate signs. He distributed copies of this letter, and Commissioners agreed this subject could be presented April 26 by Mr. Lavenstein. Chairman Taylor then set the draft sign code for hearing on April 26, 1976. 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 8. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed informal report distributed to Commissioners which covered accessory buildings in residential districts. This included the following exhibits as attachments: Exhibit A - Problems and Responses The Assistant City Planner stated the intent of this exhibit is to identify those problems with accessory buildings that should be addressed with new regulations. Exhibit B - Construction Regulations A number of possible criteria are listed. Exhibit C - Use Regulations. Permitted uses of accessory buildings need to be identified. Exhibit D - Garage Diagram Exhibit E - 40% Lot Coverage Diagrams. Exhibit F - 1975-76 Aqenda Items Involvinq Accessory Buildinqs Chairman Taylor asked if the Council had given any indication of how much priority this has. The City Planner indicated they had not. Commissioner Jacobs wondered if garages should even be considered accessory buildings. She also thought the 500 SF of storage space in the draft regulations was a lot of storage, but that the 8' plate line seems to be logical. She did not want a flat roof and thought there should be some setback requirement. City Planner Swan presented the idea of a review line procedure which would enable the Commission to hear petitions for accessory buildings at a meeting without its being a public hearing. Commissioner Mink disapproved, thinking some of the elements should have a more formal procedure. Assistant City Planner Yost stated that a suitable procedure could be identified for each of the criteria - some could be petitions and others could require variances. Commissioner Kindig suggested this be set for study at the next study meeting for inspection in detail. Then the Planning staff could prepare a draft ordinance. Chairman Taylor set this for a study item on May 10, 1976. - 4 - 3. REORDER PRIORITIES FOR RECLASSIFICATIONS AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: WEST SIDE OF BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BROADWAY INTERCHANGE ENVIRONS, AND CALIFORNIA DRIVE FROM BROADWAY TO HOWARD City Planner Swan reviewed these areas starting with the north side of Airport Boulevard which he noted is still shown on the General Plan as light industrial. It is zoned C-4 and used to be M-1. The west side of Bayshore Highway - The City Planner noted this is an area where there have been many applications for special permits. He noted, however, that in a review of an appeal for the use of a building at 1555 Bayshore Highway by the City Council, he felt it was indicated there was very little support for rezoning. He suggested that not much time be spent on it. Broadway Interchange - to him this meant both sides of Broadway and possibly as far as Easton Creek, leaving Millsdale Industrial Park Subdivision M-1. He considered that particular area deserves some consideration. The frontage on Rollins Road could be considered for C-1, and the area south of Broadway considered for C-1 and C-2. Broadway to Oak Grove - all of the frontage on the west side is C-2 alreadjj but the uses vary considerably. The City does not have enough C-2 area. Area between Oak Grove and Howard - he noted that the Commission may wish to classify a portion of California Drive west of Burlingame Avenue from C-2 to C-1. Area south of Burlingame Avenue - the City Planner referenced diagram suggesting what area might be rezoned from C-1 to C-2 in the block immediately south of Burlingame Avenue. Quoting from his memo to the Commission, the City Planner noted the Thorstenson appeal was heard by Council on April 5. The Council overruled the Planning Commission and granted the special permit for a period of six months, with a suggestion from Council that the Commission and staff study the area for the possibility of changing the zoning to C-2. He suggested a possible Commission hearing on April 26. However, Commissioners considered it should have more information and time for evaluation. They suggested that it be reviewed at the May study meeting. There was a suggestion that there be some kind of a traffic impact study. It was noted that an EIR must be prepared on this reclassi- fication. 4. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL -IMPACT REPORT, EIR-35P, FOR PROPOSED 3 -STORY OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 1203 HOWARD AVENUE, BY JOSEPH GELLER AND CITY OF BURLINGAME (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 22, 1976.) Chairman Taylor introduced this subject for Commission consideration and requested staff report. City Planner Swan told Commissioners this EIR has been revised to incorporate Commission suggestions made during meeting of March 22. He said it has been amplified considerably; and in cooperation with Mr. Geller, has been modified so that it is adequate, complete, and accurate. This EIR provides information about the special permit for building at 1203 Howard Avenue, Agenda Item No. 5. Chairman Taylor asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Mink found the EIR well written and well documented. Commissioner Kindig considered it comprehensive. Chairman Taylor states for the purpose of record that it is not the purpose of the Commission to approve or disapprove the EIR but rather to determine whether it is adequate, accurate and consistent. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the ". . protection of openings in the rear wall," page 2. It was explained by the City Planner that such openings must be of a protected design and/or with wired glass or other methods. Commissioner Mink moved that the Planning Commission accept EIR-35P and its attachment "Summary and Evaluation by City Planner," and recommend such to the City Council. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED 75% LOT COVERAGE AT 1203 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-224-060) ZONED C-1, BY JOSEPH GELLER (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 22, 1976) Chairman Taylor commented that this item had been continued from a previous meeting, but no testimony had been taken at that meeting. He invited Mr. Joseph Geller to address the Commission. Mr. Geller reviewed his proposed three story office building project, stating it was before the Planning Commission because it will exceed 75% lot coverage. While the building would cover 100% of the lot, its 14,550 SF gross floor area is under the 15,000 SF allowed by the code. Also, cutting the lot coverage back to 75% would result in the gain of only four parking spaces. For these reasons, he considered request for special permit reasonable. He also pointed out that his lot is in the Downtown Parking Assessment District and no credit has been taken on the bonds. He noted this C-1 lot has no side yard or rear yard restrictions. A 35' height is permitted by ordinance, which he assumed to mean three stories. Commissioner Mink confirmed that Ordinance 1025 mentions a floor area ratio of 3 to 1 in the Commercial district, which would indicate a three story building. - 6 -. City Planner Swan stated: "A three-story office building covering 75% of the project site would have 11,250 SF of gross floor area. The proposed project would have about 2,700 SF more floor area. Without the parking district exemption, this amount of office floor area would require 9 parking spaces. "The proposed project would have about 4,800 SF of gross floor area on the third floor and would require 16 parking spaces. "I think the property owner should help finance from 9 to 16 new parking spaces within 600 feet of the project site." Chairman Taylor queried if Mr. Geller would accept this as a condition of his special permit. Mr. Geller replied he would not consider this a valid condition, and stated he knew of no legal basis for requiring a property owner to buy parking when he was already paying for it. He submitted that the problem of parking was a problem of the Assessment District. He thought if the City did not wish to create any additional parking, there would be no new development. In reply to Chairman Taylor's question, City Planner Swan verified that Parking District Assessment was based on the assessed evaluation of the land. Chairman Taylor then compared assessed evaluation of land of $4,700 in 1963 and of $1,625 in 1970 when the district was formed, with the present assessed evaluation of land of $15,000 in 1975. Mr. Geller protested that what he paid for the property had nothing to do with the parking problem and in his opinion it would be illegal to reassess his property for the parking district without a general reassessment of all lots. Commissioner Jacobs noted one of her concerns as being the juxtaposition of C-1 and R-4 without a transition zone. She thought there were several such lots and remarked she could not argue on the 75%-100% lot coverage when there was nothing to correct such C-1 properties. Commissioner Taylor again spoke to the point made in the EIR that a ministerial alternative would be a building covering 75% of the lot with 11,250 SF of gross floor area. He computed that the 3,500 SF extra for the proposed project would require an extra eleven parking spaces. Mr. Geller noted that at$4,000-5,000 per space it would mean a contribution of approximately $60,000. He commented that it was suggested 11,250 SF could be put in without anything in the way of parking, but the extra 3,500 SF would have to be at the full ratio. He mentioned again the fact that the ordinance allows 15,000 SF in the Parking District. Chairman Taylor requested audience comment. Mr. Joseph Karp, 1920 Carmelita, responded. He stated he was the owner of considerable property in the parking district; had seen Mr. Geller's plan and thought it would be an asset to the community. He thought the use was a proper one. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. At the Chairman's request, Secretary Jacobs read correspondence in the file. This included letter dated 3/22/76 from Jess S. Jackson, Jr. -7 - 180 Park Road, in favor of the project, and stating that while there is a parking problem, the problem is within the Burlingame Parking Assessment District and should not be the basis for impeding desired improvements. Other letters were from Ben Ku, 226 Lorton Avenue, dated March 22, 1976 and in favor of the project; Tait Auction Studio, 1209 Howard Avenue, dated March 22, 1976 and in favor of the project; S. L. Griffiths, Inc., 256 Lorton Avenue, dated March 22, 1976 and in favor of the project; letter from Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn, 216 Park Road, dated March 18, 1976 approving the project, but suggesting that Mr. Geller make a contribution toward the Parking Fund. Commissioner Mink commented that in his opinion the issue does not lie with the property, but the problem is with the parking district. He considered that there are solutions that could be arranged to resolve the problem but this is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the code is no guideline to the Commission when it talks about a 3 to one ratio and then it talks about 75% lot coverage. The code is ambiguous. He added that he thought the Parking District and the Council have to get together. He stated he saw nothing wrong with Mr. Geller's application in the light of one set of regulations and he did not choose to invoke another set of regulations to vote against it. Commissioner Kindig tended to agree with Commissioner Mink. He did not wish to see Mr. Geller disadvantaged. However, he did notwant him to receive an advantage subsidized by the taxpayer, and felt he could not recommend this project to the Council. Commissioner Mink, remarking on alternatives, stated as an example of ambiguity, that Mr. Geller could have come in for four stories with the first floor being entirely parking, or could have proposed three stories with underground parking. Chairman Taylor questioned if Mr. Geller's proposal should be considered without regard to the Parking District. Commissioner Mink agreed. Commissioner Francard questioned if it was fair to penalize any one piece of property in the District if the District needed working over. Commissioner Jacobs stated she would be willing to vote for the special permit with the incorporation of Commissioner Mink's remarks to Council. Chairman Taylor stated he thought it was the unanimous feeling of the Planning Commission that this is a problem of the Parking District and that Mr. Geller came in with a straightforward proposal. He tended to agree with Commissioner Mink that he was not entitled as a Planning Commissioner to advise Mr. Geller in relation to the Parking District. Commissioner Mink told Commission members that the expansion of data and the revised content of the EIR made this a well documented proposal which is aimed at the particular circumstances that Mr. Geller was in with regard to the Parking District. Commissioner Jacobs moved the special permit be granted. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,MINK,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SINE Commissioner Mink requested that a communication be sent from the Planning Commission to the City Council and the Parking District stating the Commission's concerns about: 1. Ambiguities of the code 2. The difficulty of dealing with Parking District issues at the Planning Commission level and asking that Council and the Parking District work to solve this problem. There was general Commission concurrence that this should be done. Commissioner Mink then moved that his remarks in regard to the Parking District be sent to the Council for its consideration with the Geller EIR. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried by voice vote. 6. SIGN PERMIT FOR ONE WALL SIGN OF 48 SF AND ONE PROJECTING SIGN WITH 16 SF PER FACE AT 1308 BURLINGAME AVENUE BY INGEBORG'S BROADWAY PANTRY BAKERY. At the request of Chairman Taylor, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application. He told Commissioners that a wall sign 4' x 13' with copy "Bakery", illuminated, is proposed, together with projecting sign 4' x 435', copy "Ingeborg's Bakery", also illuminated. He explained sign details and placement and noted that the new sign code suggests a business with a frontage such as this should be limited to 50 SF of advertising. Chairman Taylor noted these signs are within the code with the exception of size. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the bakery canopy and Assistant City Planner Yost told her there is an older sign which goes along the skirt of the canopy. The applicant, a Mr. Hammer, was invited to speak. He considered the new signs would present a much better appearance, and in reply to a question from Commissioner Kindig as to why these bakery signs must be lighted, he stated because other signs on Burlingame Avenue are all lighted. Commissioner Kindig considered having two signs lighted was excessive. He also considered the signage area too large. There were no audience comments when requested by the Chairman and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink suggested the signs be scaled down, but Mr. Hammer informed him that this sign company makes only this one size and he would have to choose another company. Some discussion followed, with Commissioners in general agreeing that these signs were too large for this frontage. Commissioner Mink moved the sign applica- tion be rejected. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioner Sine absent. 7. SIGN PERMIT FOR 160 SF PAINTED WALL SIGN AT 1454 BROADWAY BY GERALD H. WEINER FOR DON'S T.V. SERVICE, GEORGE WELLS DRAPERY AND JEANNE COLES ANTIQUES. Chairman Taylor announced this application for Commission consideration. Upon his request for staff report, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the application. His remarks are contained in staff report dated 4/12/76, exhibit attached to last page of these minutes and incor- porated herein by reference. City Attorney Coleman requested that staff define "permanent window sign." The Assistant City Planner stated this is a window sign which under the new code would be subject to review. It is permanently in place and is not a paper sign. Mr. Weiner was invited to address the Commission and emphasized as reasons for his application the fact that the wall sign is presently outdated with former tenants' names, and it represents a large area which could be used. He thought these three businesses should not be limited to the signage fronting on Broadway. Commissioner Kindig questioned what purpose the columnar signs served. Mr. Weiner said they were used because that was all the space that was available. The Commissioner commented on the small size of window signs, 4 SF and 2 SF, of Wells Drapery and Coles Antiques in comparison to the 18 SF for Don's T.V. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs commented that the problem was with the large sign area desired by Don's TV rather than the more reasonable expecta- tions of Wells Drapery and Coles Antiques. Commissioner Francard questioned why there were 14 existing signs. Mr. Weiner stated they wanted all the identification they could get and these signs are small. Considerable discussion followed of the objectionable aspects of phone numbers being included in the signs. There was also objection to the words, "Free Estimates." Mr. Weiner objected that the Commission was telling him how to run his business, and questioned what the phone numbers hurt except the Commission's feelings. He rebutted objection that the wall sign was visible from a residential zone across El Camino by reminding Commissioners that this wall sign must be viewed by looking over a service station with signs all over it. City Attorney Coleman remarked that text was never restricted unless it came up on a permit. Mr. Weiner stated it was not clear to him how much his signage was over the permitted area. Chairman Taylor noted he would have no problems if he would go along with the permitted sign area. Mr. Weiner offered to advertise just Don's TV on the wall sign, remarking that the other two then could not have their phone numbers there. Commissioner Mink pointed out that the present wall sign is obsolete and should have been removed. Therefore, the Commission is actually dealing with a blank wall and the signage proposed for it is too much. He moved that this sign permit be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioner Sine absent. Chairman Taylor noted that the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council, and pointed out that the owner of the building should determine when the wall sign will be removed. - 10 - 8. 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 L. HAMMETT OF HAMMETT & EDISON REAL ESTATE (PROPERTY OWNER) City Planner Swan exhibited parcel map to the Commission noting that newly created Parcel 2 would be accessible only from Marsten Road. This must be accomplished by means of a bridge across the channel; thus the parcel map would effectively preclude ever connecting Marsten Road to Edwards Court. He stated the Fire Department has indicated they would like to have an address for this parcel, and quoted memo from Fire Inspector Pearson dated 4/12/76 that, due to the unusual location of the newly created property, any building placed on it should be sprinklered. City Attorney Coleman commented that the City is granting an easement for the bridge and also is getting lines of access along the channel. There was some Commission discussion and a question on design of the bridge. Mr. Hammett told Commissioners he had been in contact with the City Engineer and the bridge would be subject to the approval of the City Emgineer, and of a width satisfactory to Fire Chief Moorby. This application was set for hearing April 26, 1976. 9. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 1280 CORTEZ AVENUE (APN 026-152-120) ZONED R--1 BY PETER E. GORT. At the request of Chairman Taylor, Assistant City Planner Yost reported on this application, stating this small home at the corner of Cortez and Easton has a swimming pool in the rear yard. The applicant wishes to convert the existing garage at the rear of the house into a family room, adding more space and providing a view of the pool from the house; however, this would require the construction of a new two car garage at the front of the house. This new garage would be within the front setback. The Assistant City Planner explained site plan to Commissioners, rioting it appeared that the coverage would be approximately 40%, and stated the application was complete and could be set for hearing. Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik noted the applicant would be required to replace curb and sidewalks involved in this construction. There was little Commission discussion and the application was set for hearing April 26, 1976. 10. 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. Assistant City Planner Yost commented on the unusual features of this site, which involves a house situated on a steep hillside. The two story house is at the back away from the street and has only a 5' rear yard. The garage is at the upper level. The applicant proposes to build a new family room over the present garage to expand the house. There was little comment and the application was set for hearing April 26, 1976. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SALE OF FOOD AT RETAIL AT 1881-A AND B ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-162-010) ZONED M-1 BY JOSE MUSETTI, ART MARCOTTE AND JIM USELMAN OF BACKALLEY DELI (APPLICANTS) WITH G. J. AMOROSO (PROPERTY OWNER) At the request of Chairman Taylor, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application for retail sale of food. He explained site plan to Commissioners, stating the applicant wishes to use an existing building at the rear of the lot for this business. The applicant will sell light take-out food with some space for sit-down customers. Hours will be from 7:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. Eleven parking spaces will be marked for customers. The Assistant City Planner noted this should be reviewed in terms of other businesses on the site as to compatibility. He stated it is indicated there is adequate parking on the site. He also noted receipt of documentation of another business of this type run by the applicants which indicates character of the operation. He considered that the application was complete and could be set for hearing. Mr. Jim Uselman told Commissioners that this operation would be a fast food service primarily for lunches. Food would be mostly sandwiches, and 75%-80% of food would be taken out. There would be no retail sale of delicatessen items, and advertising would be by word of mouth, with possibly a small conforming sign. Patrons would be from the surrounding offices and other businesses. This application was set for hearing on April 26, 1976. 12. 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.) Chairman Taylor requested staff report on this application. City Planner Swan showed Commissioners diagram of the site and the portion of the building that the clothing outlet would occupy. The applicant has a 1,600 SF auto parts warehouse. He wants to divide this into two portions and use one as a factory clothing outlet with weekend hours of Fridays 4:00 P. M. to 10:00 P. M., Saturdays 9:00 to 5:00 P.M.; Sundays 9:00 to 5:00 P. M. The City Planner said that this is a retail use that could be considered a conditional use with a special permit. Since the site is not visible from Rollins Road, he questioned identification for the business. He stated he had informed Mr. Kantoff there were other commercial areas in the city where a use permit would not be required. Mr. Kantoff was given permission to address the Commission. He told them this would be a discount outlet for quality clothing, designer clothing, good name brands. This clothing would not be - 12 - seconds. He said he had deliberately chosen these weekend hours so that parking problems in the area would be avoided. There would be no employees other than himself and his wife. Advertising would initially be done with flyers and word of mouth. There would be no sign. There was little discussion. This item was set for hearing April 26, 1976. 13. 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) Chairman Taylor requested staff report on this application. City Planner Swan noted that a special permit had been granted in 1971 to Peninsula General Tire for this site, but the building had been unoccupied for some time. The new applicant will occupy all of the property at the rear exclusive of the building rented to the Woodcraft shop. He displayed and explained site plan, and noted that a brake and tire shop would be permitted in this area with a special permit. This is similar to the previous use. Mr. John Romero answered Commission questions to the effect that he has a lease for this property, there would be no new building constructed, but he would remodel to the extent of painting, etc. Services would be less extensive than Peninsula General Tire since he would do only brake work and tuneup and no automotive repair. There would be only three employees. There was some discussion as to compatibility of this use with the new police station. This application was set for hearing on April 26, 1976. 14. 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) City Planner Swan reviewed this application and explained site plan to Commissioners. He noted this is the same building where a beauty salon had been proposed, but that the partitioning would be arranged differently. The same area will be open so that people in the building can go in the copy center. Also with this use the toilet facilities at the back corner would be accessible for the use of the building. This copy center would occupy 1423 SF of gross floor area. He noted that parking requirements for this retail service would be less than for office space. Mr. Paul White was given permission to address the Commission and explained that he would have in the center a 9200 Xerox machine, a light copying machine and a light color machine. He estimated that only two people would be employed, and he might consider binding work. He also estimated that he would have only 8 cases of paper in stock at one time. City Planner Swan read letter of April 12, 1976 from Neil J. Vannucci for V & T Investments requesting the Commission to include this company on the application for this special permit. This application was set for hearing on April 26, 1976. -13 - 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A NURSERY SCHOOL AT 900 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 029-011-020) ZONED R-3, BY .ELISABETH FAIRWEATHER. At the request of Chairman Taylor, Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed this application. He exhibited site plans and floor plans of the project, a nursery school for 36 children which will operate from 7:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M. He had two major concerns: Is this 6,000 SF lot and the present house adequate for the 36 children? How many parents can safely pick up their children at one time at this location? He pointed out that the two car garage, which is attached to the house, is to be converted into a play room. However, the garage is built to the side property line and is non -conforming; the proposed conversion will therefore require a variance. Another variance will be necessary for the front porch of the house which is to be enclosed and converted into an office. The Assistant City Planner noted that the house would not be occupied for living purposes, but would be fully converted for the nursery school. Mrs. Fairweather is seeking non-profit status, and any approval must be conditioned upon this status. Mrs. Fairweather told Commissioners children would be from 23� years old to kindergarten age, there are kitchen facilities, and children would be served lunch and a snack in mid-morning and mid-afternoon. There was some Commission comment with regard to the safety of children in this location and the amount of traffic impact. Chairman Taylor set this application for hearing April 26, 1976 with the understanding that Mrs. Fairweather be instructed that two variances would also be required. 16. HEDGE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EXISTING HEDGE TO EXCEED 3' IN HEIGHT WITHIN 15' FROM A STREET INTERSECTION AT 200 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1, BY FREDERICK YEAGER The Assistant City Planner told Commissioners this hedge is 4' high. The applicant letter lists a number of points in favor of keeping this hedge at this height, and the City Traffic Engineer has been asked to prepare a communication commenting on each of these points. He considered this report would be available by the meeting of April 26. City Attorney Coleman noted that notice letters must be sent on this application, and City Planner Swan suggested a report from Commissioner Francard on how long the hedge would maintain at a 3' height if trimmed. This application was set for hearing April 26,1976. CITY PLANNER REPORT - The City Planner reported that Mr. Edward Dowd had requested a 30 -day continuance on his application. He announced a meeting of the Regional Planning Committee of San Mateo County at 6:30 P. M., Thursday, April 22, 1976 at Crystal Springs Golf Club. Quentin L. Kopp is to be guest speaker. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:00 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Jacobs Secretary EXHIBIT FOR SIGN PERMIT - DON'S T.V.SERVICE, GEORGE WELLS DRAPERY, AGENDA ITEM 7 - Sign Permit Application JEANNE COLES ANTIQUES. 1452-54 Broadway is a 45' wide building with 3 shops, each of which has a number of small existing signs near their street entrances. An older painted sign on a sidewall of the building overlooks a neighbc ring gas station. This sign advertises 3 businesses which no longer operate in Burlingame. This application is a proposal by the 3 busines3cs presently occupying these shops to repaint the existing wall sign of 160 SF (S;gn A below) with new copy; see attached drawing for details. Existing Signs the following: Don's TV: painted wall sign 80 A. Painted on side wall Anna's Attic Treasures 40 SF 14 SF Star Pool i. Patio 4r) SF 160 SF Manny's Cleaners 80 SF 40 B. Attached to columns Don's TV 7 SF 1 14- at front of shops Don's TV 7 SF 4 SF Wells Drapery 7 SF 42 SF Wells Drapery 7 SF 14 SF Coles Antiques 7 SF 2 SF Coles Antiques 7 S.- .C. is close C."Permanent" window Don's TV 6 �iF 112 signs Don's TV 6 SF Don's Free Estimates 6 SF 24 Wells Drapery 4 SF Coles Antiques 2 SF TOTAL = 226 The new sign code -suggests that 3 businesses wit,: separate entrances occupying a building with 45' of frontage are each entitled to 50 SF of signage. The existing column signs and permanent window signs described above would be Included in this total. If approved, this application would allow the following: Don's TV: painted wall sign 80 SF (new) `. column signs 14 SF (existing) j 112 window signs 18 SF " J Wells Drapery: painted wall sign 40 SF (new) 1 column signs 14- SF (existing) 58 window signs 4 SF It Coles Antiques: painted wall sign 40 SF (new) 1 column signs 14 SF (existing) >. 56 window signs 2 SF " For two of these businesses this proposal is close to the review line for new signage. The third business, Don's TV, would have 112 SF, considerably more than the 50 SF standard agreed by the Commission. WMS/JRY/s Tr