Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1982.12.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, December 13, 1982 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Harvey, Leahy, Mink Graham (arrived 9:10 P.M.) Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 22, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FOR A GARDEN ROOM ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1137 CORTEZ AVENUE, BY MIRON AND ANASTASIA SKY CP Monroe reviewed this request for a sideyard setback variance in order to add a garden room to the existing home. Reference staff report dated 12/3/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/8/82; aerial photograph; November 8, 1982 letter from the applicant, Anastasia Sky; plans of the proposal date stamped November 8, 1982; "no comments/objections" memos from the City Engineer (November 9, 1982) and Fire Marshal (November 15, 1982); and November 24, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector. CP discussed code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, and noted the sideyard nonconformity was an existing condition which would not be increased by the proposed project. Staff recommended approval with two conditions as listed in the staff report. Anastasia Sky, the applicant, was present and advised the size of the proposed addition was 12' x 16'. Chairman Mink referred to the requirements for variance approval: that there were exceptional circumstances in that this house was built too close to a property line based on today's standards and that the addition is necessary for the present needs of the family. The Chair then opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: before a building permit is issued plans must be consistent with the building code including drainage; no additional sewer or water lines are shown on the plans; total lot coverage would be below the 40 percent maximum allowed. C. Harvey found there were exceptional circumstances in the original footprint of this house which could not be changed without extreme expense; that the variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners in their need for additional space; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners; and it would not adversely affect the Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1982 comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Harvey then moved that this variance be granted subject to the following conditions: (1) that the project as -built be consistent with the plans date stamped November 8, 1982; (2) that the conditions in the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 24, 1982 be met; and (3) that no sewer or water lines be added. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT .PERMITTED BY CODE AT 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, BY MICHAEL PARKANSKY CP Monroe reviewed this application for an 8'-3" fence along a portion of the rear property line at 1153 Bernal Avenue. Reference staff report dated 12/3/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/12/82; aerial photograph; applicant's letter of justification dated August 12, 1982; drawing of the proposed project; staff comments (Fire Marshal, November 29, 1982; City Engineer, November 22, 1982; Chief Building Inspector, November 23, 1982). CP discussed the existing fences, staff review, applicant's justification for his request, off-street parking requirements and findings necessary to grant a fence exception. If approved, three conditions were suggested in the staff report. Michael Parkansky, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: maximum fence height allowed by code is 6'; there are quite a few.alleys in this area, no objection to 8' fence; physical appearance of the fence from the street, more presentable if painted to match existing fence; this might set precedent for 8' fence for all swimming pools which.abut alleys, don't find exceptional circumstances to this property; this 10' wide alley could be attractive gathering place for children, an exceptional circumstance that not every pool in Burlingame would have; 8' fence would provide seclusion for the property owner; rocks could be thrown over an 8' fence as easily as a 6' fence; fence was put up without a permit; the alley is city owned, but not maintained by city, it is not a public utility easement. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in that the rear property line abuts an alley and the need to prevent damage to this property; that there was no public hazard; that neighboring properties would not be materially damaged since they are sufficiently set apart; and that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner as stated in his letter of justification. C. Giomi then moved to grant this fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that gates which meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector be installed in the existing fence at the existing driveway; (2) that the 8'-3" fence be built to UBC standards for such a structure; and (3) that the reconversion of the garage be completed before final inspection and city approval of the fence. Second C. Cistulli; motion failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Leahy and Mink dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A TRAINING FACILITY AT 1799 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE CP Monroe reviewed this application. In the absence of the applicant and property owner the item was moved to the end of agenda, and then continued to the meeting of January 10, 1982. 4. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SNACK BAR IN -THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 875 MAHLER ROAD, BY S. T. TENG CP Monroe reviewed this request for minor revisions to conditions of the original use permit. Reference staff report dated 12/3/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment i Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 13, 1982 received 11/9/82; November 7, 1982 letter from S. T. Teng, Break -Away Coffee Shop; lay -out of the coffee shop received November 22, 1982; November 15, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; November 24, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; November 15, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; October 14, 1982 letter to Mr..Teng from Helen Towber, Planner; letters of Planning Commission action to Mr. Jon Flood (February 21, 1979 and April 3, 1979); Planning Commission minutes of May 30, 1979 covering special permit application for operation of this coffee shop by Lee L. Fong; site plans received December 23, 1978; and drawing indicating coffee shops in the M-1 District as of November, 1982. CP Monroe discussed this request to amend the hours of operation and number of seats of the coffee shop and noted CA's comment that the request was not subject to the recently imposed moratorium. Planning staff recommended approval with two conditions as listed in the staff report. S. T. Teng, the applicant, was present. It was determined a second exit would not be required unless seating exceeded 49. Appropriate periods for review of the use permit were discussed. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: a suggestion the conditions include a requirement that total occupancy not exceed 49; one Commissioner expressed concern about extending the hours of operation, changing the character of the operation to more of a restaurant; office employees could buy take-home items earlier in the afternoon; further discussion noted only one other coffee shop had hours extending beyond 4:30 P.M.; another Commissioner thought it reasonable to extend the hours to 5:15 to provide a service to nearby offices; there was a concern about not creating a dinner house but providing a service for those who work in the immediate area; difference in floor plans submitted in 1978 and 1982; diagram of seating; CP noted Commission's approval this evening would over- ride whatever the drawing showed. C. Giomi moved to approve an amendment to the conditions of the use permit granted the coffee shop at 875 Mahler Road with the following conditions: (1) that the hours of operation of the coffee shop be 7:30 A.M. to 5:15 P.M.; (2) that there be seven additional seats for a total of nine tables and 34 seats allowed for customers on the site, total occupancy not to exceed 49; and (3) that this use permit be reviewed in one year. Second C. Harvey; motion approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Cistulli dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PHOTO -PROCESSING SERVICE AT 214 CALIFORNIA DRIVE IN SUB -AREA D OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, BY WILLIAM MULLIN AND CORTLANDT BENDER FOR IN FINE PRINT, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this application for a non -auto related retail/service use. Reference staff report dated 12/6/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/27/82; letter from the applicant received October 27, 1982; November 8, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; November 1, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; November 5, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; and plans date stamped October 27, 1982. CP discussed code.requirements, details of the business, parking available, staff review and noted study session questions were discussed in the staff report. IF approved four conditions were suggested by Planning staff (listed in the staff report) 'to address the major issues raised by this project. William Mullin, the applicant, was present and advised the business would be primarily photo processing (retail'/commercial) with Instamatic camera sales not to exceed five percent and film sales 10 percent of the total sales. Chm. Mink opened the public Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 13, 1982 hearing. There were no comments in favor. Robert Early, Federal Auto Parts, 231 California Drive, spoke in opposition, noting California Drive was designated by the city as an automotive center and expressing concern about this retail outlet's impact on parking. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: possibility of a condition limiting the amount of camera sales or deleting camera sales completely; the condition suggested by staff that no sales of camera equipment occur on site was noted; concerns regarding chemicals on site will be taken care of at the building permit stage; concern about on -street parking and traffic congestion; possibility of recommending the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission study the cumulative parking impact of businesses in the immediate area. C. Harvey moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer (memo November 8, 1982), the Fire Marshal (memo November 1, 1982) and the Chief Building Inspector (memo November 5, 1982) be met; (2) that sales and service on this site be limited to film and the processing of film and that no sales of camera equipment occur on the premises; (3) that all conditions be met to the satisfaction of all involved city departments prior to the initiation of any sales or service from this site or the use permit will be immediately invalid; and (4) that this use permit be reviewed in 6 months time to insure that all conditions, particularly those relating to pretreatment of sewage from the photo processing and sale of related camera equipment, are being met. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND SIGN EXCEPTION TO ESTABLISH A SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE BUILDING AT 212-218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY NANCY WOODS OF WOODS' SIGNS (APPLICANT) FOR DAVID KIMMEL (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a master sign permit; four of the businesses front on California Drive and one fronts on West Lane. Reference staff report dated 12/6/82; aerial photograph; Sign Permit application filed October 26, 11.382; sign drawings and site plan received October 29, 1982; letter from Nancy Woods, -the applicant, received October 29, 1982; November 9, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; November 8, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; Planning Commission minutes of uniform signage programs approved for the Avenue Arcade (7/22/74) and Burlingame Plaza (7/27/70). CP discussed code requirements; staff review; applicant's letter of explanation; study session request regarding other master signage programs approved; Planning staff's comments and concerns; findings required to grant a sign exception. If approved, two conditions were suggested for consideration as listed in the staff report. No representative of the applicant or property owner was present. Commission discussion: existing signage; signage proposed in the master sign program; square footage allowed by code if each business were to apply individually; quality of awning signs; desirability of shingle signs; the finding of special circumstances as required by code. It was determined if this master sign program were approved it would be the program enforced by the property owner and staff for each business in the building. A concern was expressed about flags flying and signs that are hung in the interior of the office spaces, but highly visible on the street. C. Harvey moved that this master sign permit and sign exception to establish a signage program for the building at 212-218 California Drive be approved in accordance with the graphic illustrations presented by Woods' Signs and with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of November 9, 1982 be met and the copy of the sign on the' secondary frontage of the building read "California -West"; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 13, 1982 and (2) that the master sign program submitted, date stamped October 29, 1982, be the basis for issuing future sign permits to the businesses at 212-218 California Drive. In response to Code Sec. 22.06.110, C. Harvey found this sign exception approved subject to special conditions to ensure there is no granting of special privilege, testimony this evening had proven that what was granted was actually less than could be granted under other circumstances and therefore would not constitute a grant of special privilege; and that there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property in that Commission has determined the signage be based on a determination that it is one building rather than four separate buildings. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO AND HOME ALARM INSTALLATION SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 810 BURLWAY ROAD, BY JIM BERGREN OF IDENTI-GUARD SYSTEMS CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow retail sales and promotional classes for auto and home alarm systems in an office/warehouse building in the M-1 zone. Reference staff report dated 12/6/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/5/82; aerial photograph; November 4 and November 24, 1982 letters from Jim A. Bergren, the applicant; November 8, 1982 letter from Nick Crisafi, property owner; November 22, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; November 30, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; November 19, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; site drawing; December 3, 1982 memo from Helen Towber, Planner with attached site plan showing present parking arrangement; and plans date stamped November 5, 1982. CP discussed details of the proposed business, noting all installation work would be done off-site, times of proposed seminars and parking provided; staff review; applicant's description of his operation; study session questions as addressed in the staff report; Planning staff comments on the proposed use. Staff recommended against this use permit. If approved three conditions were suggested as listed in the staff report. C. Graham arrived at 9:10 P.M. Jim Bergren, the applicant, contended that Identi-Guard was not actually a retail business but rather a marketing company with offices at 810 Burlway offering seminars to teach prospective customers and offering a more affordable product. It was determined there would be demonstrations for retail customers (seminars were for the public, not salesmen); advertising was described as no on -street advertising, by invitation only, yellow page advertising for identification, robot telephone calls and follow-up, direct mail and customer referral. Available parking for the seminars was discussed as were required use permits: (1) retail sales on-site and (2) classroom use. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: seminar use appears to be secondary to the primary purpose of retailing to the public; applicant confirmed no fee is charged for the seminars; contract order for equipment could be placed at the seminar and equipment would be delivered to and/or installed at the home; it is basically a retail business and could become more so later through advertising. C. Giomi moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Graham; application denied on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Cistulli and Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes CITY PLANNER REPORT Page 6 December 13, 1982 - CP Monroe reported City Council actions and discussion at its December 6, 1982 regular meeting and December 8, 1982 study session. - 1983 Planning Commission Schedule was approved unanimously as submitted by staff. ACKNOWLEDGMENT City Planner report of study of restaurants on Broadway and Sub -Area A (Burlingame Avenue). C. Harvey announced that the next meeting (January 10, 1982) would be his last meeting on the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary