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