Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.08.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, August 22, 1983 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Cistulli Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; Director of Public Works Ralph E. Kirkup MINUTES - The minutes of the August 8, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with Item #12 to precede Item G. ITEMS FOR ACTION 12. REVIEW OF 11/27/78 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW PENINSULA SPORTS CENTER AT 1239 ROLLINS ROAD Penelope Greenberg, attorney with the firm of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn, Burlingame, represented the applicant. She indicated a willingness to meet with all affected city departments to agree on a timetable for completion of city requirements and requested this hearing be continued to the meeting of September 12, 1983. It was suggested the meeting be scheduled Tuesday morning, August 30, 1983, Planning staff to confirm. Commission agreed and this item was continued to the September 12 meeting. 1. AMENDMENT OF 6/13/83 VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 1452 BENITO AVENUE TO ALLOW CHANGES IN THE APPROVED DESIGN, BY RICHARD TRUDELL CP Monroe reviewed this request to amend the design previously approved by Commission. Reference staff report dated 8/15/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 8/3/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (August 8, 1983 memo), City Engineer (August 10, 1983 memo) and Chief Building Inspector (August 10, 1983 memo); letter from the applicant received August 3, 1983; June 21, 1983 Monroe letter of action to the applicant; May 25, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; June 13, 1983 Planning Commission minutes; 6/13/83 staff report, Item #2 with attachments; and revised plans dated August 1, 1983. CP discussed details of the amended proposal, staff review, applicant's comments on his request, code requirements and suggested conditions of approval. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Richard Trudell commented on his proposal: has no intention of using the area above the garage for living area; it is large enough for living area but access to it would almost eliminate garage space; intends to use this space only for a storage area/workroom; feel that lowering Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1983 the ceiling height and adding a dormer in the garage to match the front of the house would enhance the aesthetics of the site; has already removed two nonconforming bedrooms in the basement; there will be no electrical connections except for one light and no stairwell access. Applicant presented recent photographs of the site. CP pointed out that if the floor were lowered and the dormer openable it would be occupiable area and would require one hour separation. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there would be no control over a future owner's use of this garage space; don't feel it is necessary to lower the floor in order for the applicant to use this area as storage space; difficult to find justification for this variance amendment; would prefer to have the floor raised in accordance with the original plans with a glazed window; applicant advised access would be by a pull down ladder; applicant has made substantial alterations to the approved plans for which Commission made the necessary findings, and has given Commission no basis for findings with regard to the requested amendment; think the dormer would improve the appearance of the neighborhood; if applicant is looking for symmetry he should put in two dormers; removal of the two basement bedrooms provided additional storage space, doubt there is a need for so much additional storage area, don't find exceptional circumstances in this case. C. Taylor moved that the application for amendment of the June 13, 1983 variance to allow changes in the approved design be rejected. Second C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: think he should be allowed the dormer, it would improve the appearance of the house; don't like to see space wasted, have no objection to the storage area, if allowed it would be required to meet Fire Code regulations. Following roll call motion failed on a 3-3 vote, Cers Leahy, Schwalm and Graham dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the excessive height of this addition, it is well beyond the normal height of a garage; that the addition of the dormer makes it aesthetically appealing to the rest of the project; that there is no public hazard; that neighboring properties will not be damaged, rather they will be enhanced; and that the addition will not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city since it will not be allowed as livable space. C. Giomi then moved to approve the addition of the dormer with a sealed window only, the floor to be raised and with no electrical or plumbing connections; and that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of August 10, 1983 be met. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Taylor and Graham dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN 8' FENCE AT 1208 DRAKE AVENUE, BY PHILIP AND BARBARA LYONS CP Monroe reviewed this request to enclose a new swimming pool with an 8' redwood fence. Reference staff report dated 8/16/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 7/26/83; staff review: City Engineer (7/29/83), Fire Marshal (8/1/83) and Chief Building Inspector (8/1/83); applicants' justification for the request; July 25, 1983 letter in support from the neighbors at 1209 Cabrillo, 1204 Drake and 1212 Drake; aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped July 26, 1983. CP discussed code requirements for fences, staff review, applicant's justification, Planning staff site visit. Two conditions were suggested for Commission consideration. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant, Barbara Lyons, expressed their concern about the easement in the rear and their feeling an 8' fence is needed to Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1983 increase safety. The request is for an 8' fence on three sides but the rear portion was her main concern. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: CBI's interpretation of the UBC that an 8' fence is considered a structure and would have to be one hour fire restrictive if located within 3' of the property line and authority of Planning Commission to review this interpretation of the building code; accessibility from the easement is the issue; the need for an 8' fence on all three sides for protection; most homes in this area back onto an easement, not an exceptional circumstance with this property. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances in this internal lot with its need for safety; that there would be no public hazard; that the neighbors would not be materially damaged; and that the 8' fence would give the applicants protection and peace of mind. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this fence exception. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Leahy dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A SIX UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1008 EL CAMINO REAL, BY TYRONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Reference City Engineer's memo of August 10, 1983 and Tyrone Construction Company letter dated August 4, 1983. CP Monroe reviewed this request. The project is under construction and it was recommended that Commission forward the request for a six month tentative map extension to City Council for approval. C. Giomi moved for approval and recommendation to Council of a six month tentative map extension. Second C. Garcia; all aye voice vote. 4. VARIANCES TO ALLOW A PROPOSED BAY WINDOW AT 24 ANITA ROAD, BY PATRICK MANNION CP Monroe reviewed this item. Reference staff report dated 8/16/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 7/20/83; staff review: City Engineer (8/1/83), Fire Marshal (8/3/83) and Chief Building Inspector (8/8/83); applicant's justification dated July 17, 1983; site drawings, H. Towber, 7/24/83; West Elevation (front) drawing; aerial photograph; and plans dated August 15, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification, Planning staff comments. One condition was suggested for consideration by Commission. Letter in support received today was noted; this letter from Dorothy Dirr, 20 Anita Road was also signed by six residents of 8, 10, 16 and 28 Anita Road. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Pat Mannion, applicant, spoke of his remodeling efforts in trying to upgrade the neighborhood and his belief that the bay window would make the site more attractive. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the window would be on a foundation and be part of the wall; applicant has a building permit for construction now under way; those plans have been changed somewhat to reflect this request; some of the buildings on this street are closer to the street than the applicant's structure, would support the variance request. C. Garcia found that the original building was in poor condition and the applicant is improving the neighborhood; that the window is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his property rights; that it will not be detrimental to the public Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1983 health, safety or welfare nor injurious to other property owners, it will be an improvement to that area. In discussion on the findings C. Giomi proposed an amendment: that there are exceptional circumstances in the original placement of the home on the lot, it is undersized, to enlarge it in any other way would be prohibitive and cause undue hardship upon the applicant. C. Garcia moved for approval of these variances with the following condition: (1) that the project as -built be consistent with the plans dated August 15, 1983. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT AND THREE VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1114 PALOMA AVENUE, BY PHILLIP DIXON FOR PALOMA ASSOCIATES CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 8/16/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 6/29/83; Negative Declaration ND -343P; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (7/26/83), City Engineer (8/8/83), Fire Marshal (8/3/83), Deputy Fire Marshal (7/5/83), Director of Parks (7/26/83) and City Attorney (7/19/83); July 19, 1983 letter from Phillip R. Dixon, Dixon/Kaindl Associates; parking diagram date stamped July 19, 1983; July 18, 1983 letter from Wells Fargo Bank, property administrator; August 8, 1983 study meeting minutes; aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped August 15, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letter addressing the request, Planning staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for Commission consideration. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Phil Dixon, Dixon/Kaindl Associates, architects for the project, advised the conditions recommended by the City Planner were acceptable to the applicant. His comments: need for the 35'-8" height is a result of the design style which demands a more steep roof slope; do not feel the 53.3% lot coverage is excessive, these types of units are necessary to meet market demand and provide the developer with a reasonable return on his investment; in attempting to provide affordable and desirable condominium units, lot coverage was exceeded somewhat; regarding the parking stall in the rear yard area, the applicant is asking for compact car designation, if not allowed it would affect the economic viability of the project and require either elimination of a unit or fewer bedrooms; applicant would be willing to work with the city with regard to designated guest parking; the variance for the turning aisle would not be required if the compact allowance were granted; the parking has been partially submerged in order to keep the height and bulk down, landscaping requirements have been met. The Chair asked for audience comments. Whit Wales, Foster City, one of the investors in this project, spoke in favor: the proposal is attractive in design, will be reasonably priced for the neighborhood, need two-bedroom units to be economically viable, do not feel one compact space out of eight spaces is an unreasonable request, project will be affordable and an aesthetic improvement over what is there now. There were no further comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition were: Susan Bustamante, 1120 Paloma.Avenue; Linda Colville, 1104 Paloma Avenue; Terry Colville, 1104 Paloma Avenue; Linda Kunz, 1115 Paloma Avenue. Their concerns: on -street parking in this area; abuse of on - street parking resulting in blocking driveways; impact of parking for commercial uses on Broadway; how will the project ensure one of the buyers will have a compact car; there are many large cars and vans on the street now; would pose serious traffic/ parking problems; do not need another condominium on Paloma. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1983 Commission discussion: other sites with more than 50% lot coverage could be rental units that have been there for a long time, prior to the present ordinance, or possibly converted houses; staff has suggested a condition which will require redesign of the plans as submitted for the covered area over the stairway in front to meet code requirements for the front setback; the density of this project is too great for the site especially in this heavily developed area with existing parking problems; Commission should be careful if using economic viability as an exceptional circumstance, think project could be designed within code and not add to the parking problem; this site is typical of surrounding sites and this should be taken into consideration when granting an exception, a densely developed site such as this could set a precedent for similar lots and change the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Giomi moved to deny the condominium permit, the special permit and the three variances. Second C. Taylor. Chm. Graham recognized Michael Kaindl, Dixon/Kaindl Associates who asked to speak in rebuttal. His comments: not asking for a variance for one stall, merely that this stall be considered for a compact car; area is zoned for condominiums, this is not the first condo in that block; we have designed an attractive project which looks residential, and the owners are trying to provide affordable housing. On roll call vote the application was denied 5-1, C. Garcia dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR UNIT PROJECT AT 1114 PALOMA AVENUE Item dropped from the agenda. 7. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF MASTER SIGN PERMIT AT 1200 HOWARD AVENUE, BY KING YEE CP Monroe reviewed this request to amend the master sign program approved by Commission in January, 1983. Reference staff report dated 8/17/83; Towber letter to King P. Yee dated June 10, 1983; May 31, 1983 letter from King P. Yee, The United Industries, Inc. enclosing photograph of "Nothing But Nails" ground sign; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (7/26/83), Fire Marshal (7/25/83) and City Engineer (7/25/83); July 16, 1983 and August 11, 1983 letters from the applicant; drawing date stamped August 15, 1983; Exhibit A, North Elevation Towards Post Office, date stamped July 1, 1983, indicating location of the newly erected sign; details of the sign and photograph submitted by the applicant July 1, 1983; Monroe letter of action dated February 10, 1983; Callander Associates letter of December 6, 1982 submitting the master signage plan; Callander Associates letter of January 14, 1983; and aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the master sign permit, code requirements, staff review, applicant's comments and submittals, Planning staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised that total signage on the Post Office frontage under the Master Sign Permit was, and would remain, three signs for 23 SF of signage. She added later in the meeting that any other ground signs requested on the Lorton or Howard Avenue frontages would have to come to Commission for a Master Sign Permit amendment. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. King Yee, applicant and property owner, addressed Commission: the "Nothing But Nails" window sign could not be easily seen and they asked for a ground sign on the side of the building facing the Post Office. The Master Sign Program allowed three window signs on this frontage, this would be the second sign and still under the square footage allowed; it has been erected in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page G August 22, 1983 the landscaping, not near the driveway of the Police Station; it may not be a beautiful sign, but it is not bad looking. He asked that Commission grant this small amendment to the Master Sign Permit. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion it was noted, if this were approved, one of the allowed window signs under the Master Sign program on the Post Office frontage would be a ground sign. There was no objection expressed to this change in the program. C. Leahy moved to amend the Master Sign Permit for the building at 1200 Howard Avenue to allow one of the windown signs to be a ground sign on the Post Office frontage. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY LYNAE FOLKS CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow signage which exceeds the Sign Code limitations. Reference staff report dated 8/16/83; Sign Permit application filed 6/9/83; Sign Exception application filed 7/12/83; "no comments/objections" memos from the Chief Building Inspector (7/26/83), City Engineer (7/12/83) and Fire Marshal (7/28/83); staff drawing, 5/25/83, site inspection; sign drawing date stamped July 12, 1983 and aerial photograph. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification, Planning staff comments. One condition was suggested for Commission consideration. CP noted the sign is on the premises at the present time. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Lynae Folks, owner of The Personal Touch at 1211 Burlingame Avenue, told Commission she was not aware at the time the awning was painted and put up on their new location that there was a city ordinance which covered such signage. Danny Parodi, the co-owner of this business, advised they have owned the business for five or six years and the new awning gave them the identification they needed. Applicant presented a letter in further justification of this signage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: previous Commission concern about how to make new businesses aware of the Sign Code; most cities have Sian codes and most businesses expect sign regulations; this awning is not only excessive signage but is three dimensional which makes it look even larger; the concern is not the awning but what is on the awning. The applicant discussed signage of nearby businesses, stating she did not feel this awning was inconsistent with other properties. Further Commission comments: have no objection to the bow design or the name of the business but do object to the large amount of copy material on this awning sign; cannot find circumstances to justify granting an exception for this property; this is excessive signage. C. Giomi moved for denial of this sign exception. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:55 P.M.; reconvene 10:00 P.M. 9. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW CANOPY SIGNAGE AT 1107 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY RICHARD KERWIN CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow canopy signage which exceeds the Sign Code limitations. Reference staff report dated 8/15/83; Sign Permit application filed 7/28/83; Sign Exception application filed 7/28/83; staff details of existing and Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1983 proposed signage; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (8/8/83), City Engineer (7/29/83) and Fire Marshal (8/1/83); aerial photograph; photographs of the existing signage and location of the proposed sign. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification, Planning staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for Commission consideration. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Richard Kerwin, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised his main purpose with the extra large letters was to be seen from the commuter train and from cars driving fast on California Drive; he requested permission to move an existing sign from another gallery which they are closing to the north side of this building. Discussion: signage requested is within square footage allowed by the code for both primary and secondary frontages; objection to the sign on the end of the awning; agree with applicant there is a need for larger letters in order to be seen by people passing by quickly on the street; "OPEN" sign at second story window will be taken down; suggest removal of the type of things sold from the awning sign. C. Giomi moved to grant this sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of August 1, 1983 be met; and (2) that the signage on the canopy on the primary frontage of this business not exceed 2' x 19' and (one-half) 4' x 5', and the signage on the canopy on the secondary frontage not exceed (one-half) 4' x 5'. Findings were made that approval would not be a grant of special privilege; that there were special circumstances applicable to this property in its 28' width on a street with a 35 mile speed limit. C. Garcia seconded the motion with a further finding: that this building is across the street from the Southern Pacific parking lot, a building will probably never be constructed there and the gallery should be seen from the railroad. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TWO SIGNS AT 241 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY DON JOOST AND JIM APPENRODT CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow two signs which exceed the Sign Code limitations. Reference staff report dated 8/16/83; City Attorney's letter to California Bar & Grill dated July 19, 1983; Sign Permit application filed 7/27/83; Sign Exception application filed 7/27/83; additional comments from the applicants date stamped July 27, 1983; staff detail of secondary frontage signage; photographs; staff review: Fire Marshal (8/1/83), City Engineer (7/29/83) and Chief Building Inspector (8/15/83); aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicants' justification, Planning staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for Commission consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Don Joost, co-owner of California Bar & Grill, was present. His comments: sign is important to change the image of this business; there are other signs in the area which are very large; building -is positioned in the middle of the block so that it is difficult to see; we are a new business and trying to gain exposure. John Casey, 2525 Poppy Drive (property owner) spoke in favor, noting the site is actually on Highland Avenue; new owners have improved the clientele of this business. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1983 Discussion: have no problem with the secondary frontage signage given the angle of the street and the fact that it curves there; have some difficulty with the primary frontage sign; if letter size were smaller on the primary frontage, would it lessen the total square footage; logos are the same height as the letters; this is actually on Auto Row which has a lot of oversized signage. C. Leahy moved that the sign exception for the primary and secondary frontages be denied. Second C. Giomi; motion received a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Schwalm and Taylor dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Commission rules require four votes for a determination; tie vote is a denial. C. Taylor then moved that Sign A, on the front of the building, be granted. Second C. Schwalm. C. Taylor found special circumstances in this building which actually faces on Highland; that the applicant needs some signage on the front of his building for identification purposes; that the sign is a complete sign and cannot be separated to use the logo he has developed; that a reduction in this sign would defeat its purpose, it cannot be reduced; that the sign on the side could be reduced in size to accomplish the applicant's needs. Motion received a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Leahy and Graham dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Motion effectively denied. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SECOND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DELI AT 840 STANTON ROAD, BY BOTRUS ZAAROUR. FERIAL'S DELI (REFERRED TO COMMISSION BY COUNCIL ON 7/5/83) CP Monroe reviewed this request for outdoor seating in the front setback. Reference staff report dated 8/15/83; Monroe July 8, 1983 letter to Patricia Keller, attorney representing the applicant; July 5, 1983 City Council minutes; Keller letters to the Planning Department dated August 2 and August 21, 1983; plan for seating with additional landscaping in the front setback date stamped August 3, 1983; "no comments" on the revised plan: Engineering Department (8/15/83), Chief Building Inspector (8/15/83) and Fire Department (8/15/83); staff notation regarding landscaping (original and current proposal); staff report for the 7/5/83 City Council appeal hearing; Planning Commission minutes of June 13, 1983; Keller letter of appeal dated June 20, 1983; Monroe letter to Botrus Zaarour, June 21, 1983; Planning Commission staff report 6/13/83, Items #4 and #5 with attachments; and petition in support presented at the June 13, 1983 Commission meeting. CP discussed this revised request, staff review, comments of the applicant's attorney, history of the application. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. In the absence of his attorney, Botrus Zaarour, the applicant, requested the hearing be continued to the next Commission meeting. It was noted staff report and agenda had been sent to the attorney. Commission then voted 4-2 to hold the public hearing this evening, Cers Taylor and Schwalm dissenting. CP noted 13 letters in support presented by the applicant this evening from the following: Earl Beecher, Microdata Corporation, 1633 Bayshore Highway; Kathleen Jones, a concerned customer; employees of Ayala International (U.S.) Co., Ltd., 895 Stanton Road; Allison M. Kelsey, employee at 842 Stanton Road; Carl Spears, Daniel Perkins, Laurie Smith and Norman Silliman, employed in this area; Edward J. Glenwright, Operations Manager, Aesculap Instruments Corporation, 875 Stanton Road; Elizabeth Galligan, 856 Stanton Road; employees of CPT Corporation, 1633 Bayshore Highway; Renee Belleville and Gerald L. Belleville, Medical Health Systems, Inc., 850 Stanton Road; S. A. Chiarella, on behalf of the staff at Terra -Marine Shipping Co., Inc., 840 Hinckley Road; J. R. Perroton, Centurion Corporation, 880 Hinckley Road; employees of CP Air, 840 Malcolm Road; James F. West, President and Chief Operating Officer, Dataspeed, 839 Hinckley Road. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 22, 1983 The following spoke in support: Terry Gaia, employed at 1633 Bayshore Highway and Jack Robertson, also employed at 1633 Bayshore Highway. Their comments: this is the only place in the neighborhood to eat which is not expensive; the outside tables provide a pleasant place to eat, an enjoyable atmosphere; request they be allowed to remain. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: suggest that a fourth condition be added, that the landscaping plan be approved by the Director of Parks; have observed the enjoyment of people using this outside facility, if it were properly done it would be an attractive addition; think we should try to accommodate those who work in the area; restaurants were not intended to be a part of M-1, delis were allowed as a convenience for employees in a building or nearby buildings, if we start granting outside tables and serving areas it will set a precedent with many others coming in for the same treatment; each of these would be considered on its own merits; would like to require as much landscaping as possible and, if outside tables are allowed, inside seating be reduced to comply with the 28 seats allowed in the original application; how many tables could be put in the front setback if full landscaping were required; don't have great objection to the use of the outdoors but find this application and submitted plan do not give the details necessary to make a decision. Following considerable discussion there was Commission consensus that the plan submitted was inadequate. The item was continued to the meeting of September 12, 1983 and the applicant directed to submit to the City Planner by September 2, 1983 a detailed plan drawn to scale, including landscaping plan and dimensions, number and location of the tables and chairs. ITEMS FOR STUDY 13. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT - 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE 14. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE Requests: clarification of security gate; clarification of site drainage and mechanics of same; exterior lighting on walkway, landscaping plan. Items #13 and #14 set for hearing September 12, 1983. CITY PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions: 8/10/83 study meeting and 8/15/83 regular meeting. - Review of Sign Code/Signage on Awnings and Canopies - item continued. - League of California Cities Annual Conference, San Francisco, October 2-5, 1983. Several Commissioners showed an interest in attending; staff will arrange. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - August 5, 1983 letter from Bernard E. and Dorothy E. Transano in opposition to the recent application for a 7 -Eleven store at 1199 Broadway. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary