Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.08.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, August 25, 1986 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; Planner Helen Williams; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the August 11, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved with an additional finding for Item #2, page 2: "the portion of the driveway which is less than code standard width is located away from El Camino Real." AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW A 640 SF BEDROOM/BATH/OFFICE ADDITION AT 612 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/25/.86, with attachments. PLR Williams reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, letter in opposition from Georgette Vandenbroeck, owner of property at 605 Lexington Way. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: size of the office and of the den, lot size, driveway measurements, ability to park one car in the driveway behind the curb. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ara Sarkisian, applicant and co-owner of this property was present. His comments: believe this proposal is the most efficient, cost effective and practical alternative for adding space to the house, wish to keep the architectural style, addition will simplify the appearance of the roof line (this was demonstrated with a model). He has spoken with neighbors and received almost total support, one negative reaction from the landlord of 605 Lexington, neighbors on the side and in the back have been supportive; garage door swings in, there is a washer and dryer on either side, car still fits inside the garage; a second car fits in the 17' space in the driveway. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found that the proposal would improve the housing stock of the city, and the property itself with a three bedroom home; Commission has approved this type of variance quite often when there is space to park a second car in the driveway; the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owner, he needs an additional bedroom; there are exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house on the lot, the garage cannot be enlarged without Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 25, 1986 major reconstruction; it will not be materially detrimental to the neighbors and will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the! city. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variances with the following conditions: (1) that the applicant shall com ly with the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector (July 31, 1986 memo ; and (2) that the location and configuration of construction shall comply with the plans approved and date stamped July 30, 1986. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. TWO VARIANCES TO ADD A 430 SF BEDROOM/BATH OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 1533 LA MESA DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/25/86, with attachments. PLR Williams reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, cross section indicating stair and how car would fit under it. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: side yard code requirement for stories above the first floor; with the stairs, can two average sized cars be parked in the garage; possibility of moving/turning the stairs. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Cheryl Patterson, applicant, was present. Applicant and Commission discussed the existing laundry room stairs, proposed new stairs, and ability to park two cars in the garage. Applicant stated neighbors have supported the plans, additional height will not affect their view. A Commissioner noted turning the existing stair would reduce encroachment into the required parking area; access to the new bedroom will be through the dining room; since the garage is 3'-6" below the level of the house, a one-half story access is all that is needed, staff pointed out the only way to get to those steps is from the interior of the house off the dining room. There are three existing bedrooms. A Commissioner asked if the door from the garage to the utility room could be eliminated. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission/applicant discussion: room in the basement of the house is sometimes used for out of town guests, it is uncomfortably cold and damp, it has a small closet but not bedroom size. C. Jacobs found there were exceptionalcircumstancesin this property with only a few ways to add to the house, since the basement is damp and cold there will be only four bedrooms, the addition will not be detrimental to the neighbors nor adversely affect the zoning plan of the city if a correction to the existing stairs can be made. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the variances with the following conditions: (1) that the applicant shall comply with the approved plans date stamped July 28, 1986; (2) that the applicant shall comply with all Building and Fire Code requirements; and (3) that the existing stairs be turned so that they are parallel to the rear wall of the garage, assuming there is adequate head clearance. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1986 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A 72 SF WALL SIGN AND TO REPLACE A 7.5 SF GROUND SIGN AT 1608 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/86) Reference staff report, 8/11/86 continued to 8/25/86, with attachments. PLR Williams reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined there are four tenants in'the building; this tenant occupies 10% of the building and would have two signs on the primary frontage. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Tim Laughlin, Southwest Auto Leasing comnented.on his company's lack of visibility from the freeway and from Gilbreth Road, customers cannot find them. A Commissioner noted the building is not visible from the freeway, how will the sign be -seen. Wade McClure, representing Q.R.S. Corporation (sign company), spoke in favor: traveling south on the freeway the athletic club sign on this building can be seen, it is not as visible when traveling north; the ground sign cannot be seen until .one turns into the driveway; one of the three existing signs is also an address sign with small nameplates. There were no audience comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: no master sign.program has been approved for this site; concern about all tenants requesting visibility from the freeway; 200 SF and two signs are permitted by the sign code on the primary frontage, there are four tenants and this tenant alone is asking for 92 SF and two signs; believe this would be a grant of special privilege which is not allowed under the sign code (applicant occupies 10% of the building but is asking for 50% of the number of signs allowed and 50% of the total square footage permitted on the primary frontage); have no problem with this request, they are within allowed square footage, apparentiy the rest of the tenants are not concerned, it is an inoffensive sign. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the sign exception with the condition listed in the staff report. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Graham moved to grant a sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted with the application and date stamped June 30, 1986; and (2) that Southwest Leasing's name be removed from the ground sign, retaining only the number '16081. Second C. Schwalm. Comment on the motion: building is fully occupied presently; even with the amended motion.feel this would be a grant of special privilege, what about other tenants who may come in to ask for the same; if ground sign has only a number all tenants will benefit. Motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TWO SIGN EXCEPTIONS TO ADD A PROJECTING WALL SIGN AT 101 CALIFORNIA DRIVE WHERE TOTAL SIGNAGE EXCEEDS THE CODE LIMITS FOR NUMBER AND AMOUNT (CONT.FROM 8/11/86 Reference staff report, 8/11/86 continued to 8/25/86, with attachments. PLR Williams reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's comments, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 25, 1986 A Commissioner expressed concern about Auto Row window signs; staff explained these were exempt. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ken Carter, West Coast Sign Company, stated this is the smallest sign the dealership provides, a standardized sign used across the United States. Applicant/Commission discussion: 4' is the maximum projection into the right of way allowed by,the sign code, this request is for 6'; applicant noted the building is constructed to property line, sign would extend 4' past the most extreme edge of the structure which has a stucco reveal; proposed letter size, layout and design fits the new dealership's logo best; could sign be mounted closer to the building if moved up or down (applicant stated it will be mounted flush with the building); could sign be put on the corner and made a pole sign with setback (applicant advised they did not want to lose display area or affect visibility, showroom for the cars is in this building and they would prefer the sign at that location). Further Commission comment: concern about granting an exception over the public right of way, this could set a_precedent; think it would not be a hardship to move the sign to a pole. Bob Knezevich, Burlingame Ford, 101 California Drive, stated the company had explored the possibility of a pole sign but its location had no visibility when traveling south and would be blocked by -other buildings; a sign adjacent to the lot where cars are parked would not be visible because the building is at an extreme angle, if flag mounted 4' back the building and Peugeot sign would block view; the company would prefer to use the other end of the building where there is no other signage. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: this is a request for three times the square footage of signage allowed and two times the number of signs on the primary frontage; Commission does not necessarily have to accept what a company wants the rest of the United States to use; applicant could cut down on some of their other signage and not increase the square footage; cannot support extension over the right of way; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 25, 1986 a line must be drawn somewhere; object to any increase of square footage on this property and to a 6' extension into the right of way; to install new signs some existing signs should be reduced; don't have a problem with the square footage, number of signs or size but would like some other solution to meeting the 4' maximum projection allowed. With the statement applicant has heard Commission's concerns about number and amount of signage and intrusion into the right of way, C. Jacobs moved to deny the sign exception without prejudice. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: applicant should keep within code on the extended sign and eliminate Sign D. Motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE THE SAFEWAY STORE AT 1450 HOWARD AVENUE 24 HOURS A DAY, ZONED C-1 (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/86) Reference staff report, 8/11/86, continued to 8/25/86. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was suggested a condition be added for review in six months. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Dennis Deehan, store manager, was present. He advised the midnight shift includes 3-4 stock people depending upon the day of the week and one attendant for the check stand. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commenting the Safeway store in Millbrae is open 24 hours a day and there will be only one additional employee in the Burlingame store, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the hours of operation of the grocery store shall be 24 hours a day with the addition of no more than one employee for this customer service; (2) that all the requirements of other regulatory agencies including the ABC shall be abided by during the operation of the store; and (3) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in six months time (February, 1987). Second C. Graham. Discussion on the motion: ordinance code amendment in 1983 regulating grocery, drug and department stores; 24 hour operation on this particular site would not be objectionable; approval would not be precedent setting since each store must come before the Planning Commission for review. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll. call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN 8' FENCE TO ENCLOSE PARKING AT 1710 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 (CONTINUED FROM 8/]_1/86) Reference staff report, 8/11/86, continued to 8/25/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1986 Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Giomi abstained from participation in this item. The following addition to Condition #1 was suggested: "and vehicle parking be reinstated". Vice Chairman Schwalm opened the public hearing. Ken Berringer, John Sutti & Associates, applicant stated vehicles stored in the fenced area would be stationwagohs, pickup trucks, regular passenger vehicles and sometimes a 5 ton truck which is not over 8' tall. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: will this fenced area work and not affect other people on the site; staff replied it should work assuming people who are driving cars park in place of cars taken out of the area, assuming there are few cars which are not used every day and assuming the area isn't used to store materials other than automobiles; applicant has vehicles which need to be stored and locked up overnight. Stating he was aware of what can happen to construction trucks left on the street, C. Garcia moved for approval of the fence exception and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Fence Exception with the following conditions: (1) that the area enclosed by the 8' chain link fence with redwood slats shall not be used as a company corporation yard for the storage of any company equipment or materials other than vehicles intended to operate on city streets, if other material or equipment or corporation yard use occurs within the fenced area the fence shall be removed and vehicle parking reinstated; (2) that when John Sutti & Associates, Inc. leaves the building as a tenant or reduces their leased area to less than 9% of the gross floor area of the building, the fence shall be removed; and (3) that this site shall be inspected annually (first inspection August, 1987) to see that the conditions of this permit are complied with and that this area is not being used as a corporation or storage yard for construction or construction related equipment and that it shall be inspected in less than scheduled times should the city receive a complaint. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND HOURS AND INCLUDE DAYCARE SERVICES AT A CHILD'S WAY AT WASHINGTON SCHOOL, 801 HOWARD AVENUE Reference staff report, , with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, letter from Dr. Black, Superintendent, Burlingame School District (8/18/86) in support of the application, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Barbara Keyes, representing Nanci Lawson, applicant stated initial enrollment at the daycare facility will consist only of Washington School students; staff will Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes include three regular staff members (two from 8:30 will come in one hour earlier, 7:30 A.M. and stay plans to add one or two new teachers depending on remain basically at five to six members; afternoon outdoor period and an indoor period, not entirely were no audience comments in favor. Page 7 August 25, 1986 A.M. to 1:30 P.M., one teacher until 3:00 P.M.); applicant the enrollment; staff will activity would include an outdoor until 6:00 P.M. There Fred Fricke, owner of property at 125 Arundel Road, spoke in opposition: concerned about traffic impact; a previous school on this site started with light impact but increased in 12 months and generated extreme traffic/parking problems; school should be required to furnish some off-street parking. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: previous school on the site had a permit to operate from 9:15 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.; with permission from the Chair, Mr. Fricke added it appeared the school operated 12 months a year all day or at least past 1:00 P.M.; this program should generate less traffic, the day care program is designed primarily for students at Washington School, some of those children may be arriving at school earlier but there will be the same number of trips with children leaving at 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. rather than 3:00 to 4:00 P.M.; some children may be walking; overall traffic should be less because the previous school is no longer there. Applicant's representative advised the applicant runs an optional. summer program, not every year, however in summer there are not public school classes on a full time basis. A Commissioner was reluctant to grant a year round permit from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., preferring to limit to nine months; it was suggested the permit be conditioned so that the afternoon session be limited to Washington School students only until such time as the applicant wished to expand; another Commissioner was reluctant to condition the permit to Washington School students only. Because this would be a less intense use of the property since the previous school has left the site and there would be fewer children spread over a longer period of time, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the August, 1979 use permit shall be amended to extend the hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, to provide daycare before and after school to elementary aged children as well as a preschool program and to extend the site's operation to a second 973 SF classroom; and (2) that this use permit.shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions in May, 1987 and every two years thereafter. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: this permit allows a maximum of 30 children at any one time, the other school allowed 75; Commission should be careful in what is allowed on school property since schools are in residential areas, but schools need the money and this.proposal seems reasonable; review of such a permit involves review of all conditions, the original permit and any amendments. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. RECESS 9:32 P.M.; RECONVENE 9:40 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 25, 1986 8. SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WHICH EXCEEDS PLATE LINE HEIGHT, OVERALL HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF STORAGE SPACE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 1427 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/25/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: where will the table saw be located; one hour walls will be required on the rear and side walls; will electrical panel interfere with parking; 14' door is not standard for a double car garage; existing garage height conforms to code, it is less than 14'. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Roy .Christensen, applicant, was present. His comments: there is an existing wall between the house and garage which he would like to retain; existing garage is a nonconforming garage with no storage space; electrical panel is the smallest 220 panel available and would be located on the wall; saw would be moved to the side and plugged in when needed. Commission and applicant discussed the electrical panel and its location; the exterior wall applicant wished to retain; possibility of a larger garage door, applicant thought this would look unbalanced and advised it would be possible to get into the garage safely with a 14' door; location of table for the saw. There are three bedrooms in the house and one den, code requires two covered parking spaces; present garage is nonconforming, applicant is asking for approval of another nonconforming garage and additional height. If garage were made wider there would be storage space on the ground floor and plate line could be reduced; applicant stated a wider garage would eliminate backyard area he wished to retain. It was noted code requirement for a standard two car garage is 20' x 20' interior dimensions; increasing the width of the proposed garage could increase lot coverage which is now at the maximum allowed; possibility of making the garage 21' deep and 21' wide which would not increase lot coverage. Applicant proposed insulation of the roof to keep the cold out in winter; all drainage will go to the street; the window was proposed for access to the loft when storing large pieces of lumber, drop ladder could not handle this. Further discussion/comment: CBI's requirement that the storage loft be designed for 100 lbs. per square foot; applicant's desire to retain a 22' length for the garage; don't have a problem with lot coverage if the bottom level of the garage.meets code, would rather have garage closer to code and give a variance for lot coverage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. The Chair noted two Commissioners would accept a 20' x 22' garage with a variance for lot coverage in order to accomplish this, findings would be necessary. One Commissioner stated she could not accept the proposed height in this impacted area and thought the garage should be built to code on ground level. A suggestion was made to reduce both plate line and height to 14'. Comment: there are trees in the back taller than the proposed garage; a 15'-6" garage will look very tall; think it will be difficult to get into the garage with only a 9'-3" driveway and a 20' x 21' interior. Burlingame Planning Commmission Minutes Page 9 August 25, 1986 C. Graham found it was not possible to add a two car conforming garage to this property and stay within lot coverage requirements, the proposal would not affect any of the neighbors nor the zoning of the area, the applicant, needs the proposed garage for the enjoyment of his property; plate line is not a concern as long as it is not above 14' because the roof of the garage is flat. C. Graham moved to grant a variance for lot coverage and a special permit for plate line height of 14' with staff conditions, and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit and Variance. He included in his motion that the width of the garage would be increased to 20' inside, accepting a garage size of 20' x 22' which is over lot coverage. Conditions included in the action were: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 5, 1986 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's July 29, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that as built the 20' x 22' interior dimension garage structure shall have no projections and shall not exceed 14' in total height with a plate line of 14' and a ceiling to floor height in the loft area of 4'-10"; and (3) that the loft area shall only be accessed by a drop ladder and no part of the garage shall ever be used for residential purposes. Second C. Schwalm. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Some discussion followed after the applicant requested denial without prejuduce. C. Schwalm moved to reconsider the motion; second C. Garcia. Motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs, Leahy and Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. VARIANCE TO STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR A LOT SUBDIVISION AT 2740 EL PRADO ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/25/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, county review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: location of property line between Parcel A and Parcel B; county's comments on this application; tentative and final subdivision map will be brought to Commission for review and recommendation to Council; access to the two parcels; since there is no parcel map at present there is no.information on developable portions of this property; would prefer Parcel A have access off the easement rather than Canyon Road; concern about front and rear setbacks not being in conformance with other development in the area. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ronald Mosel, applicant, was present. His comments: all access for the new lot will be off Canyon Road; access to his present house is and will be from the easement; the house next door has the same setback as the new house on Canyon will have; county staff could see no problem with access to Canyon Road; his soils engineer could see no problem; applicant requested the variance before proceeding with the map and soils evaluation because of the cost involved. Replying to Commissioner question, applicant said he wanted to help solve the drainage problem in the area and wanted to sell his property; he plans to build the new house himself in order to keep architectural control. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: have a problem making findings of fact for a variance when there is no data about ability to develop the site safely; any approval could be conditioned on review and acceptance of the parcel map. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1986 C. Schwalm found no problem in giving the applicant an opportunity to improve his property, there are exceptional circumstances in the drainage problem and the large amount of square footage he owns, the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the owner; as long as Commission will be able to review the.parcel map, including all improvements, he found no adverse effects. C. Schwalm moved to grant the variance request subject to the following conditions: (1) that the variance to the zoning code standard for required street frontage for 2740 E1 Prado shall become effective only after a final map is filed to create the land division establishing two lots, one with frontage and access on Canyon Road and one with access by a permanent dedication from El Prado; (2) that the access easement to 2740 E1 Prado is established and recorded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney; and (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of August 5, 1986 shall be met. Second C. Leahy. Responding to Commissioner question regarding subdivision procedure, staff advised the tentative and final map is -subject to review by the Planning Commission, Commission can recommend approval or denial to City Council. C. Leahy added a finding: that this flag lot exists and is not the same as an action which would create a flag lot. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SIGN EXCEPTION AND MASTER SIGN PERMIT FOR THE CROSBY COMMONS RETAIL COMPLEX AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA A Reference staff report, 8/25/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Comment: total number of signs and square footage in the total program; the etched glass shadows are not a part of the sign program. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Jim Kemp, Kemp & Kemp, Architects, representing the property owner, addressed Commission: this is a conservative and low key sign program, they prefer to let the building advertise the building, program encourages smaller signs when more windows are used for signage, it will be less imposing to the public; they intend to have a directory sign at the front and rear entrances which will not be readable from the street, it will be well inside the 3' minimum; they are trying to reduce signage on the building surface itself as well as on awnings, would like to keep signs confined to the glass areas. Awnings will be installed within the next two weeks. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Responding to Commissioner question, staff advised temporary signs will be handled in accordance with sign code regulations. C. Jacobs found this proposal in good taste,.this is an exceptional building with multiple tenants. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the sign exception and master sign permit with the following conditions: (1) that the master sign permit shall be approved based on the building identification signage of 27 SF on the primary frontage, Burlingame Avenue and a total of 9 SF on the secondary frontages; and ground/first floor tenant signage not to exceed 5% per window or combined 10% of one window on a frontage when a site has more than one window, and three tenant wall signs, two on Primrose and one facing the parking lot, and a maximum of 10% of the window area on doors; (2) that there shall be no window signs above the ground/ Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 August 25, 1986 first floor; (3) that there shall be no interior signs oriented toward the street frontage within three feet of a window or door facing these frontages; and (4) that the limitations of this master sign permit and sign exception shall be included in the tenants' lease agreements and enforced by the property owner and manager. Second C. Schwalm. Responding to Commissioner request, CP stated a master sign program replaces sign limitations for a site, this does not mean they.cannot get temporary signs under the other provisions of the sign code. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR CHURCH RELATED ACTIVITIES BY THREE CITIES ASSEMBLY OF GOD AT 110 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 8/25/86, with attachments. CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A time limit on evening activities was suggested. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Douglas Fairrington, Pastor of the church, stated that basically they were asking to return to the uses of this building prior to its use as a day care facility, they are upgrading the building inside, providing better access; if the request is granted they would encourage the city to consider releasing the white passenger zone which was required for the day care center, this would add parking. Regarding a time limitation for activities, Pastor Fairrington said that timewise the building would not be used any differently than their present church use, all groups will be in conjunction with present activities, this building will allow smaller groups. Karl Becker, owner of the property at 120 Lorton, had no objection to the activities in the building but expressed concern about people leaving the night meetings, his tenants at 120 Lorton have complained about baseball games, people jumping over the fence, it a large parking area and people talk loudly; there are about 50 families in the nearby area, some of themhave also complained. He felt there should be a time limit to keep the noise down, all bedrooms in his building face the church site. Pastor Fairrington explained the ball games are whiffle ball played by tenants who rent apartments on church property, it has nothing to do with church activities. The church would not object to a time limit if it were imposed.on all churches in Burlingame, they have no desire to disturb their neighbors, most churches in the city are in residential areas. He advised staff members and also private parties rent these apartments, there are four apartments on the back of their property. A Commissioner commented other churches have only a custodian 'living on the site. She supported the application because it is a less intense use:; since this church has four tenants that other churches don't have, a time limitation seems reasonable. Pastor Fairrington felt the matter of whiffle ball was not between the church and nearby tenants, it is totally unrelated to the building in question, neighbors should talk to each other; there is a gentleman's agreement between the church and their tenants, the church can use those parking places when having services or activities, when not being used the area is for the tenants' use. Responding to a Commissioner, Pastor Fairrington agreed that whether his application were granted or not the church has nothing to do with the ball games and noise on the parking lot. The church pays county taxes Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 August 25, 1986 on the two parcels, about 50% because it is not wholly church„ Mr. Becker commented again: there are about 15 parking spaces, he had no objection to the apartments, the problem is the noise level at night. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement that the noise problem is between those people who live in the apartments, this is a less intense use than the previous use of the property, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special'permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's August 15, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that the structure at 110 Lorton Avenue shall be used only for church related activities including Sunday.school, bible study, counseling, small group meetings, youth and children's activities and occasional social events of church members not to exceed a total of 55 persons in the structure at one time; (3) that the basement of the building shall not be used except for mechanical equipment and storage, no activities shall be held there; (4) that the majority of uses at 110 Lorton Avenue shall focus on the evening and weekend hours except for the meditation room; and (5) that the city consider removing the white passenger loading zone. Second C. Leahy. C. Schwalm moved to amend the motion to limit nighttime activities to no later than 9:45 P.M. Second C. Garcia; amendment failed on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs and Leahy dissenting. The original motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. CONSENT ITEM 12. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF MINOR MODIFICATION GRANTED 8/12/85 AT 1905 RAY DRIVE Item was not called up for review. ITEMS FOR STUDY 13. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING SPA ROOM AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1255 BERNAL AVENUE Item set for hearing September 8, 1986. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 56 SF BATHROOM TO REMAIN AT 100 COSTA RICA AVENUE Requests: was this built by a licensed contractor; plot plan with proper dimensions; how long has applicant lived here. Item set for hearing September 8, 1986. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE AND CATERING OPERATION AT 1109 BURLINGAME AVENUE Item set for hearing September 8, 1986. 16. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM - 1199 BROADWAY Requests: status of the railing; where do signs hang. Item set for hearing September 8, 1986 Page 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 1986 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO DETAILING SERVICE AT 1362 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE TO OFFER THIS SERVICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC' Requests: parking availability inside; will signage be changed; available on-site parking. Item set for hearing September 8, 1986. CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its August 18, 1986 regular meeting. an.ini IRNMFNT The meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary