HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.05.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 26, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Tuesday, May 26, 1987 at
7:34 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham,
S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher,
City Engineer; Ken Musso, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the May 11, 1987 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP TO COMBINE LOT 24 AND PORTIONS OF
LOTS 25 AND 26, MAP OF GLENWOOD PARK, 45 EL CAMINO REAL
Reference agenda memo (5/26/87) with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed
this lot combination which is necessary to fulfill building code
requirements with respect to property line setbacks and to permanently
define building site; demolition of existing structures will soon be
under way. He discussed staff review; utility companies were not
contacted since merging of these parcels does not affect rights within
and no utilities were shown crossing the property. CE recommended the
map be forwarded to Council for approval.
C. Jacobs moved that this tentative and final map to combine lots be
recommended to City Council for approval. Second C. S.Graham; motion
approved unanimously on voice vote.
Following the motion the Chair recognized those in the audience who
wished to inquire about the proposed apartment building on this site.
Staff advised action this evening is merely to merge the lots, this
proposal does meet all requirements of the Map Act, no Planning
approvals are necessary for the apartment building; if citizens are
interested in the project itself they should contact the Building
Department. Procedures for appeal of tonight's action were advised.
(Note: Upon consultation with the City Attorney the following morning
he determined that a public hearing should have been held on this item
and advised that it be renoticed and a hearing held at the Planning
Commission meeting on June 8, 1987. The applicant was so advised.)
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
2. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PLANNING APPROVALS FOR THE
559 ROOM HOTEL AT 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BY CARRUF CORPORATION
Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
history of this project including traffic allocation. Four conditions
were suggested for consideration. During discussion it was determined
these conditions would be added to the 18 previous conditions, the
development and construction schedule to supersede previous condition
#18.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Franz Boncodin, Carruf
California Corporation, applicant was present. He advised they were in
the final stages of financing and hoped to get the project going soon,
he had read the staff report and had no problem with the additional
conditions. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this extension to June 19, 1988 with
all previous conditions and with the addition of the following: (1)
that the conditions in the City Engineer's memo of May 11, 1987 shall
be met; (2) that the project shall be developed, and in order to retain
the traffic allocation, on the following development and construction
schedule: BCDC permit - June 1986, Submit final plans commencing -
August 1987, Pick up building permit - November 1987, Final foundation
- May 1988, Final framing inspection - April 1989, Occupancy - October
1989; (3) that the structural design conform to the Uniform Building
and Uniform Fire Codes in effect at the time completed final
construction plans are submitted to the city for approval; and (4) that
any valet parking use provided by this hotel shall not exceed 10% of
the parking area provided and that no fee shall be charged for valet
parking. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice
vote.
3. VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION
TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1132 HAMILTON LANE
Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, code
requirements for variance approval. Three conditions were suggested
for consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed the plans which
show a room with closet, applicants may use as a family room but any
area with a closet is considered a bedroom.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicants were present.
Responding to Commission question, Gerald Woods stated there is an
existing family room downstairs now used as the master bedroom, they
plan a master bedroom and library upstairs; he felt Commissioner
suggestion of moving the kitchen extension in the garage to the other
side of the lot would be too difficult since it would necessitate
removing cabinets and moving electrical and gas lines.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
Maureen Lennon, 1128 Hamilton Lane and Pola Fiorito; 1137 Hamilton Lane
spoke in favor of the improvements: applicants are an asset to the
neighborhood, parking in the area has not been a problem. There were
no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: support the application, a second story
is necessary in order to maintain sanity in a family, the additional
lot coverage is not out of line, it will benefit the appearance of the
house; support the proposal, there are other homes in this area which
have had second floor additions without adding parking so this would
not be an exception to the rule; have no problem with increased square
footage but do have reservations from a Planning standpoint, no
parking problems in the past could be the result of very careful
planning, if the neighborhood is in transition as this one is parking
could become a big problem, would suggest applicant look at the
ultimate benefit of having adequate parking, if he wanted to sell in
the future parking could be very important, think applicant might
better reevaluate his plans and provide more parking now; can
understand the need for more space but there is an alternative on this
lot, would rather give a larger lot coverage variance and keep the
garage; concerned about inadequate parking, there is ability to return
the garage to its original size and kitchen could be extended in the
other direction.
Further comment: it is unreasonable to ask the applicants to extend
their existing kitchen, this would make an awkward entry to the house,
it would be less attractive, asking someone to redo his entire kitchen
would be a real hardship, regardless of the number of bedrooms the same
number of people live in the house; there are many people with two
bedroom homes and five cars, do not think there is a correlation
between number of bedrooms and number of cars; not opposed to increased
lot coverage, this property will improve if the garage is returned to
its original size, would rather grant an extension on the west side all
the way down, financial hardship is not a legal reason (relating to the
property) for granting a variance.
C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in that the
kitchen was extended into the garage prior to purchase by the
applicants, they were unaware of the violation; that denial of the
variance would prohibit their ability to use the property to house
their family, it is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
property right of the owners; that it would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, as neighbors have testified in
support this evening; and it would not adversely affect the zoning plan
of the city since it could not be used as a second unit.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the two variances for lot coverage
and parking and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving
Variances with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the
Chief Building Inspector's May 12, 1987 memo and the Fire Marshal's May
15, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that as built the new addition shall be
consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
date stamped April 30, 1987; and (3) that before any new construction
is begun at this address the previous addition to the kitchen which
extends into the garage parking area shall be brought up to current
Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code standards and shall receive
a final inspection and occupancy permit from the Building Department.
Second C. Harry Graham.
Comment on the motion: Commission has discussed parking/number of
bedrooms but cars come and go, if more lot coverage is allowed it will
stay there forever; support the motion, have concern about parking but
applicants can get one car in the garage and two in the driveway, it is
a good addition, the expense of moving the kitchen out would be too
high; this parking variance will be there forever also; there is only
one garage with room for one car, no matter how many cars there are one
will be parked in the garage and the rest on the street; additional
cars could be parked within the setback.
Motion was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi and
Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN OVER HEIGHT DETACHED GARAGE AT
926 CHULA VISTA AVENUE
Reference staff report, 5/16/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letter, petition in support from neighbors, study meeting
questions. She also advised no building permit had been obtained for
an existing deck area and spa which staff noted on a site inspection.
Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public
hearing.
Commission discussed the recent code amendment which requires removal
of the paved driveway and curb cut to the existing garage if it is used
only for storage; it was suggested the conditions be amended to include
replacement of the existing garage doors. Further discussion: the
condition to relocate the proposed detached garage at least 15' from
the property line; applicant's plans for a fence and gate; distance
between deck and new garage; shed in the rear not shown on the plans,
will it be removed.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Richard Garban,
was present. His comments: he wished to conform the roof pitch of the
garage to the existing house; regarding the deck, there was an existing
deck when he moved in which he has since renovated; he objected to
removing the existing driveway and curb cut and wished to use the
existing driveway for parking; he has three cars and shares a fourth
with his father. Commission and applicant discussed his plans for a
fence and gate; he is requesting the pitched roof in order to match the
house. A Commissioner commented that at 7'-6" from property line the
garage would not match the setback of the house and could appear bulky;
applicant discussed his plans for a retaining wall as a part of the
garage because of the slope on the lot; drainage will have to be
considered at the building permit stage; plans did not show the
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
playhouse (shed) in the rear, it is approximately 4' x 5' and applicant
would like to retain it; under code a 7'-6" side setback is required;
existing garage can be accessed from the house.
The following spoke in favor of the application. Robert Lingaas,
1115 Bayswater Avenue: applicant is trying to increase the on-site
parking, he does meet the side setback requirement, this site is
located next to commercial, the proposed garage will be an asset to the
neighborhood, it will not block anyone's view, just behind is a
condominium which is taller and more objectionable. Bob Cameron, 1200
Majilla Avenue: he has a detached garage which does not meet code which
was approved on appeal to the City Council, see no problem with the
7'-6" setback, a lesser pitched roof would not be feasible
structurally, proposal would be aesthetically pleasing and wouldn't it
be better to have off-street parking for three cars. Applicant
commented there is no problem with on -street parking now, his neighbors
are 100 percent in favor of the proposal, the existing garage will be
used only for storage. There were no further audience comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Individual Commission comment: regular sized truck is 15' long minimum,
a stationwagon 16-1/21, there would be a problem parking a truck in the
7'-6" requested by the applicant (CE commented that with a gate or not
15' would allow parking a vehicle off the street); would go along with
staff's conditions deleting the existing driveway and curb cut and
requiring a 15' driveway for the new garage, do not see the need for
the pitch of the roof as requested; agree with this statement with the
exception of the pitch, pitch should stay with the house; also agree
but think it is important to retain the pitch, it will look better with
the house, obviously applicant is not planning to use the new garage
for storage.
This is R-3 property, for multiple family use only one building on the
site would be allowed, the city has the code for a reason (limiting
height), Commission tries to avoid abuses in the future and
Commission/Council agreed about limiting space above a garage, perhaps
Commission should study the code again if the priority is matching
pitch; have no problem with exceptions as a general rule, think pitch
should match the house but am concerned about the 7'-6" setback,
Commission might give consideration to a change in the ordinance
regarding driveways in the side yard; ceiling height of the storage
area.in the garage is only a maximum of 61, doubt there could be an
abuse of this area for extra living space
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit for height and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that the condition of the Chief Building
Inspector's May 12, 1987 memo shall be met and the applicant shall
apply for a building permit for the existing deck and spa and comply
with all requirements for these structures before receiving a building
permit for the new garage; (2) that the proposed detached garage shall
be relocated at least 15' from the property line on Majilla (City
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
Engineer memo, April 27, 1987); (3) that the existing paved driveway
and curb cut between the Majilla roadway frontage and the existing
residential structure be removed and the area landscaped; and (4) that
the proposed detached garage shall be served only with electricity and
shall be used only for the purpose of parking automobiles and never
used as a second dwelling unit.
Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi
and Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND
2, BLOCK 8, BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION, 1440 COLUMBUS AVENUE
Reference agenda memo, 5/26/87, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed
this resubdivision of two existing lots with a single family structure
across the lot lines into two new lots with approximately the same lot
areas as exist. He discussed lot sizes in the area, the fact that
utility companies had been contacted and had no comments, staff review.
CE recommended the map be forwarded to City Council for approval with
the condition that the final map not be recorded until the existing
structure is removed. Addresses for the two lots would depend on the
location of frontage of the new homes, addresses would be obtained from
the Public Works Department.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Bob Lehto, applicant, advised
there are no redevelopment plans drawn up at the present time; he was
aware of all code requirements. There were no audience comments in
favor.
Mrs. Frank Holub, 1440 Columbus Avenue, objected to her home being
demolished, when the house was sold she had hoped a family would move
in and continue maintenance of her lovely home and grounds, she
understood the intent of the buyer was to move in himself.
Others speaking in opposition: Pat Benson, 1435 Columbus Avenue:
existing house is a beautiful home with beautiful landscaping, well
maintained, an asset to the neighborhood, there should be a large
family living there, would not want to see it redeveloped; concern
about construction and danger to her grandchildren; with two 2 -story
houses there will be four cars parked on the street; her lot across the
street is approximately 80' x 100/120'.
Janet Pallavicini, 2215 Hale Drive: lives directly east of this
property, her house is 3' from the property line of 1440 Columbus; she
understood 5' is required now; two more houses only 3' from her
property line would block natural light and affect the entire side of
her house; parking is a problem on the street now, three curb cuts
would cause a hardship; she parks her RV by the side of her house to
get it off the street. Staff advised a 15' minimum rear yard would be
required.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
Erwin Lassahn, 2218 Hale Drive: this will change the neighborhood
drastically, two big houses will increase parking problems.
Mrs. Holub's granddaughter, Jean: her grandparents have lived in the
house for 31 years, the only reason they are selling is to get into
something smaller; they have made a lot of improvements and would not
have sold if they thought it were to be demolished; house is historic
and beautiful.
Ted Ross, 2115 Hale Drive: one of his reasons for buying in Burlingame
was because of the aesthetic beauty; quality rather than quantity
should be considered; the present property and grounds are beautiful,
an asset to the area; this proposal is exploiting the neighborhood.
Applicant advised Mr. and Mrs. Holub did sign the tentative map
application (this was confirmed by the CE later in the discussion); the
new homes would be designed to fit into the existing neighborhood, they
would be well built with three car garages. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
During discussion Commission confirmed with staff the size of the new
lots and that they would be buildable; there was some concern expressed
about the effect of redevelopment on the 2215 Hale Drive lot.
Commission discussed the matter of present ownership of the property;
consensus was that legal status of the sale should be determined by the
City Attorney (absent this evening). C. Jacobs moved to carry over
this item to the meeting of June 8, 1987. Second C. H.Graham; motion
approved unanimously on voice vote.
CP explained determination of front, side and rear yards on a corner
lot. Commission requested a plan showing tentative location of
buildable areas on these lots for the next meeting.
Recess 9:28 P.M.; reconvene 9:38 P.M.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TRUE LEARNING CENTER PRIVATE
SCHOOL INTO TWO ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS AT 2109 BROADWAY
Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, present operation of the school, staff review,
applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Larry Krusemark, applicant, was
present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. S.Graham moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that the area used by the True Learning
Center shall be increased by 2,074 SF (rooms 11 and 12); and
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
(2) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the
conditions of the original use permit and those of the amendment in
May, 1988. Second C. H.Graham. Staff confirmed school district
approval has been received. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR HOURS OF OPERATION AND NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES FOR A DRY CLEANING SERVICE AT 1883 EL CAMINO REAL
Reference staff report, 5/16/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions. Applicant's letter of May 22, 1987 was also noted detailing
his dry cleaning/laundry business; he would like to continue the
wholesale laundry operation at this site. Staff has not received any
complaints about this business. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. Commission and staff discussed
operation of the wholesale shirt laundry and enforcement of the
conditions of approval.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Howard Hill, applicant, was
present. He discussed his purchase of this business from the equipment
company as a dry cleaning and wholesale laundry operation; in limiting
the laundry he thought number of employees should be used rather than
number of shirts, new and better equipment might increase the number of
shirts with the same number of employees; deliveries are made by one
small van leaving the site twice a day.
Commission/applicant discussion: CE's original conditions are included
by reference in the original conditions of approval; an increase could
be made in the amount of dry cleaning handled; the laundry machinery is
limited to 100 shirts an hour, that can't be increased. There were no
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit amendment and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the
following conditions: (1) that the dry cleaning service and shirt
laundry at this site shall operate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to
6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Saturday,
closed Sunday; (2) that the maximum number of employees on site at any
one time shall not exceed 10; (3) that wholesaling of laundry services
shall be limited to 700 shirts per day done from this site with pickup
for delivery at 10:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. daily; and (4) that this use
permit shall be reviewed in one year (May, 1988) and each 18 months
thereafter. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
8. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT AND CATERING SERVICE
AT 723 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, findings
required for variance approval, study meeting questions. Take-out
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 9
May 26, 1987
food service has been requested but must be considered at a later
hearing. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Two communications received after preparation of the staff report were
noted: May 20, 1987 letter in opposition from Roland J. and Margaret M.
Wynne, 1225 Oak Grove Avenue; May 19, 1987 letter from Carolyn
Woodhall, Trustee to the applicants regarding availability of five
nearby off -premise parking spaces after 5:00 P.M Monday through
Sunday.
Discussion/comment: the parking survey received April 15, 1987 was made
by the applicants; staff report notes four parking spaces at the end of
this group of buildings, the Trustee's letter mentions five available
spaces; condition limiting use of the rear entrance to catering
activities (staff commented this was included to mitigate impacts on
the apartments across San Mateo Avenue); have known other popular
restaurants with no parking, people generally find a way even if it
requires walking two or more blocks; there are parking spaces in the
area even if off -premise, aerial photo shows 8-10 cars parked on San
Mateo Avenue, a small parking lot at the end of the group of buildings
and there are 8-9 spaces around the corner; this variance will be
limited to a restaurant/catering business only.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Sandra Okada, applicant, was
present. She advised when they first talked to the landlord they asked
merely to use four spaces in the parking area at the end of the
building, landlord has decided to give them five spaces; they have read
and understand all of the suggested conditions as well as the fact that
if they wish to have take-out food service it would be necessary to
reapply. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission/staff discussion: application is for a two space parking
variance for the restaurant/catering business which is an
intensification of the previous use; the 4/5 spaces at the end of the
building may be offered as mitigation but they are off -premise spaces
and do not waive the need for a parking variance.
C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances: San Mateo
Avenue, a public street, is unique to the city, located behind a line
of buildings with various commercial uses, and it will provide
additional parking area; this group of buildings is under one ownership
and although the parking area at the end of the buildings would be
off -premise parking there is parking available there, this is an
unusual site; the variance would be necessary for the enjoyment of a
property right of the owner, to lease out his property; it would not be
detrimental to other property owners, there have been no objections
from residents/property owners on San Mateo Avenue; and it would not
adversely affect the zoning plan of the city.
C. H. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the
following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's
Page 10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
April 27, 1987 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's May 12, 1987 memo
and the City Engineer's April 27, 1987 memo shall be met; (2) that a
restaurant operating at this location shall be limited to the hours of
5:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight, Monday through Saturday, with four
employees and one catering truck; (3) that the restaurant shall be
limited to a maximum of 25 seats and the rear entrance on San Mateo
Avenue shall be used only for catering activities and emergency
exiting; (4) that any intensification in the operation, hours of
operation, size and/or intensity of the restaurant use on this site
shall require a review of this variance to parking and the parking
variance shall be limited to a restaurant/catering business at this
location; and (5) that this variance shall be reviewed in one year
and/or upon complaint.
Comment on the motion: staff understands this property has been managed
by the Trustees for a period of time and they have no intention at this
time of selling the property; congratulate C.Graham on his findings
although am not comfortable with them; concerned about a restaurant at
this location, patrons parking on California Drive and having to cross
the street or those who will abuse apartment dwellers' parking at the
rear of the restaurant, have no problem with catering; have a problem
with any parking variance in this city, particularly for a restaurant;
am not concerned due to the small size of this use; there is a
safeguard in that the variance will be reviewed in one year and/or upon
complaint.
Motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham, Jacobs and
Leahy voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the public.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
9. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - PORTION OF LOT 5, EL QUANITO
ACRES NO. 2 (2740 EL PRADO ROAD/3009 CANYON ROAD
Requests: where will the power line easement be; will not hold public
hearing until easement concerns are resolved; is the property
resurveyed after subdivision; what is the extent of the riprap in the
channel, does it spill over onto any other properties. Item set for
public hearing June 8, 1987.
10. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1400 LINCOLN AVENUE
Requests: elevation of fence and trellis; what motivated applicant to
comply with the law and file an application; is this the only way they
can get the privacy they are looking for; are all setback requirements
met on the next door addition. Item set for public hearing June 8,
1987.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 11
May 26, 1987.
11. THREE VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT ADDED WITHOUT A BUILDING
PERMIT TO REMAIN - 1225 CAPUCHINO AVENUE
Requests: are the two upstairs units legal nonconforming; when was
building sold to the applicant. Item set for public hearing June 8,
1987.
12. USE DETERMINATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ADDITION IS A SECOND
UNIT - 1611 WILLOW AVENUE
Requests: copy of original building plans; floor plan of the entire
house; ease of access into the garden from the main house; location/
clarify cooking facilities downstairs; are exterior walls fully
insulated; dimensions of garage and house; what type of floor covering
and window covering. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT - STORAGE SHED - 1453 BENITO AVENUE
Requests: relationship to rear fence and house behind; what was the
complaint received from a neighbor. Item set for public hearing June
8, 1987.
14. SPECIAL PERMIT —SNACK SHOP AT GAS STATION IN C-4 ZONE -
1200 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
Requests: are there any other mini markets in gas stations in the city;
what is the walk-in ingress/egress to this site; comment from applicant
on why it took so long to respond to the city's follow-ups; parking
layout for service and/or gas; do they service large commercial diesel
trucks; how are the items paid for; where is the cashier; number and
location of restrooms; penalty fee for building permit; is this station
run by the oil company itself or subleased; history of the
relationship. Item set for public hearing June 8, 1987.
15. SPECIAL PERMIT - TEMPORARY WAREHOUSE CLEARANCE SALE -
405 BEACH ROAD
Requests: adjacent uses on Beach Road; what kind of signage is
proposed - where, how many, how big; do they intend to continue normal
operations during the same time period or will it be strictly sale on
Thursday through Sunday; do they plan to have any help to direct
traffic and parking; where are they moving to; what type of advertising
will they use (radio, TV, newspapers). Item set for public hearing
June 8, 1987.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- Planner memo, May 13, 1987, re: Broadway sign.
Page 12
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1987
PLANNER REPORTS
- Permit review, A Child's Way, Washington School, 801 Howard Avenue
- CP Monroe and C. Garcia reviewed Council actions at its May 18, 1987
regular meeting.
- Automobile Dealership Signage - continued to a later meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham
Secretary