Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.10.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, October 11, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the September 26, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #9, page 3, last paragraph, fourth line, change "they were" to read "he was". AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT - INSTALLATION OF A SATELLITE DISH - 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Requests: why the proposed location on the building which is closest to a San Mateo residential area; what will be transmitted, who will be using it, how many people and how many at one time, will it be limited to this dealership or open to other Mazda dealerships; letter from applicant as to why it is necessary; information on installation, placement of base of antenna and how base attached; what is the purpose, training or entertainment; if it is for entertainment why not cable TV. Item set for public hearing October 24, 1988. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION AMENDMENT - 1010 CADILLAC WAY Requests: is this signage oriented toward the freeway; have Rector signs facing Carolan been removed; how high are other wall signs in the immediate area. Item set for public hearing October 24, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 11, 1988 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT, TWO VARIANCES AND A FENCE EXCEPTION - 1730 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: letter addressing the need for a fence exception and findings for the variances; verify parking dimensions along the side of the building; diagram of railroad right-of-way for future parking; did applicant purchase this S.P. right-of-way; explanation of the need for an encroachment permit; does the shed with deck need building permit. Item to be set for public hearing by staff when corrected plans and all requested information have been received. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. TWO VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 777 WILLBOROUGH ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised a variance is not needed for the width of the driveway, that is an existing condition. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, architect, referred to his letter discussing this 40' wide lot which does not offer much leeway for additions to an existing residence; the living room has a vaulted ceiling, cannot build over that area easily; building code requirement for width of stairways leaves very little room to obtain two good sized bedrooms upstairs; if the second floor were set in it would result in a substandard sized bedroom, 9' in width; to mitigate the smaller side setback they have set the plate line at 6'-611, approximately 18" less than normal; they wish to keep the addition to the rear portion of the house and not disrupt the front roof line and appearance of the house from the street. Mr. Nilmeyer presented four letters in support from neighbors. The Chair noted the need for findings to support the variance request, why is it necessary to have four bedrooms. Applicant and Commission discussed distance of the second story addition from existing homes and windows in the addition. Peter Vogel, property owner, told Commission he is a free-lance photographer operating out of his home, this is a small two bedroom house and he uses one of the existing bedrooms for an office, he has lived there since July, 1988. Architect explained how they could decrease the second floor plate line. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have no problem with the variance for parking but do have a problem with the variance to side yard setback, the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 11, 1988 addition will add more bulk; the closest neighboring structure is 9-1/2, from the addition of the second story, the other side and rear are even farther away from neighbors, due to the slope of the roof the addition won't affect neighbors at all. C. Giomi moved for approval of the two variances and special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit and Two Variances with the following condition: (1) that the project shall be built consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 20, 1988. She found there were exceptional circumstances in the substandard size of the lot, the fact that the building improvement is set back from the neighbors, no objections have been received from neighbors; the variances are necessary for the preservation of a property right of the owner in that there is no other reasonable way to add to the house; the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners, and will not change the zoning of the site. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: find the addition will be injurious to other property owners and to the zoning of the city, it is a small lot on a narrow street, if in future applicant sells there would be a four bedroom home at this location which could accommodate more people. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Harrison and Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TWO VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING GARAGE AT 825 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, letter received after preparation of staff report requesting applicant be allowed to retain a wet bar facility in the family room, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to questions, CP advised site plan indicates there is room in the back for a standard two car garage, the bar/sink has hot and cold water. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Peter Scopazzi, applicant, advised he had added a second unit, he would like to keep the garage in its present location, he has lived here for 20 years. A Commissioner asked why the garage couldn't be moved 21; applicant felt it is ideally situated now, he has privacy, can keep the gate between the buildings and the courtyard area for a garden with the apple tree; the apple tree is 10' from the rear fence and 10' from the garage. Applicant stated he would not object to extending the garage to accommodate tandem parking. A Commissioner noted he Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 11, 1988 could make the garage 40' , it would require trimming of some of the branches of the apple tree; another Commissioner pointed out applicant has the option of totally removing the tree and putting the garage in the rear, thus removing the need for the variances and special permit. Val Sarabashyan, 825 Linden, advised he was renting the back unit which is also his business address; he does not cook but would like to keep access to water to make coffee or tea; he has lived there for four months; there is a bathroom in this area for his use, the area he rents is separate from the rest of the home; he is an engineering consultant and has a home occupation permit. Applicant stated he would open up the wall, it would become one home, Mr. Sarabashyan could use the kitchen in the front. Applicant and CP pointed out on a diagram of the site location of the family unit and where the tenant lives. Commission's concern about illegal second units was addressed. Applicant stated the tenant kitchen is minimal, a counter, small refrigerator, a two burner cook top. It was determined the hot tub next to the deck did not receive a permit. One Commissioner discussed the give and take nature of such a situation, applicant has a hot tub without permit, an illegal second unit and does not want to change the location of the garage; Commission wants to act for the good of the city. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. H.Graham moved to deny the variances and special permit with the statement there are no substantial reasons to support approval, there is room for a garage to be built on this site in conformance with all codes of the city; he further requested code enforcement on the hot tub and second unit. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comments on the motion: applicant could build a tandem garage and provide additional parking in the driveway, this could be done in such a way that he would not need the special permit for separation between structures, concur that the second dwelling unit should be eliminated and kitchen removed; CA advised Commission can deny the second kitchen but not the wet bar; will vote against the motion, a tandem garage could be provided and the rest of the problems could be dealt with; see no good faith on the part of the applicant, a garage could be put in the back; have one problem, regarding code enforcement, if application were approved there could be annual review, if denied how can this be reviewed; CA commented that staff follows up on these matters. Concerning finding (c), that the variance would not be detrimental to neighboring properties, think what has already been done is materially detrimental. A Commissioner asked if the maker of the motion would be interested in a denial without prejudice; he was not. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 11, 1988 Further comment: agree that what has been done on this property is amazing, but think there can be things done to get the garage within code or with a minimal variance; would have to have some reason for .granting tandem, there is room in the back for another garage. Responding to a question, CA advised three persons renting rooms in a home are allowed as long as there is only one kitchen. He further advised staff will be enforcing the code for the hot tub and second unit. CP stated the garage has been almost totally demolished and applicant will be required to provide covered parking, if he can't get a variance he will have to do it to code. Commission continued: would support a tandem garage in the rear 30% of the lot if it would fit, but could be adding an extra long driveway and more paving, would rather see some landscaping if applicant could provide a 10' x 40' garage; have yet to see a tandem garage fully used for parking; will still support the motion for denial, even in tandem parking applicant would like to put in a bench across the back for shop work and have minimal storage, don't see a tandem garage being a reality ever. Motion to deny was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi and S.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 134-136 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: garage is almost as large as one of the units; applicant's purpose for this request is storage of his boat, he does not live on the site, conditions state nonresidents cannot park in this garage; requirement for one hour fire wall. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jonathan Horowitz, applicant, presented letters from three neighbors and stated he spoke to others, no one expressed concern about his proposal. Responding to Commission questions, applicant advised he needs the additional height for a taller boat, the boat is 8' wide; city has said only tenants' vehicles can be parked in the garage, he could move in; he has owned this property since 1980 and added to the garage in 1980 so he was able to park his boat there, the present boat is taller, a weekender and taller when on the trailer; all remodeling has been done to code under permit; he commented that if Commission insists he live there, he could; 134 Bloomfield is not rented, his mother lives there; 136 Bloomfield is rented to a tenant. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 11, 1988 With the statement that over the years Commission has tried to do the correct thing, it is now faced with a request which should not be granted, C. Giomi moved to deny the two special permits; motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Commission and staff discussed procedure with regard to reapplication if this request were denied outright or denied without prejudice. Comment on the motion: there are storage yards for boats in Burlingame; even if applicant lived in one of the units would not be willing to grant this request; there is a problem in the city with boat and RV storage, if a garage could be remodeled attractively why not provide an off-street covered space for boat storage for the owner of this property; would have had no problem with granting this but based on staffs advice that a nonresident cannot store a vehicle or boat there will have to support the motion for denial. CP advised the over height garage and over height plate line are the issues before the Planning Commission. Applicant stated there are no covered storage places available in Burlingame; if his mother owned the boat would that have a similar effect. Motion to deny was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers H. Graham, S. Graham and Harrison dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:02 P.M.; reconvene 9:14 P.M. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL DAY CARE PROGRAM AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 10/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Comment: concern about parents dropping off children in the early morning at the Broadway entrance, would prefer they use the Vancouver side; CP advised the school district withdrew their request to use Room 8 at Roosevelt School which is the room requested for use by this day care program. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Pat Bader, applicant, said their program is to serve the needs of working parents, they are proposing enrichment programs not found at some other day care operations, the proposed hours are geared to working parents. A Commissioner expressed her concern about the neighbors on Broadway if this entrance were used, there would be noise in the early morning with cars having to turn around on this dead end street. Applicant advised that conceivably there could be 30 cars; she Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 11, 1988 thought it could be suggested to the parents that they use the Vancouver side; another Commissioner suggested a directional map might be given out the first day. Regarding the K-6 range of ages in one classroom, applicant thought it would be workable, there are other day care centers which have these ages, children can be grouped by age; they have an agreement with a busing company to transport the children to and from their schools; it will probably take another month to receive their license from the state. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. As a working mother of a kindergartner, C. S.Graham commended applicant on her program and moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that a before and after school day care program, located in the 1,244 SF Room 8 shall be operated between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. weekdays for a maximum of 30 children and a staff of three; (2) that the children shall be transported from Roosevelt to their respective schools by bus by 9:15 A.M. and transported from their schools to Roosevelt by bus between 12:00 Noon and 3:30 P.M.; the bus shall not remain parked on the school site at any time during the school day; (3) that the program shall serve children from the age of kindergarten through sixth grade and shall be licensed by the State of California as a day care facility, compliant with all the Building and Fire Codes of the City of Burlingame; (4) that the applicant shall encourage dropoff and pickup of children through the Vancouver Avenue entrance; and ( 5 ) that this use shall be reviewed in June of 1989 for compliance with the conditions and upon complaint thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS AT 1801 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 32, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 Reference staff report, 10/11/88, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed details of this request to divide an existing lot on Carmelita into two lots fronting on Cabrillo, staff review, Planning Department comments discussing buildable lot area and declining height envelope, Engineering staff concerns, applicants letter, Subdivision Code review criteria, study meeting questions. One condition was suggested for consideration if Planning Commission recommends this map to City Council for approval. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Lois Burrows, 1801 Carmelita Avenue addressed Commission. She stated the boundary of the creek was slightly misplaced on the map and discussed size of the proposed lots, lot coverage, no variances will be requested (there are no building plans at present), plans will be within all Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 11, 1988 code requirements, 100 year flood plain, actual creek flow, compatibility of proposed lots to pattern of existing lots. No part of a home would be built into the creek, in the flood plain or cantilevered over the creek, no major trees will be removed. Charles Kavanagh, civil engineer, also addressed Commission: as an engineer he thought this proposed subdivision of the property has a lesser impact on the creek, there would be no projecting structures, the creek would continue as it is, it has never flooded the area proposed for development, existing contours will remain, proposed houses would be built on existing elevation. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition. David Ferenc, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue: in 1955 and 1982 high flood water reached the top of the third terrace, because of this how can a house be put on Parcel 1-B, opposed to any trees being removed, there is a redwood on the third terrace, acacias on the second terrace and two palm trees in the rear; there have been workers in the creek under the bridge, no outhouse was provided, they were using creek bed and first terrace, would like this stopped. (Staff/Commission response: bathroom in the house can be used; redwood tree is outside 100 year flood plain.) Nancy Finney, 1020 Drake Avenue: concerned about any construction above, where will garages be, will the second redwood tree be removed; the creek makes a hard right, water does come up to the third terrace. Jim Yawn, 1815 Carmelita Avenue: concerned about creek lots in the city, City Council will be considering an ordinance with regard to creeks and development along creeks, in view of this it seems appropriate to postpone any recommendation on this application until after Council action; an article in the San Mateo Times was circulated discussing the need to reevaluate the creeks, flood plains, etc. in the City of San Mateo, the need to consider high tides occurring at the same time as a 100 year storm. Mr. Yawn asked when was the last time the flood plains/flood flows were calculated in this city. (Staff response: the last evaluation was in 1957, data from that study was used by Mr. Kavanagh in his calculations; regarding tidal action, this elevation is above the impact of tides, the biggest problem is when debris comes down the creek. Responding to Commissioner question, CE advised there is no city cleaning/inspection program, creeks are all in private ownership; if a problem is seen with retaining walls the city advises the property owner of the hazardous condition. City is responsible for clearing under the bridges.) Flood zones and flood insurance was discussed. Gene Supanich, 1036 Cabrillo Avenue: his property is shown as three lots, has been used as one lot for 60 years, the proposed subdivision will make his lot less compatible with the neighborhood Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 11, 1988 because it will become the largest lot; who determines 100 year flood (staff response: a licensed civil engineer). Speaking in favor: Sally Peter (lives in the Easton Addition): applicants have addressed the compatibility issued raised earlier, they have changed their plans, they will not remove any trees, they will build above ground level whereas rooms flooded on a neighbor's property were below ground level, what is objectionable about this request, ask that Commission make a final decision this evening. Further audience comment: Russ Jackson, a Burlingame resident: it is in the best interests of everyone along the creek area to wait for Council action next Monday evening, have seen what floods can do to streams and rivers, think the matter should be studied. CE Kavanagh responded: elevation of the ground where these two houses would be built is between 1/21 to 1' above the top of curb around the site, any houses built would be 21 to 3' above the ground, buildings themselves are not in danger of a flood on these two sites; in determining 100 year water surface elevation, he used the flows on the map published in 1954, revised in 1957, it was a drainage study for the city anticipating future development, he did not know if future development followed what was anticipated; he calculated for a 25 year storm and increased those flows by the standard 20% to approximate the 100 year flows, 100 year flow determined today could be more or less; the 1982/83 storms were uncharacteristic and larger than the 100 year flow. Mrs. Burrows responded: she was pleased there was so little concern about the issue of compatibility; the creek issue was thoroughly examined, the previous property owner offered to write a letter stating water had never reached the third level; regarding debris, they cleaned up much of the vegetation in the creek on her property, she apologized for the workmen. Neighbors and others have been on her property. She reported they have had broken windows, torn screens and some things stolen. In a closing statement Mrs. Burrows said they are not building in the creek, they are not building over the creek, they are not building in the flood plain nor in a flood zone (it is not a flood zone insurance area), the redwood trees will stay. Homes are needed in the Bay Area and they will add two homes. Her request to develop has been delayed by postponements, she would like to do something nice for Burlingame and requested Commission be fair and make a decision. Responding to Commission questions, she said she did not mean the neighbors when referring to property damage, this was probably done by younger children; the two redwood trees and two palms will not be removed, those trees designated on the map will stay. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 11, 1988 During discussion it was determined that in the review criteria of the subdivision code flood control, type of building or footprint are not included. Commissioner comment: compatibility is the issue in making a recommendation to City Council, after reviewing the material received and looking at the lots am ready to make a motion. Commission/staff discussed flood plain, possible need for a new study to reevaluate the city's position on the 100 year flood plain (Commission is aware that the creek along Occidental Avenue has changed), location of the proposed houses, 38% buildable area includes the third terrace. CA advised there is no basis for delaying this application, it was filed long before any Council consideration of lots along creeks. Based on his previous statement that compatibility is the issue (the subdivision code guides the Commission and sets its parameters), on material received from the CE and after inspecting the site and area, C. Harrison moved to recommend to City Council for approval this tentative and final parcel map with the following conditions: (1) that all supports or piers for structures shall be placed clear of the 100 year flows or flood elevations of the creek, said area to be determined by a civil engineer; and (2) that the two redwood trees and two palm trees shall remain. Motion was seconded by C. Giomi. Comment on the motion: will support motion based on subdivision code criteria; am uncomfortable not seeing the proposed houses, primarily on Lot 1-B, would not vote for any variances on either lot; will abstain, too well acquainted with the neighbors. Motion was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs abstaining. Staff will forward to City Council. Recess 10:42 P.M., reconvene 10:50 P.M. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE OFFICE AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1 Reference staff report, 10/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning Department comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Parking arrangements were discussed. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Harrison, Patson Development Company addressed Commission: five parking spaces on the first level in front of the security gate will be reserved and marked for Grubb & Ellis, those downstairs will not be reserved, building management has found this practice is more efficient; they have agreed to give Grubb & Ellis 13 additional spaces if the need arises and other uses do not use all these spaces, half the spaces Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 October 11, 1988 in the garage are not being used at this time; Grubb & Ellis are a part of this community, they need to expand, the 1440 Chapin building is perhaps the only place which could come close to meeting their needs. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Harrison advised their intention was to give Grubb & Ellis their proportionate share of parking spaces, if the building did become fully occupied and the extra 13 spaces were not available there would be a management problem which they would have to deal with; cardkeys to the secured parking are computerized so building management knows who is going in and out; Grubb & Ellis employees wont be there all at once, neither are the other tenants; parking is assigned by share of floor area of the building rather than use. Mr. Harrison felt it was very unlikely they would reach the point of having to enforce parking, the building is half full now and they are using one-third of the spaces; they are aware that many people do not like to park on second levels, the gate was put in for security reasons, elevators serve all levels. A Commissioner had a further concern in that most real estate companies have weekly meetings for all agents, this could involve 60 agents once a week needing parking; Mr. Harrison said building management attempts to retrieve unused cardkeys, if this cannot be done the card can be taken out of the computer. The building has been rented since July 1, 1987, it is 48% occupied at present; the agreement with Grubb & Ellis will not allow another realty company in this building. Jerry Igra, Grubb & Ellis, also addressed Commission: there is no on-site parking at Grubb & Ellis' present location on Primrose, their present density is one person per 90 SF, in residential real estate business is mostly conducted outside the office, they are projecting a maximum of 60 people at 1440 Chapin, with any further expansion they would have to open another office San Mateo, at no time would there be more than 35 people in the office; they do have Monday morning meetings for everyone, typical attendance is 40-50 people for one hour, some of these would require on -street parking; with this move there will be a dramatic reduction in on - street parking, a new firm at their site on Primrose would not have the density Grubb & Ellis has now; if Grubb & Ellis stays where they are there will be a negative impact on the city, they will be using city parking for all their requirements; traffic flow currently at Primrose and Chapin is excessive, along Chapin there is less traffic flow, this move will remove traffic from that corner; although doubling their office space they will add only 10- 15 people in the office, their density will be dramatically reduced. At the present site independent contractors and employees total 45, they expect to expand to 60 at this site. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October 11, 1988 Commission discussion: agree with Grubb & EllisI representative, there will be less on -street parking required by their move but have a concern about inability of taking that use away from Primrose, another real estate organization could come in and impact the old space heavily, there have been parking/traffic problems in that area for the last 10 years; it appears the 13 spaces given to Grubb & Ellis as a temporary measure must be discounted, when this building is 100% leased those 13 spaces will not be available and Grubb & Ellis people will be forced to park on the street plus those who will need parking during the Monday morning meetings, it would appear they are asking for a parking variance of 13 spaces. CP advised this building was designed to current office parking requirements, Grubb & Ellis is an office use, the issue is to review intensive office uses; the use by Grubb and Ellis at its present location on Primrose was grandfathered, Prudential Bache, a financial use at 1440 Chapin, was there before the code was amended to require review. A Commissioner expressed concern about the fact that the real estate use on Primrose could continue, Commission had concerns about parking impacts and that is why the code was amended. C. S . Graham moved to deny the special permit for this use at this location. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: this is a big improvement over the present Grubb & Ellis location, conditions of approval require review in one year which will give Commission control, no one knows what the ultimate parking impact for this building will be, there could be enough parking; it could be a disaster; what options does Commission have if compliance is negative (staff stated there is a revocation procedure); agree that getting Grubb & Ellis away from their present location will be an improvement, also there are plans for development of a parking structure behind the Primrose site by the library. Further comment: this is an organization which may go to 60 people, they have one weekly meeting with all those people expected to attend, if one-half the people are there one-third of the time they will need 35 spaces one-third of the time, the site they are leaving could be replaced with a business the same size and it has no parking, total impact on the area could be increased; if Grubb & Ellis don't go into this space, another business might need more parking; don't think there is a use which could go in which would require more parking. Motion to deny was approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi and Harrison dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 11, 1988 10. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR THE BUILDING AT 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B-1 Reference staff report, 10/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, staff advised should a tenant not like what was available under the master signage program he would have to come back to the Planning Commission for an amendment; enforcement of the program is through the landlord rather than through the city. Staff and Commission discussed the specific proposal. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Harrison, Patson Development Company presented a colored drawing of the proposed sign program. Responding to Commission question, he advised they anticipated their request would be all the signage they would need for the building when it was fully occupied, they are attempting to keep signage subdued. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Findings were made that this is a wide street with walk-in traffic, the building is fairly large, there will be several businesses with a need for identification. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the signage shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 12, 1988 and as described in the sign permit application dated August 23, 1988; (2) that the property owner and his authorized representatives shall be responsible for informing the tenants of the permitted signage under the master signage program and ensuring that the master signage program is adhered to; and (3) that any changes to the signage, including any addition of signage shall require amendment of the master signage program. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of Special Permit - 409 Howard Avenue - Discussion of regulations for car rental businesses - continued to the meeting of October 24, 1988. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its October 3, 1988 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 October 11, 1988 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary