Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.07.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 23, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, July 23, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the July 9, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO RECEIVE AND STORE VEHICLES AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: hours of operation; how will applicant enforce carriers un- loading and off-loading on the site; type of maintenance which will occur on site; what type of traffic turning control will there be; does applicant intend to stripe this parking lot; number of automobile trips per day in and out of the facility other than the car carriers; where are applicants other storage sites; where will rental agreements be written. Item set for public hearing August 13, 1990. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A WAREHOUSE/OFFICE SPACE FOR A TRUCKING OPERATION AT 1873 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: diagram on the parking, how will trucks be accommodated in that area; what prevents them from having the 44 spaces required; what other businesses are there, how is parking allocated to each; where will trucks be cleaned and minor maintenance done; is there some justification for the 35 spaces allocated to this business as opposed to the 44 spaces which are required. Item set for public hearing August 13, 1990. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 23, 1990 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN OVER HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 1240 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/23/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Revised aerial distributed this evening was noted. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Lois Cartwright, applicant, submitted photographs of construction in her neighborhood at the present time, she believed one of them showed a house which would not meet front setback requirements. Responding to a Commissioner question, applicant stated the tree by the garage is back about 51-8" from the face of the garage. She said the trellis part of the gate will be 7' so they can hang a light over the gate. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs had no problem with the request, she found there were exceptional circumstances with the property, there are not many homes in Burlingame set on a lot as this is with only a usable front yard, with landscaping applicant has added to the attractiveness of the site, the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, Commission previously approved expansion of one room on this property to a house. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence/wall shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 7, 1990; and (2) that the fence/wall shall be built to all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Discussion on the motion: cannot in good conscience approve further encroachment into the front setback; fence would be serving more as a barricade than as a fence, front yards are part of the streetscape of the neighbors, fence could be 5' tall, require no exception and would not affect use o -f the yard or privacy; cannot support the motion, did support the last action but this is too much, with a solid fence have a concern about sight line down the sidewalk and street. Commission comments in favor: project is unique, it is rare for a home to be built in the rear portion of the lot, they have no back yard, the house structure is much more imposing than the fence would be, have heard no concerns expressed by the neighbors about this proposal, the location of the house in the rear of the lot provides a unique and exceptional circumstance, there is no public hazard, there is a legitimate reason for the height of the archway over the gate, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 23, 1990 it will be less hazardous with the light there; visual impact on neighboring properties will not be materially damaging; the regulations, if imposed, will cause unnecessary hardship on the applicants, with reduced height they would lose some privacy which they would be entitled to if they had a rear yard. Further comment: this house may be built in the rear of the lot but many other properties have garages which are built in the rear and take up a large portion of .their property in the back, these properties have adhered to the required front setback; people that have a 21' setback and a garage in the rear have less rear yard and less yard space than this particular property; think fence could be placed at the property line, be 6' tall and have as much yard space as everyone else in the block; from the aerial cannot see any lots on the block which have as large a setback as this particular site, this is an exceptional circumstance and will support the motion. Motion was approved 4-3 on roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis and Mink voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF ONE BEDROOM TO THE RESIDENCE AT 2612 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/23/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP responded to questions regarding garage dimension requirements. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Alex Moissiy, applicant, was present. His comments: the lot is irregularly shaped, 50' in front and 40' in the rear; he cannot meet the 20' requirement for an uncovered parking space behind the front property line, it would be difficult and expensive to move the garage back 51; moving the garage over he would not meet side setback requirement. Mr. Moissiy stated he could move the water heater back inside the house, it would then be easier to park two cars inside the garage; driveway now from garage door to the sidewalk is 17'-10-1/2", it is 15' from front property line to the garage; if he enlarged the garage toward the house he would have only a 2' wide entrance hall, he needs 3'-3" for front door area;'*even with only two bedrooms he still could not have a 20' wide garage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed the project at length: it looks like a nice addition but have a problem with 40% lot coverage without a garage to code dimensions, believe an architect could design something within code, have a concern that sometime in the future there won't be enough parking and to get adequate parking property owner would have to go over lot coverage maximum; if there were an 18' x 20' interior Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 23, 1990 dimension garage on site now applicant would not be before Commission, he could build the project with a building permit; CP clarified code parking requirements; a Commissioner suggested a further condition of approval that no bedrooms be added without coming back to the Planning Commission; this is a substandard garage at present, if applicant wanted to add two bedrooms he would have to come in for a variance, this evening Commission is not being asked to grant a variance for the two parking stalls in the garage, they are being asked only to grant the variance for the uncovered space, this could be addressed now if it were in the plans at this time. Further comment: existing 18' x 20' garages are now treated as standard parking where two spaces are required so even though applicant is not asking for a variance for the garage, if approved, he would have by variance two covered and one uncovered spaces if he moved the water heater; basically Commission would be giving the applicant three parking spaces, at this point he has an alternative to build a garage to code, once the addition is made this opportunity will be gone; the existing front setback for the garage is 151, the setback on the bay window of the living room is 17'-6", could applicant change the direction of the living room and extend it out to the 15' front setback, that would eliminate the entry problem and change the focus of the living room, instead of 'being perpendicular to property line it would be parallel to property line. C. Jacobs moved to deny this application without prejudice with the statement that for the neighborhood and for the property applicant should investigate building a garage to code, this would be better in the long run. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: agree that Commission should think ahead but have heard a lot of supposition as to a five bedroom house, think Commission is going overboard on this, applicant will be able to put two cars in his garage and if it is 17'-6" inside instead of 18' there are a lot of garages in the city which hold two cars that way; for the house as it exists this garage is adequate, Commission is predetermining that someone will apply for a fifth bedroom, would not deny applicant the right to build as little as he wants at the moment but hope he understands he might in the future have a problem getting a variance for any additions to this existing dwelling, will go along with this particular project this particular size; if this were 30%- 35% lot coverage would have no problem but with 40% am concerned because of the effect on the neighborhood; there is no way to expand the garage except into the house, Ray Park is filled with garages this size and there doesn't seem to be a problem. Motion to deny without prejudice failed on a 2-5 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Kelly, Mink and Graham voting no. C. Mink found there were exceptional circumstances in that there is a garage which is a building in place against a setback line, looking .. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 23, 1990 at lot coverage in this particular region there are a number of large and bulky houses which may not have exactly 40% lot coverage but certainly are larger in bulk than this house will be, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property for the applicant to get what he feels he needs, it will not be detrimental to other property or improvements in the area. C. Mink moved by resolution to grant the parking variance for the addition of one bedroom with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 21, 1990 with a minimum exterior garage dimension of 18' x 20'-311; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fide Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (3) that any further bedroom additions to this property shall require application to the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. PARKING VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, FRONT LANDSCAPING VARIANCE, COMMON OPEN SPACE VARIANCE, COMMON OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE VARIANCE, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1273 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 7/23/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, negative declaration, applicant's letter, three letters in opposition received from adjacent and nearby property owners, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: there is a 20' required front setback on E1 Camino Real, this project meets that requirement; easement affects the size of the parking area, without the easement applicant probably could eliminate the compact parking stalls and be able to get the full width; Engineering has reviewed the removable balconies, they are not as easily removable as Engineering would like but it can be done; applicant will be providing the required number of parking spaces. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Larry Phelan, architect, was present; applicant, David Sierra, was not present. A Commissioner wished applicant were present to explain his statement that if the code were different variances wouldn't be needed. Architect commented this lot is unique, it has a large construction encroachment easement, if the easement were not there they could eliminate all of the variances; architect assumed applicant was aware of the easement when he purchased the property. Commissioner comment: how can applicant say if the easement weren't there he probably wouldn't need any variances, he would still be putting in below level parking and ground level parking and using up too much of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 23, 1990 the front space with driveways to provide required landscaping, the second garage entrance is the cause of the problem, the number of condominium units drives the number of parking spaces, the number of parking spaces drives two levels of parking and two levels of parking drives two entryways which cuts down the front landscaping area. Architect said the easement pushes all development toward the center of the project, with that extra space they could use it efficiently to meet the number of parking stalls, he doubted they could put all parking below grade. Commissioner comment: project has landscaping over the easement, made a driveway out of the easement and another driveway to go down below grade which result in inadequate front landscaping, there are two levels of parking driven by too many units. Architect stated he was not involved with the project in the beginning, his firm specializes in parking garages, perhaps if it weren't for the easement they would be able to get ramp space inside; he had talked on the telephone last week with the City Engineer who mentioned it might be possible for the city to work with the developer to reduce the size of the easement, he thought there might be some dialogue possible. A Commissioner noted applicant has said this building will be consistent with buildings in the area; actually it will be the tallest in the area by almost 151, what is Consistent? There were no audience comments in favor. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition. Emil Anderson, 1244 E1 Camino Real: he owns a four unit apartment almost across the street, has owned the property for over 10 years, his building has eight parking stalls, six covered and two for guest parking, and this number of stalls is barely adequate; there is a 12 unit building next door with only four covered parking spaces and they have covered over all the landscaping for cars, there is high density of parking there and cars spill over onto his property; to the left of his site there is a four unit building with parking on the lawn/dirt, both sites are unsightly. He also manages an 18 unit condominium at 977 E1 Camino Real, they have two regular sized parking stalls for each condo owner, a total of 36 stalls, it would be impossible for him to tell the condominium owners to limit their cars to compact size; his concern is that the proposed project is too high density to maintain the quality of life and it will present future problems. He commented older residents may remember when E1 Camino Real was an attractive street, it is no longer in many cities but Burlingame has maintained it because of the trees and setback and height requirements; however there are developments in Burlingame with little or no landscaping, one near Carmelita on E1 Camino is much too small and too dense. John Cimino, 1268 Balboa Avenue: his concerns were the parking situation and lack of landscaping; residents of E1 Camino park on Sherman and Balboa; he asked that no parking variance be granted, it is not the city's problem to alleviate the owner's problem because of the easement. Mr. Cimino also spoke for Stephen Attell, owner of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 23, 1990 1272 Balboa Avenue, who could not be present this evening but was opposed to the project. Kenneth Aron, 1600 Sherman Avenue: he was concerned about traffic congestion in this area, if there were fewer units there would be fewer cars and less congestion, this project should receive special attention since it is an R-3 site adjacent to R-1, residents of condominiums and apartments in the area on E1 Camino do not park on Easton or Broadway and cannot park on E1 Camino, they do park on the side streets such as Lincoln and Sherman; increased congestion leads to an increased safety problem, his young daughter cannot play in the front yard because of his concern; a building of this height will create 'a dark corridor. Eugene Lovelady, 1500 Sherman Avenue: addressing the matter of someone making money on his investment, this speaker noted applicant bought the property subject to knowledge of the site and city regulations, now he is coming to the city to ask for removal of all restrictions and that the city allow him as many units as possible; this will diminish the quality of life and aesthetic quality of the city; this project should be required to build to code. Bob Costa, 1265 Balboa Avenue: he said he would not be here this evening if there were only one variance requested but this project requires a number of exceptions to the code, applicant would not need so many variances with only six units. Ben Miller, 1500 Sherman Avenue: he noted parking is a serious problem on Sherman, in the past six years on more than one occasion cars have been parked on Sherman which have had to be towed away, it is a favorite street for parking for residents on E1 Camino. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Cers Jacobs and Mink advised they had received a telephone call from the applicant, Mr. Sierra; they did not discuss this project. Commission discussion/comment: the problem with the front landscaping is because there are two driveways, the problem is not the City of Burlingame's requirement for landscaping, landscaping is there for the benefit of °•all, this project does not approach the minimum requirement; would support a variance for compact spaces because if they are going to park below grade the easement does impact; regarding common open space and common open space landscape variances, the problem again is the parking, it is ludicrous to say that open space is going to be the backup for a parking stall; regarding the variance for height, the city and its citizens have consistently said they do not want taller buildings; there are two ways to design a building, go to the city and find out the requirements or design a building and then go to the city and say the codes are all wrong, the problem is the way the building is designed, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 23, 1990 it is not the city's fault that applicant bought this property; would support four compact stalls for the parking variance but cannot support any of the other exceptions or the negative declaration. Further Commission comment: primarily concerned with height and front landscaping, the drainage easement is there but cannot support using it as an excuse for all the exceptions; let the buyer beware, do not believe applicant fully investigated the restrictions on this property, if he did prior to purchase and decided to go ahead anyway he was taking a big risk; it's possible to put fewer units on the site but doubt applicant could make a profit with fewer units; the project, is too big in all aspects. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the negative declaration, seconded by C. Kelly, approved 7-0 on roll call vote. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the application, referencing testimony received and statements made this evening. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 8 UNITS, LOT 7, BLOCK 21, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME NO. 2 - 1273 EL CAMINO REAL Reference CE's agenda memo, 7/23/90. If recommended to Council for approval one condition was suggested. C. Jacobs moved to recommend denial of this tentative condominium map to City Council. Second C. Galligan, motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Recess 9:05 P.M., reconvene 9:15 P.M. 7. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, LOT 4, BLOCK 17, MAP OF BURLINGAME GROVE - 1216 EL CAMINO REAL Reference CE's agenda memo, 7/23/90, which stated Engineering and Planning have reviewed the map and have no objection to its being forwarded to Council for approval. C. Ellis moved to recommend this final condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Kelly, approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Deal and Galligan abstaining. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A RETAIL USE AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 9, 1990 Chm. Graham reopened the public hearing. Abraham Shayesteh of Galleria de Farsch was present. He advised their business has a van; they use the parking spaces in the back for customers, not employees. Ann Parsons, owner of The Doll Place, 1202 Broadway urged support of this application; this boarded up building has been detrimental to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 23, 1990 business on Broadway, discouraging shoppers, they have missed the Shayestehs who added to the street and had been very cooperative; this proposal is to take over two units in the building which have had three different tenants over time, it will broaden applicant's business area and put a viable business in those two units. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: FM Reilly advised the building will probably not be required to be sprinklered for this remodeling, if another modification is made over the next 12 months and another application made it is possible the building will be required to be sprinkl,ered then because the requirement is based on expenditure of a certain amount of money within a year; CP clarified new Fire Code changes; master sign program for this building has been implemented. C. Jacobs made findings: this is a relatively empty building at present, retail uses do not have the parking demand of a restaurant, it will be a good use for retail on Broadway, trust applicant will come in for amendment to the master sign program when he wants a sign. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the business shall operate in Suites 3, 4, 5 and 6 or 3,700 SF with six employees, three full time and three part time, and be open from 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday; (2) that signage for the use shall be applied for separately and shall conform to the master signage program as approved for the building; (3) that all tenant and other improvements made during the remodel of this 3,700 SF area shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that no part of this combined tenant space shall be used for business until a building permit has been issued for the remodeling and the work completed, final inspection completed by the Building Department and a certificate of occupancy issued. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1204 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff" report, 7/23/90, 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. Responding to questions, CP advised restroom improvements are triggered by the amount of money spent on remodel, this expansion requires two additional parking spaces where no additional spaces are provided, the tenant space presently has two off-street parking spaces. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 23, 1990 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John Hernan of Oritz Foodservice Imports, applicant, was present. His comments: they would like to expand this restaurant and bring it up to handicapped code, it is a unique type of restaurant, the seating is fixed and set up for wheelchair access, no parking will be lost from the addition, they are only expanding the rear of the building into the existing courtyard; there will be an enclosed trash area to address concerns of the CE; it will be a nice addition to the Broadway area. Responding to Commission questions, applicant advised the tabletop cooking system will be a gas fired grill in the center of each table, customers order seafood, meat, vegetables, etc. and cook it themselves; the entire restaurant will be wheelchair accessible, there are two tables specifically designed for wheelchair access. Applicant continued: this type of restaurant uses up a lot of floor space with grills on the tables and booth seating; they are enlarging the dining area but seating capacity will only increase by four seats. It was noted the plans show at the rear of 1202 Broadway a notation which says "relocate fence", applicant said they are hoping to relocate that fence so that they would be able to relocate the door, they need to talk to the tenant of 1202 about this. Addressing the matter of vents and cooking odors, applicant said beef is the most popular item in a restaurant of this type, fumes are vented through the roof, there will be three vents, there are filters at every table; this is his first restaurant and he was not sure about odor outside the building. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Bill Spitz, owner of the six unit apartment building at 1215 Laguna Avenue: he was concerned about cooking odors impacting his apartment units which face toward the restaurant, he thought the only way applicant could move the fence in the rear would be by removing two parking spaces; he did not see how applicant could gain 340 SF if not going outside the building. Mr. Spitz expressed concern about increased traffic, people parking in front of the driveway of his building, garbage blown into his carports, possible fire hazard with cooking on the tables; he thought wheelchair access was just a come-on to the Planning Commission. Ann Parsons, owner of The Doll Place, 1202 Broadway: she stated -even if she were not a neighbor of this property she would object, her strongest objection was construction because of what happened a few years ago when a neighbor replaced a sewer, her store had a thin layer of dust throughout and forced her to close for two weeks; the dolls she sells can be considered art, even if one piece of dust gets on the dolls their value is destroyed, she needed to be assured her product would not be damaged and she would not be forced to close her business. Ms. Parsons did not feel this type of restaurant should be confined to such a small area, she was. concerned about heat generation and equipment it will take to properly dissipate odors and residue which will come from the cooking as well as noise from all Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 23, 1990 the equipment necessary; extending the restaurant into the courtyard area will be detrimental to her shop, the only way she can get air on a warm day is to open her back door, this proposal will cut off breezes through the courtyard. She agreed with the previous speaker, the project has not been well thought out, especially all the heat into one little area, it will be detrimental to all close neighbors. Applicant advised some food preparation, soups and lunch items will be prepared in the kitchen. Regarding the parking issue, no parking spaces will be lost by this addition, the addition will. be in the courtyard area; regarding the odor issue, there will be no more odor than the previous restaurant, perhaps he can do a better job in dissipating odors; regarding the concern about fire and heat, this piece of cooking equipment is certified by the American Gas Association for safety, it is 7800 BTU maximum, by restaurant standards that is very little, it has fire safety equipment built into it and shuts off automatically. Regarding handicapped access, this is now the law and they will follow the code; regarding restrooms for the handicapped, this is not a ruse, it is expensive but both restrooms are required to be handicapped accessible. They will provide an enclosed garbage area unlike the previous tenant. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: the points in opposition are valid but the Fire Department reviews all applications to assure a project will meet proper codes for protection of the public and adjacent property owners, the inconvenience of remodeling would occur any time one business leaves and another comes in; have only one concern which relates to the increase in seating capacity, the rest of the project is an attempt by the applicant to comply with law, think the parking variance can be justified on the basis that there is no actual change with respect to number of patrons, but do not have any information regarding the parking or showing there would not be any adverse impact with four more seats. Further comment: have been a frequent patron of the previous restaurant and have been there when there were in excess of 50 patrons, parking has always been a problem on Broadway but have always been able'^to find a place to park, an increase in seating from 44 to 48 will not be a problem, think seating for the previous restaurant was more than 44 and would support a motion to approve. C. Kelly moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan who found there were exceptional circumstances in that the increase is in space only and not in patrons, the code technically requires additional parking for increased space but in this case the patron level will remain the same and the increased space is substantially mandated by state or Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 23, 1990 federal laws. C. Mink found another part of the unusual circumstance is that because of the renovation applicant is required to build in the handicapped restroom area which then impacts the space and that is what triggers the additional parking requirement. In comment on the motion Commission discussed the "relocate fence" note on the plans, the plans are a part of the motion, what is to be done about the fence should be addressed particularly since it may affect the neighboring property and doors in the rear. Following this discussion Commission consensus was reached to add a fourth condition regarding placement of the rear door and that Condition #2 that the project shall meet all UBC and UFC requirements will address any concerns. It was clarified that approval would be for 48 seats. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 21, 1990 without the second floor mezzanine, and as revised July 12, 1990; (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; and the conditions of the City Engineers memo of June 11, 1990 shall be met; (3) that the placement of the rear door shall be approved by the Fire and Building Departments; and (4) that this business shall operate from Tuesday through Sunday, serving lunch from 11:00 A.M. until 2:00 P.M. and dinner from 4:00 P.M. until 10:00 P.M.; with a maximum of six employees, including the owner, on site at one time. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SIGN EXCEPTION TO INSTALL TWO DOUBLE FACED SIGNS, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA, AT 1007 ROLLINS ROAD/ 1008 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 7/23/90, with attachments. 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. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Michael R. Harvey, property owner, was present. He said this request is to add one sign and relocate one sign. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found this is not a grant of special privilege because it is in a zone where other automobile agencies operate, there are special circumstances applicable to the property in that he has to move one of the signs off an improper property onto a proper property and the directional sign is necessary because he has two entrances to one business and has to direct cars. C. Mink moved to grant the sign exception by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 23, 1990 double faced (32 SF per face) pole sign shall have a maximum height of 20'-011, and the double faced (12 SF per face) wall mounted projecting sign shall have a maximum height of 17'-0"; and (2) that Signs B and G shall be installed at the locations specified on the Site Plan received June 8, 1990, and Sign G shall be installed as shown with the dimensions specified on the revised drawing date stamped July 11, 1990. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Hillside Area Construction Permit - 1518 Los Altos Drive PLANNER REPQRTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its July 16, 1990 regular meeting and July 18, 1990 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary