Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.07.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, July 13, 1992 _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; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Steve Langridge, Fire Captain MINUTES - The minutes of the June 22, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE - 3096 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: justification for the variance request; what would the impact on the patio be of a 7' rear setback instead of 6'; what were the conditions of the 1978 variance. Item set for public hearing July 27, 1992. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BATH IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE - 2 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: why does the entry need an overhang when it is facing south; unusual circumstances of the property to support the: variance request; what is the size of the uncovered parking available on site, is garage used for parking. Item set for public hearing July 27; 1992. 3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCES TO HEIGHT, STORIES AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE - 1445 ALVARADO .AVENUE. ZONED R-1 Requests: why is a variance to declining height envelope needed; provide a graphic illustration of DHE line; square footage of second and third floors, existing and proposed. Item set :for public hearing July 27, 1992 if all information is available. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 13, 1992 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOUR STORY 38 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Requests: applicant address item 15 of Engineering's memo regarding size of parking stalls; how can roof structure with required slope be met within 351; provide finished ceiling heights'for each floor; which existing trees will remain, how will below grade parking affect those trees; will the redwood trees in pots remain; what existing vegetation will be retained, what is there now and what will remain; will there be a security gate for below grade parking; will this be treated as five story construction with steel beams, if so what size beams. Item set for public hearing July 27, 1992. 5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - 530 EL CAMINO REAL Item set for public hearing July 27, 1992. 6. TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT USE AT 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Requests: comparing number of seats for the existing restaurant (90) and number of seats requested for this proposal (26), will applicant need more seats in the future, why not apply for them at this time. Item set for public hearing July 27, 1992. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL PRODUCE STORE AT 360 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1 j Requests: count of parking spaces available in the area; will this business deliver. Item set for public hearing July 27, 1992. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE SPACE A7' 1510 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: applicant is asking for additional space for existing employees, where are these employees located now, where are files and equipment they use kept; if not existing equipment, what new equipment will be added. Item set for public hearing July 27, 1992. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN EXISTING SNACK BAR AT ROYAL ATHLETIC CLUB, 1718 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: applicant's best guess of general public he expects to use the deli, how many and from where; will there be any type of exterior signage for the deli, any advertising anticipated; how will on-site parking be affected, does he have extra spaces; will applicant notify the members of the athletic club of the change in the snack bar including use by the general public, are members in favor of this; will there be any on-site cooking. Item set for public hearing July 27, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 13, 1992 ITEMS FOR ACTION 10. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO WUILD A DECK AT THE REAR OF _2606 SUMMIT DRIVE,, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, required findings, letter and revised plans received from the applicant after preparation of the staff report. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised width of the lot at the street was about 61'. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. John Goldberg, Administrator of the Estate of William Walker, was present. He advised this property has been on the market for about a year, they reduced the price and still had no offers; they are trying to improve the property so they will be able to sell it, this proposal would not have an adverse impact on the neighbors. He requested the CBI's condition that the new stairs require a landing be eliminated, it could be a hazard for people walking in the pool area because they would be too close to the pool, the existing stairs will be used, no change is proposed to the existing condition; they will not replace all concrete on the property, just the rear area where it is broken. Charles Kavanagh, civil engineer for the project, was also present. He noted the existing 17' wide steps leading to a sliding glass door, there is no proposed change to this door or the steps; they will replace decking around the pool and improve drainage; fence is also in bad condition, they propose to support the new fence on a concrete curb so it will be more stable and last longer; the pool pump house will be in the same location it is now, its size will be reduced, some of the pipes will have to be replaced as the deck and concrete is taken up; there is not much space to move the pump house away from the property line. A Commissioner noted one of the major problems with this project is that it is built on the rear property line, he asked if applicant had considered approaching the owner of Lot 11 to negotiate purchase of some of that property which might include trees. Mr_. Goldberg stated he had not, Mr. Jacopi (2600 Summit) owns the property behind the fence, trees have grown up in that area and eliminated the view, they have asked permission to trim the trees but have had no response. The following members of the audience spoke in favor. Charles Mahnken, 2614 Summit Drive: he owns the property next to this site on the side where they will be building the deck and felt the proposal with modifications proposed to protect the oak tree was reasonable; it will impact his view minimally; applicant has been trying to work with people in the area; Mr. Mahnken had no objection to the project as planned with the modification and finishing/ staining of the deck. Bert Horn, real estate agent: has been trying to help the applicant sell Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 13, 1992 this property, the immediate problem is deterioration of the deck around the swimming pool and the fencing, he commented that the applicant is trying to make this a saleable property, the house had a beautiful view, neighbor is uncooperative and purchasing additional property is not feasible. Leo Jacopi, 2600 Summit Drive (owner of Lot 11)','stated he objected to granting any variance until he could find out all impacts on his property. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: am sorry applicant and Mr. Jacopi have not had an opportunity to speak to each other about this project, the plans are posted on the wall of the Council Chamber this evening; because Lot 11, Mr. Jacopi's lot, is so large while Lot 10 is significantly smaller, although the pool is almost at property line it does not give the impression of being at property line, think that is some mitigation; Lot 11 is a very large parcel, but even though Mr. Jacopi is not using that part of his property he still owns it, the deck is considerably higher above grade and will loom over his property; could agree to leaving what is'existing, the pool and existing deck, but any extension of the deck should meet setback requirements; concur with these statements, the property needs a lot of work but just extending the deck will not sell the property, believe a complete package for improvement of the property would be better than a piecemeal effort. In view of the impact on Lot 11 and the fact that there is room to repair what is there now, C. Jacobs moved for denial of this application, seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: if applicant had an opportunity to speak to the owner of Lot 11 perhaps they could reach a mutually agreeable solution. C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny the application without prejudice, accepted by the seconder, C. Kelly. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT AT 1512 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request., staff review, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained applicant's discussions with the Planning and Building Departments, extension of the existing deck with railing and relocation of electrical service. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. C. Kelly advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. Mike Stallings, applicant, was present. He advised that nothing that had been done with regard to the new deck or electrical service had been done with an attempt to avoid city Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 13, 1992 regulations, after they moved into this house they got a permit to upgrade the electrical service and at that time submitted the original plans with the deck extended, fence at the end of the new deck was constructed to provide separation for safety from electrical wires; they waited until they got a building permit for the interior construction, this plan included downstairs interior extension and extension of the deck, plans also showed a barrier for safety from the PG&E line. Last week their neighbor at 1508 Alturas came home from an extended vacation and was distressed by the new fence at the end of the deck; applicants wished to be good neighbors and removed the fence. This specific request is to add a 95 SF enclosure to the first floor and 95 SF to the basement on the other side of the house, views of neighbor to the north will not be obstructed since they are downhill from his view; they will do whatever is appropriate for the railing at the end of the deck extension, he was not aware of staff's added condition in this regard. Commission/applicant discussed the project: additional condition regarding relocation of electrical will mean more delay and additional cost; none of the plans Commission has seen show a 6' fence; applicant stated reason for the height was based on what they were told they had to do for separation from the electrical service by the Building Department, he did not know whether it could be mitigated in some other manner or material; they are not interested in upsetting the neighbors so took the fence down. It was suggested the deck could be cut back; applicant agreed the deck could be cut back 2' or could be mitigated in some way that wouldn't obstruct neighbor's.view, applicant wishes to review possibilities. Staff commented that an intermediate building permit without having plans indicating everything may not have been the best procedure and the city can assume some responsibility for the fact that the railing is there; Commission's action this evening would be on the hillside area construction permit which includes two 95 SF areas and the deck extension, and a solution for the barrier at the end of the deck can be arrived at between applicant, Chief Building Inspector and neighbor. There were no .audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Anna Kovacs, 1508 Alturas Drive: she was opposed to the 6' fence on the deck, they are accustomed to 30"-34" but not 61; she had been aware they were remodeling and extending the deck but no one had mentioned a 6' fence, her home is lower than the applicant's, fence can be seen from her kitchen, family room and deck area; she presented photographs to show what view would be lost. Commission discussed Mrs. Kovacs' concern with her: the Kovacs' family room and kitchen windows face north, living/dining area faces east; she told Commission she probably would not be disturbed if there were a clear glass on the deck railing; if the new solid railing were the same height as the existing railing and made of the same material she would not object. The Chair commented that applicant has removed the railing but has taken on a new problem dealing with the Building Department and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 13, 1992 electrical separation requirements, applicant didn't know a 6' railing would be required until he went to the Building Department. Mr. Kovacs commented even a 3' fence would block views since they are located 3' lower than this site. There were no further audience comments in opposition. Mr. Stallings presented a photograph of existing condition without the fence, stating the fence is down and they will mitigate 'in whatever manner is necessary. Chm. Mink declared the public hearing closed. C. Jacobs stated she could understand applicant's annoyance and neighbors' concerns, there will be little view impact with the added condition, most of the Kovacs' view is to the east, the city is trying to encourage people to enlarge their homes in this manner by going under instead of out. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit and side setback variance by resolution with the amended conditions. She found there were exceptional circumstances in the slope of the lot and the addition would not affect neighbors' view to any great extent. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis with the statement 'he does have a concern about including conditions addressing the end of the deck, that is a separate item which can be worked out. CP read the suggested addition to Condition 11 and further Commission discussion ensued on this matter. The Chair commented the intent of most of the Commissioners is a reasonable solution to the benefit of the Kovacs' view and applicant's ability to -make the modification at a minimum cost without disturbing the neighbors; he pointed out Commission's role. is not as designers but as planners and felt staff could be trusted to use the proper language in the addition to Condition 11. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 4, 1992 Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and that the required railing at the end and sides of the 126 SF first floor deck extension shall be designed so that the opaque portion of the rail does not exceed the height of the existing railings on the deck and that required separation from the electrical service to the house shall be achieved in a manner which does not further affect the neighbor's clear view across the property; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 9, 1992 including redesign of the staircase shall be met; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 13, 1992 12. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE AT 13 HAYWARD COURT, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. A representative of JPH Design Management, Inc., representing the property owners, Jerry and Andrea Pfeffer, was present. He noted this is a pie shaped lot, property owners want to continue the roof line, house to the right has a 15'-20' setback, they can go to a shallow foundation to protect trees along property line, all major rooms face in that direction. A Commissioner commented applicant said he intended to keep those trees. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs wished to add a condition to ensure every attempt is made to retain the trees, or if necessary replace them. She found because of the shape of the lot side setback is a problem, there will be no view blockage by the addition, it will not be detrimental. to the neighbors. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit and side setback variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 11, 1992, Sheets 1 through 3 and Lower Floor Plan submitted June 30, 1992; (2) that the finish material placed on the roof shall be nonreflective as determined by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (4) that an arborist's report shall be completed and approved by the Parks Director prior to issuance of a building permit, if trees should be lost they shall be replaced at a size and with a species approved by the Parks Director. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA IN THE REAR YARD AT 2667 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Paul Ferrari, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised he understood the roof antenna must be removed, the new antenna will be located in the rear yard and will meet all code requirements. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 13, 1992 C. Graham found since there was no opposition to this request it did not appear it would be injurious to the neighbors and it will be in accord with the Burlingame general plan and zoning ordinance. She then moved for approval of the special permit to install a satellite dish antenna in the rear yard with the following conditions: (1) that the antenna shall be placed as shown on the plans submitted to -the Planning Department and date stamped June 11, 1992; *00 that the existing rooftop antenna shall be removed and building permits for the antenna shall be obtained within 30 days of the date of this action; and (3) that this project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:25 P.M.; reconvene 9:35 P.M. 14. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A LIVE COMEDY THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUB AREA B Reference staff report 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, previous theater proposal for this site which was denied without prejudice by the City Council, negative declaration, staff review, Planning staff comment, required findings, study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP confirmed there will be one hour between shows on Saturdays when two shows are scheduled, a parking study was completed for the previous proposal, the negative declaration assumed no off-site parking. The Chair suggested a condition be added that a contract for parking for 50 cars and necessary shuttle service be completed before an entertainment permit can be granted. A Commissioner asked if this use were granted, but the business failed, could another kind of theater use go in this location, she was concerned about X-rated theater. Staff noted that if another theater could operate within the conditions, the use permit went with the land and it could use this site. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Harry DeOrnellas, applicant, was present. He thought the need for an entertainment: permit from City Council would address the commissioner's concern about X-rated theater. They have attempted to mitigate al the concerns of the Commission and Council to the extent possible; they appreciate the new traffic lights at California and Burlingame Avenue providing safe pedestrian crossing; shuttle service to parking will reduce potential danger to their patrons; patrons will receive literature with their tickets about the availability of parking lots and/or shuttle service; he felt people would prefer and use an organized parking facility as opposed to hunting for parking nearby; they will provide an attendant and there Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 13, 1992 will be no charge for the parking or shuttle; he was asked if he had considered the possibility of a discount on a future show if patrons parked in his lot. Commission discussed with applicant why there was no firm proposal for a leased parking lot and shuttle service at this time; applicant said this would be completed before occupancy, they understand it is important; they are still investigating possibilities but should have a firm proposal within 30 days; they understand all signage will require a separate application at a later time. Jeff Schubiner spoke in favor of this live theater use: it will be a benefit to the community bringing people to the downtown restaurants and shops, it will be better and safer for people on the Peninsula who now must go to San Francisco for live theater; parking is not such a problem in downtown Burlingame in the evening, a lot of restaurants in this area are closing, live theater would bring people to these restaurants. Berry Hurley, property owner in the 200 block of Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition: he thought this was an inappropriate location, there are no lights, a shuttle bus will not work, people will not drive downtown to use a shuttle, where is a 50 space parking lot going to be found. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan found this proposal is a significant reduction from the previous proposal, the traffic study appears to be satisfactory, attaining an off-site shuttle system is important, traffic would be the most significant impact. With these findings and including the mitigations as conditions to any further approval, C. Galligan moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -450P, seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: do not think shuttle parking will work and cannot vote for the negative declaration without a parking solution. Motion to approve the negative declaration passed 5-2 on roll call vote, Cers Deal and Jacobs voting no. Commission discussed their concern about the parking situation: would a 50 car off-site parking lot with shuttle when necessary be acceptable; would shuttle be available for people who park early and eat out; what will induce people to use the 50 space off-site lot; cannot predict what the public will do with regard to parking and certainly applicant cannot require patrons to park .in his lot; people generally park the closest they can to their destination; cannot consider this until Commission knows where the lot or lots will be; if lot were close enough for people to walk to the theater would be in favor of the proposal; people using the shuttle bus will be stuck at the shuttle lot, not downtown in a restaurant, don't think a shuttle will work. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 13, 1992 The Chair noted Commission has determined that the negative declaration is a reasonable and acceptable document. He suggested Commission act next on the special permit to determine if it wants to allow the theater and then continue action on the parking variance; this would allow the applicant to know Commission's position on the theater understanding there is a problem with parking. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit for a live comedy theater with findings as indicated in the staff report, he found this use would not be detrimental to the area and is in accord with the general plan of the city. The motion was made by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 21, 1992, Sheets P-1 and P-2; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's May 26, 1992 memo and the Chief Building inspector's May 22, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that there shall be a minimum of a one hour time interval between shows on the Saturdays when two shows are scheduled; addition of more days with two shows or extending the number of days with shows shall require an amendment to this use permit; (4) that any pedestrian queuing shall occur on the sidewalk to the south of 247 California Drive and the theater operator shall be responsible for ensuring the queuing is orderly and allows other pedestrians room to pass; (5) that a passenger loading zone shall be provided in front of the theater on California Drive to the approval of the City Engineer and this loading zone shall be monitored and enforced for use, for loading only, before and after performances enforced by the theater managers; (6) that the theater shall operate four evenings a week, Thursday through Sunday, with one show 8:30-10:30 P.M. Thursday and Friday, two shows 7:00-9:00 P.M. and 10:00-12:00 A.M. (midnight) Saturday and 7:00-9:00 P.M. Sunday with the maximum seating of 99 patrons and maximum employees of 12, and no food service except beverages; (7) that the theater premise shall not be used or leased for other kinds of theatrical, social, charity or civic events outside of the hours permitted herein for shows, without amendment to this use permit; (8) that the project as built shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame and all necessary improvements shall be made and building permits finaled and an occupancy permit issued before any tickets shall be sold or performances scheduled; (9) that the operator shall receive and maintain an entertainment permit from the City Council prior to selling any tickets or holding any performances; (10) that this use shall be reviewed for conformance in nine (9) months (May, 1993) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint; and (11) that this action shall not be final until the parking variance has been acted upon. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: am not concerned with the theater use but it is located on California Drive and am concerned about people crossing California Drive mid block using the existing crosswalk which is very dangerous, especially at night; people including many Burlingame High Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 13, 1992 School students cross California Drive all the time; students are young and are not crossing at night. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Jacobs voting no. C. Galligan moved to continue parking variance consideration for two meetings (August 10, 1992) at which time applicant must submit a final plan for off-site parking and shuttle system. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and passed 5-2 on voice vote, Cers Jacobs and Graham dissenting. It was pointed out that Condition #11 approving the special permit stated action was not final until the parking variance has been acted upon, it is not appealable at this time, it will become appealable when there is action on the parking variance. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICE USE AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 3. ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/ staff discussion noted the title company in this building did receive a special permit, tenants of the building and their clients are using the five on-site parking spaces; the two applications for the building this evening are all the tenants. to date who need special permits and do not have one, owners are still remodeling the building; wording of the suggested conditions of approval was discussed. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Jamie Hanna and David Levin, counselors and applicants, were present. They requested they be allowed to hold group sessions for 10 or less people and stated all counselors in the building would not be holding group sessions at one time; they all work for San Mateo County and have their private practices in this building, they generally work after 5:00 P.M.; parking in this area does not seem to be a problem after 5:0.0 P.M. Three of the applicants are interested in group sessions in which two of them would work together, this might occur three to four times a year for six to eight weeks once a week. Applicants advised the estimate of clients at 60 to 70 in five years was a worst case scenario, it probably wouldn't happen. They would prefer 10 minutes between sessions since their typical billing hour is 50 minutes. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the information in the staff report as well as that received from the applicants, C. Galligan found this, use is an appropriate use for the building, use is less intense since its hours are off peak when there is available parking in the area. He then moved for approval of the special permit for health services and the parking variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that .1,230 SF of office Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 13, 1992 area (Suite 3) on the second floor shall be used for a counseling service; (2) that these counseling services shall be offered Monday through Thursday 12:00 Noon to 9:30 P.M. and Thursday 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon and may occur for emergencies Friday, Saturday and Sunday; (3) that counseling sessions shall be limited to individuals, families and large group sessions of 10 or less; (4) that there shall be a minimum of 10 minutes between all counseling sei3bions; (5) that within 10 days of the final action by the city on this"Use permit the property owner shall restripe the parking lot with five parking stalls including one handicapped as approved by the Burlingame Building Department; should this restriping not be completed and inspected within the designated time all conditional use permits issued by the city for this property shall be voided; and (6) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed for consistency with these conditions in one year (July, 1993) or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICE USE AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE. SUITE 5. ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at. the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Karen Scheikowitz, counselor and applicant, was present. She advised during peak parking hours in this area she does counsel families but each family generally comes in one car, some come by public transportation; she moved to this location to be closer to her clients, works on a 45 minute hour so 15 minutes separation between appointments is fine; she does individual, group and family therapy; the maximum number of people in the office at one time is 13 including herself. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan found this application was similar to the one acted upon previously this evening and similar findings can be made. on the basis of information in the staff report and from the applicant, C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit for health services and the parking variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the 292 SF of office area on the second floor shall be used for a counseling service; (2) that this counseling service shall be offered between 9:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. seven days a week with group sessions of more than four persons (except families) limited to evenings (after 6:00- P.M.) and weekends; (3) that no group session shall exceed 13 persons and all group sessions shall be separated by at least 30 minutes; (4) that no more than one counselor shall be employed in this 292 SF office and that appointments for all clients seen one-on-one shall be spaced at least 15 minutes apart; (5) that within 10 days of the final action by the city on this use permit the property owner Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 13, 1992 shall restripe the parking lot with five parking stalls including one handicapped as approved by the Burlingame Building Department; should this restriping not be completed and inspected within the designated time all conditional use permits issued by the city for this property shall be voided; and (6) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed for consistency with these conditions in one year_(July, 1993) or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES AT 1608 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings. Letters in opposition were noted from the following: Peggy Andrews of The Unique Bride, 1209 Howard Avenue (June 27, 1992) and Joanne and Daniel Kennedy, owners of The Bridal Suite in Burlingame Plaza. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained code regulations and city policy regarding retail sales in the M-1 district. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Mark Lockenmeyer, Cornish & Carey real estate, representing the applicant and property owner, advised the retail aspect of this business will occur only on weekends, he discussed the space layout, there will be less than 10% showroom area, there is a large area with a controlled environment for the dresses, there will be no improvements to the premise except perhaps painting and carpeting; this use will actually use less parking than a normal warehouse use. Commission, Mr. Lockenmeyer and a representative of the applicant discussion: layout of the area does not seem to support the concept of this business as primarily wholesale, applicant said 95% of the modification orders would be wholesale, they will ship all over the country; they are investigating radio advertising; their wholesale business will be done through mail order and word of mouth; in the first two years they anticipate 10-15% retail; there would be a need for the reception .area even if they were just wholesale for deliveries, etc. Dan Kennedy, owner of The Bridal Suite in Burlingame Plaza, spoke in opposition: he commented that there is no such thi1g,as "a little retail", this is unfair competition to retail businesses in established commercial areas, taking advantage of cheaper rents in the industrial zone, from the description of the business it is too small to survive, they will need more parking, his store uses a lot more than six spaces; he was not opposed to anyone being in business and welcomed competition but did ask for fairness. Commission/Kennedy discussion: his business uses 25-30 parking spaces at one time, the proposed business will need as many; this will be a retail store in an industrial zone, his business is retail in a retail area; The Bridal Suite has six employees at present. Larry Lyons, chairman of the Office Building Council, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 13, 1992 discussed their plans for studying overall uses in this area, they would request Commission hold its decision on this application for the time being until the Office Building Council has gone further in its study; Mr. Lyons thought retail would be appropriate in some portions of the M-1 district but they needed further study; as a building owner in the M-1 district he initiated study of the area, other businessmen are also involved. There were no further audibnce comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement this business would.share the building with World Gym, it is a busy building now; the city is going to look at changes in the M-1 zone as discussed at the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting in April; this is not the place for such a retail business, C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permit, seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion:. this area is not geared for this type of retail operation, it should be totally wholesale in that part of the city; applicant's presentation was complete and helpful, looking at the proposed layout it is weighted for retail use. Motion for denial passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 18. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1265 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R -I Reference staff report, 7/13/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Bruce Kirkbride was present representing his son-in-law, Bruce Marsden, applicant and property owner. Responding to a question, he believed his son-in-law would prefer a fence rather than another hedge. A Commissioner said she had no problem with a 7' fence on Easton. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: a fence is so stark and visible at this location and on the Drake side it is very close, would prefer a fence softened by a hedge in front; could support a 7' fence at the rear of this property for privacy, but not in front, could support 5' where it is allowed; do not have a problem with a 7' fence between properties but a 7' fence along Easton is out of character, could not support that or continuation of the fence at 7' along Drake. C. Graham moved to deny this fence exception. She did not think there was a privacy issue. Motion was seconded by C.. Jacobs with the statement she could support a 5' fence in that area. Comment on the motion: could support a 5' fence with no reduction to 3' on the corner. Motion to deny passed on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis and Galligan dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 July 13, 1992 19. SPECIAL PERMIT REVOCATION HEARING - WORLD GYM, 888 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference Zoning Technician's memo dated July 13, 1992. CP noted history of the special permit granted World Gym and the hair care and manicurist business operating on this site which is in violation of the conditions of approval and would require a specs'al permit amendment. Planning Department issued a notice of intention'.to revoke the special permit on June 23, 1992. Letter received this afternoon (July 13, 1992 ) from the operators of World Gym stated the nail and skin care salon has not been in operation on the premise as of June 30, 1992. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. A spokesperson for the operators of World Gym addressed Commission: they are doing a good business at this site, in order to better serve female patrons they wanted to add a nail and skin care salon, when the operator of the salon went to get a business license she was told she must get a special permit amendment. The operators of World Gym felt a special permit amendment might not be granted and it would put their existing special permit at risk so elected to remove the salon from the premises. They commented on their problems with the post office in getting mail delivered to the Hinckley Road address and said they had not received all mail sent to them from the city. CA emphasized to the operators the importance of checking with the Planning Department prior to adding any activity. C. Kelly moved not to revoke the special permit for World Gym at 888 Hinckley Road, seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Hillside Area Construction Permit - 9 Hayward Court Hillside Area Construction Permit - 2825 Las Piedras Drive (item called up for review by a neighbor) CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its July 6, 1992 regular meeting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 July 13, 1992 ADJOURNMENT / The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary