Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.04.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 27, 1992 e 14 -ON -Z4 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, April. 27, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. 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; Keith Marshall, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 13, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: page 2, item 17, address is 1280 Rollins Road. AGENDA - Item 115, temporary trailer permit, 1.450 Rollins Road - removed from the agenda. Item 116, tentative parcel map, 2918 Adeline Drive - removed from the agenda. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A RECREATION ROOM AT 1524 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 Requests: include clearer map of layout of lot and adjacent lots; will there be any water/sewer connections in accessory structure; when was the accessory structure built; has applicant considered adding a recreation room attached to the house; describe method used to determine setbacks; 1978 aerial, if -possible; was the accessory structure built by the current owner; what recreational activity takes place in this structure; CBI requires waterproofing membrane under the slab, if there is none does this mean the structure must be torn down and rebuilt with membrane; who built the structure; if this replaced an earlier structure was it identical, what were the similarities. Item set for public hearing May 11, 1992. 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A FOUR STORY, 38 UNIT. RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Requests: comments from Engineering on the issue of :intensified use of exit/entry to E1 Camino Real since Almer access is eliminated; are Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 27, 1992 backup aisles O.K., what is located on the roof; there are wall storage units above the cars in the garage, what are the requirements for these; how will BFI pick up garbage; is that a dead end corridor leading to the storage area in the garage to the southeast; will parking be assigned by unit; there appears to be an error in the elevation of the top floor which could affect height of the building, this should be corrected. Item set for public hearing May 11, 1992. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MEDICAL CLINIC AT 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B1 Requests: what is typical length of a conference with a client, will there be overlap in scheduling or arrival and departure of clients; describe existing nonconforming parking and parking requirements in effect now, why is a.three space parking variance required; what are time restrictions in the public parking lots, particularly Lorton/Donnelly; comment from applicant on measures to be taken to address parking impact; further clarification of number of employees/ clients as shown on the supplement to the application, where is each group intended to park. Item. set for public hearing May 11, 1992. 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 350 BEACH ROAD/301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: if theater will not be used, why retain the two screens; map of that area showing other auto storage and airport parking uses; clarification of why a special permit for 4.6% landscaping within parking area is being requested; at the entrance, entering and exiting is on the left side of the driveway, why; more information on the lighting plan since patrons will walk to the central building, how bright and how well shielded from adjacent uses and properties; what landscape materials are proposed for landscaping on the perimeter; how much demand is there for airport parking within the area, is another lot needed; if this is approved and the Council later applies a parking tax will a condition be needed addressing this; consider a condition that no auto storage for new or rental fleet cars be allowed on the site, the purpose of these parking lots is for owner operated cars, not car rental. Item set for public hearing May 11,, 1992. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AUTO BROKERAGE, RETAIL AUTO DETAILING AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1368 ROLLINS ROAD. ZONED M-1 Requests: when did this business move to 1368 Rollins Road; there are eight employees expected in five years, at least 44/66 trip ends per month in two/five years, where will they park; a parking layout is necessary before this proposal can be considered; need a better and more readable site plan; does this operation have a properly drained washing area; length of time it takes to detail each car, how long will the car be on the lot before it is delivered; what does applicant mean Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 27, 1992 by auto brokerage, is it auto sales. Item set for public hearing May 11, 1992 if all information has been received; or brought forward to the meeting of May 26, 1992. 6. SPECIAL PERMITS, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND FENCE EXCEPTION FOR THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AT 1625 ROLLINS ROAD, Z014ED M-1 Requests: did this proposal need a traffic allocation; discuss required parking and parking provided, property owner's and applicant's figures seem to differ; why can't the fence be made to be opaque; elevation of the fence at the front; why is a storage area needed at the front; what provisions are there for landscaping; specific list of types of equipment to be stored in the front area; discuss peak hour traffic for this operation, cars and trucks; is a retail postal outlet for the public anticipated at this site now or in the future. Item set for public hearing May ll, 1992. 7. SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, letter in opposition from a neighbor at 1616 Adeline Drive, study meeting questions, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP also noted letter in opposition received after preparation of the staff report from Marite Grandovskis at 1464 Cabrillo Avenue. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Sandy Belluomini and Dan Hartman, applicants and property owners, were present. Ms. Belluomini addressed the required findings for the variances: they wish to retain the garage at its present size and not extend it 2' in length to meet code; she presented photographs to show that the garage is adequate for two standard sized cars and storage of additional. items; with the existing driveway they have parking available for six cars off the street; the design of the new addition will preserve the traditional look of Burlingame homes, garage at the rear will keep the bulk down; they are trying to retain as much of the original structure as possible; it would be unnecessary hardship to add onto the garage at a substantial cost; they are trying to retain open space on the property, going back even 2' on the garage will remove yard for their children. The proposal would not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity, they are attempting to maintain the structure as it is since they understand people in the city have a problem with large expansions. Ms. Belluomini presented photographs of the house at 1616 Adeline and noted it is not small. Dan Hartman spoke in response to the letter from their neighbors at 1464 Cabrillo: the side deck area will not be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 27, 1992 lit and the new deck will be less than what is existing, the new deck is for privacy, plants, flowers, etc., not big enough to sit on; houses are close together in Burlingame, they are not changing the existing foundation line, driveway remains unchanged; house is in the same place except for the 3' x 6' deck, only a 3' extension at the dining room toward the back of the house. Applicants discussed the proposed windows, there is an 8' distance between the fence and windows because of the driveway, they are keeping the existing windows in the living room; the current deck and large sliding.glass door will be removed; size and location of new windows will be about the same as existing; they are within code at 40% lot coverage. Applicant presented additional photographs of the house on the other side which she said shows there is adequate space between their homes. Commission/applicant discussion: plans show the side deck as 4' x 100, not 3' x 61; applicant said this deck was intended to be decorative, not functional, they could reduce it but wanted to create an aesthetically pleasing space outside the dining room; on the other side of the driveway there is a large rosebush which will block the neighbor's view of the deck, they have done some additional planting along that side also. Applicants advised windows on the second floor are dormers with seating area in front of windows in their children's rooms, they are the only true windows in these rooms. Staff confirmed with this proposal the site would have 40% lot coverage including the garage. Commission questioned why the fireplace extends an additional 6" into the side setback. Applicant replied this was an engineering problem, if it did not do so they would have to move a wall in. Commissioner comment regarding Sheet 2, demolition page: it appears applicants are gutting the entire inside of their house. Applicant responded they could not get the staircase to the second floor without creating the central hall, they are keeping the floor plan of the existing house except for changing the hallway. They discussed portions of the foundation to be retained. The Commissioner noted that basically applicants are demolishing the house and building a new one. Mr. Hartman said view of the house from the sidewalk today and after the proposed project is completed would be about the same. Further Commissioner comment: applicant has an existing 3' side setback and wants to extend that another 101, he will then have an even longer nonconformity; why not take up the foundation and move it over since the house is being gutted anyway, loss would be 1' on rooms on that side. Applicants noted about 60% of the hardwood floors will be retained, they refinished the floors recently and do not want to replace them. There were no audience comments in favor. Marite Grandovskis, 1464 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke in opposition: regarding using the driveway as a buffer area, she thought recreation area for the children and family should be at the rear, by extending to the rear they will reduce usable Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 27, 1992 back yard; placement and size of the new windows will result in neighbor's loss of privacy, windows upstairs appear to be 5' in length; the rosebush on the fence is large and beautiful now but in the fall and winter it will lose leaves and not block view; the proposed deck and doors onto that deck will take away her privacy.__ There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. C. Graham stated she could not find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property to support the variances requested, there is nothing unusual about this site that makes it different from the rest of the neighborhood, she could live with the parking variance but not the side setback variance which would create a very narrow corridor on that side and take lot coverage up to the 40% maximum; a 3,400 SF house is not a small house. C. Graham moved to deny the side setback and parking variances, seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: do not have a real problem with extension of the side wall but applicant could get parking to code by removing the shed, will support the motion; cannot find exceptional circumstances, with this degree of reconstruction applicants could have moved the home over; have a problem with the 3' side setback and the added intrusion of 6" with the fireplace, it would be easier to consider area in the rear for the family if the project had a new side setback of 41, concern about the windows is a legitimate concern, they might need to have windows as high as 5' but this could be mitigated in some way such as recessing them, design itself is very pleasing but am concerned about the 40% lot coverage, if someone in the future wanted a larger garage they would be asking to go over 40% lot coverage, parking is a significant problem in the neighborhood, think it is appropriate to do it right at this time; side deck is well done,,it is cut in and in the middle of the lot, not as offensive as it might be, fairly small and an architectural touch rather than functional. If this plan were to come to Commission for a new house the Commission wouldn't even consider it because of the side setback, this proposal is enough of a reconstruction to be considered a new house, applicants will have to bring electrical, plumbing, sewers, all services up to code except for the foundation and that's not logical. Motion to deny the application was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE FIRST FLOOR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE AT 1813 LOYOLA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 27, 1992 i Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Paul Constantino, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: they have owned this home since the early So's and twice have received building permits for improvements which met code prior to enactment of the hillside area construction permit ordinance; their proposal will be an attractive addition which meets code requirements, the house wi-11 remain a one story structure, it is compatible with the neighborhood; they need the extra space for their four children. Commission and applicant discussed lengthening the driveway 21, a beautiful tree which could be affected, keeping the driveway as far back from the fence line as possible. Applicant said they will redesign the entire -area putting in paving block which will be better looking than a concrete pad. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal stated he had no problem with this application, applicant can park two cars in front of the house now, adding a small parking space on the side will not be detrimental in this case because of the lot. Incorporating the material in the staff report, C. Deal moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit and parking variance by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Mink with the request the applicant make the open parking space on the side deeper if this can be done without damaging the tree. Conditions follow: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 27, 1992 Sheets 1, 2 and 3; (2) that the finish material used on both the flat and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed 17' from the existing grade and that the framing shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing material is attached; and (4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Comment on the motion: this 3,600 SF house is not small but it is located on almost an acre, they are only requesting 1.2.2% lot coverage; it is a pleasure to have a house that is so much smaller than the lot. Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:02 P.M., reconvene 9:10 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 27, 1992 9. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe noted this project was called up for review by a neighbor -at 2705 Summit Drive. CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, petition in opposition with 68 signatures, required findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Jack Khouri, son of the property owner, represented the applicant and property owner. He advised the satellite dish antenna would be removed; they decided to make the addition because they needed more space, there are five children and four live at home; they frequently have guests and need a guest room, also they would like an office for study; for most neighbors trees obstruct the view, obstruction is minimal for the neighbor across the street, only one wall of her house faces the site and only an opaque bathroom window is blocked. Mr. Khouri advised his mother had talked to the neighbor who objected, it was his mother's impression there was no objection; they did no serious research about the hillside ordinance but after talking to the Planning Department they did look into roof height and placed a frame on the house to show the height of the proposed addition. They have lived in the house since August, 1991. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Dolores Rieman, 2705 Summit Drive: she and her husband selected the site at 2705 Summit because of the view; her husband, an architect, designed the house to take advantage of -the views; she was pleased when the hillside area construction ordinance was enacted; views belong to the house, loss of views means loss of value. Mrs. Rieman noted petition in opposition with 68 signatures and presented another petition in opposition with 10 signatures. She visited many of her neighbors and the mood was one of anger about the proposal at 2700 Summit. Mrs. Khouri had told her they wanted to add one bedroom over the garage, now they are asking for something much larger which will eliminate some of her views and reduce others. John Moran, 2616 Summit Drive: the ordinance speaks to obstruction of existing distant views of nearby properties; in the case of a house with many views from many rooms, one obstruction should be enough to deny the application; City Council upheld this determination in a recent application elsewhere. Michele Mahmoudi, :3 Kenmar Way: she lives behind the Khouri's house and her existing distant view will be blocked, her dining room, kitchen and patio will be in shadow, sun and air will be blocked, Mrs. Khouri did not accept her invitation to observe this; applicant's rear living room rises above her house, a 10' addition on top of this will put most of her home in shadow; both families will lose privacy. Mrs. Khouri polled some of the neighbors Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 27, 1992 but said they only wanted to add one room, those in opposition are not asking for anything more but want to keep what they have. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal stated he had inspected view in the area, the proposed addition will definitely block views, Commission must look at the bigger picture and protect views of residents who have been there for many years. C. Deal moved for denial of the hillside area construction permit for the reasons stated, seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion: made a site inspection, from Mrs. Rieman's bedroom the view would be lost, there may be some confusion regarding the trees because the eucalyptus grove belongs to the people on Canyon, view from some other rooms in this house are not as noticeably blocked because of the eucalyptus grove, basically view is blocked from the bedroom, it is not one of the worst blockages Commission has seen but it still does block; what is view - view is not just bay, it is trees, sky or whatever the beholder wants it to be; the view ordinance is very clear, there may not be a good understanding by the public, Commission and Council have the discretion to review an entire project and make a determination whether view obstruction should factor into denying or permitting a project, in this case there is a view which will be blocked, most homes in this neighborhood are one level at the street, most second stories have been built below street level, applicants could develop the lot by going down; Mrs. Rieman's house was obviously built to take advantage of every possible view, there is a view from every room in the home, this is why the city has a 'view ordinance, to protect views that people already have. Motion to deny was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT 1720 SHERMAN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of improvements, applicant's letters and forms, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings. A letter in opposition from Chuck and Sandy Chance, 1256 Cabrillo Avenue was received after preparation of the staff report. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff/Commission discussed site plan for the carport in 1972 which shows 26' on the side, it should be 18.51, and the variance for tandem parking. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. David Gallegos, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: the drawing in 1972 is one he drew and submitted to the Planning Department, the 26' figure is not in his handwriting; his outline indicates conditions existing when he purchased the property, most improvements were done over 20 years ago with the exception of the skylights which he just put in; when he moved in carport area was where cars were parked, the rear Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 27, 1992 section was a workshop; he has a lot of hobbies and several cars; when he put in the pool he needed more storage space so enlarged the workshop area to store everything including a small boat and motorcycle; at that time the building inspectors were there and no one seemed concerned. Bill Kannasto, 1245 Cortez Avenue spoke in support; he has lived across the street since 1960, the size of the garage/workshop area has been the same since the early 19601s, he used to play in the workshop. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs commented that she had looked at the site from 1256 Cabrillo, there are only two ways into the back yard, a door into the garage from the easement and the front door, there was a lot of storage, the wood of the wall on the neighbor's side looked new, it is difficult to believe the city allowed a garage from one end of the lot to the other, the accessory structure should be put back to some kind of compliance with code, there is no apron for parking, garage is much too large. C. Jacobs moved to deny the application, seconded by C. Graham. Considerable Commission discussion ensued: site inspections; impact on the neighbors at 1256 Cabrillo; improvements made through the years, mainly without building permits; when were each of these improvements made; extremely large size of the garage/workshop area; difficulty in determining what is new and what is old; special .permit required for an accessory structure over 500 SF; parking requirements; what size should be allowed for the garage, should the shop area be allowed in addition; regarding bathroom in the pool house, a second unit is unlikely; keep the garage area because it allows applicant to park four cars; eliminate the shop area, it is the portion of the structure which impacts the neighbors most since it extends to the side property lines; in surrounding areas garages are generally close to the street; work bench shown in the original drawings is not so different, if city personnel were there in 1972 they must have known work was being done; after 20 years it is too late to complain about mass and bulk of the structure, do not want to put the carport back. Further comment: cannot allow this structure just. because it grew little by little, year by year, it will be precedent setting; there was no permit for the bathroom nor were other required permits applied for, now it is Commission's problem; could the converted garage attached to the house be called a family room instead of a bedroom, only access is through the kitchen, then he would only need two parking spaces; it is not incumbent upon the Commission to show how these additions came about, that is up to the applicant and has not been done satisfactorily, therefore would like to retain only the 31' x 21'-2" garage area; corner lots can be difficult but this is not Commission's problem, think applicant has heard enough so that a denial without prejudice would give him the opportunity to return to the city with a more acceptable proposal; applicant says he has not made all these Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 27, 1992 improvements but he has been living there since 1969, with his past history would like some action taken, not just a denial without prejudice. CA suggested a motion to approve with certain limitations. Maker of the motion to deny and seconder withdrew their motion -and Commission discussed what limitations to include. C. Graham moved to deny the special permit to cover- more than 50% of the rear 30% of the lot, to deny the special permit to allow the existing shower and toilet installed'in the accessory structure, to deny the lot coverage variance, and to approve a parking variance for one space, the special permit for an accessory structure to exceed 500 SF (657 SF proposed) and the special permit for 3 skylights within 10' of proPerty line with the following conditions: (1) that the structure to the rear of the partition wall including the bathroom (March 10, 1992 plans, page 6) shall be removed; (2) that the portion of the structure 31' x 21'-2" clear inside dimensions shall be retained to be used for parking cars and the special permit for three skylights within 10' of property line in this area shall be approved; (3) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's and Fire Marshal's memos dated March 12, 1992; (4) that plans shall be resubmitted to the Building Department and penalty fees paid within 90 calendar days of the effective date of action on this application; (5) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (6) that the.garage or any part of the accessory structure shall never be used for living or residential purposes and should it be so used this permit shall become null and void and the structure must be demolished or remodeled to conform to the codes for on-site parking at that gime; and (7) that this approval shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (April, 1993) and every three years thereafter or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Galligan voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SIGN EXCEPTION AND MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1017, 1019 AND 1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, comments on theapplication form, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Michael R. Harvey, Burlingame Automotive Management, applicant, was present. He questioned the 7th condition suggested by staff regarding receiving a permit from CalTrans for installation of'all signage on the sites, he believed the CalTrans requirement for off -premise signs was only for the operation, not the installation of signs, from a safety standpoint a :sign cannot change Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 27, 1992 more frequently than every four seconds. He advised they will not use any signs to advertise off -premise products or services. Ken Allen, Arrow Sign Company explained the glowcube to be used for the readerboard; the cube is pigmented, not painted; the sign is not illuminated from within; the glowcube display wili_ be indirectly illuminated by lamps focused back on the sign face for night time visibility, no illumination is required during daylight hours. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham stated she had no problems with this application, it will not be a grant of special privilege for this property, it is a standard sign application similar to those approved for other automobile dealers. C. Graham moved for approval of the sign exception and master signage program 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 March 11, 1992 Section, Elevation and Plot Plan; (2) that the double faced readerboard sign shall have a maximum height of 26'-0" and neither face shall be larger than 164 SF and the Jeep -Eagle double faced sign shall be 150 SF per face with a maximum height of 35'-011; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 16, 1992 memo (all signs and parts of signs are to be placed within the property lines and not in the public right-of-way which is 10' from the face of the curb on Rollins Road to the property line) shall be met; (4) that the message on the readerboard sign shall change copy at a maximum frequency of every five minutes; (5) that no off -premise products or services shall be advertised by any signs on this property; (6) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (7) that prior to receiving a building permit from the City of Burlingame the applicant shall apply for and receive a permit from CalTrans Outdoor Advertising Branch in Sacramento approving installation of all signage on the sites requiring CalTrans review. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR CHANGE OF COPY ON AN EXISTING POLE SIGN AT 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, comments on theapplication form, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Vern Erickson, Economy Signs, Inc., representing the property owner, James Hannay, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink moved for approval of this sign exception by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 27, 1992 on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 3, 1992 Elevation, Section and Plot Plan and the maximum size of the 'Oldsmobile' portion of the pole sign shall be 100 SF; (2) that the applicant shall apply for a sign exception for any additional signs to be put on this site or any changes in copy on these signs prior to installation of the sign or change in copy; and (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TAKE-OUT RESTAURANT AND SERVICE AT 1302 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of uses at this location, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Ch m. Kelly opened the public hearing. Ronald Karp, applicant, was present. He questioned the need for a special permit for take-out service, this use will be a continuance of a nonconforming use, this location did serve food previously and could be defined as an eating establishment, 20% of his business will be take-out, he wants to compete fairly with other restaurants in the area. Mr. Karp objected to the suggested condition concerning provision of •trash receptacles, he indicated he would not have a litter problem because he only sells whole pizzas. He saw no reason for the suggested nine month review for compliance but had no problem with review upon complaint. Staff advised review is a normal procedure with. this type of application; litter is a concern when there is take-out service. During discussion it was determined there are trash dumpsters at the rear of the property, applicant intends to have a delivery service with one or two vehicles, at certain times of the day only the manager will be in the restaurant, this is not a large operation nor will there be a lot of deliveries; he will only sell whole pizzas,, will not sell by the slice, therefore applicant did not think there would be a litter problem. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan had no problem with the application, he found it is a fairly simple, quality operation, this company already does business in town with take-out service and delivery, the proposal appears to be an extension of that; it will be a compatible use :in toe area. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit 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 March 12, 1992 Sheet Al Elevation and Site Plan, A2 First Floor Plan, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 April 27, 1992 A2 Front First Floor Plan, A3 Second Floor Plan, and Suite Location Plan, and April 16, 1992 Site Plan and Fire Lane Location Plan; (2) that as built and operated the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (3) that the site shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in nine months (January, 1993) and upon complaint thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMBALMING AND REFRIGERATION HOLDING FACILITY AT 1280 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, comments on the application form, required findings, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Mike Coffey, representing the Dore Trust, property owner and Byrgan, Inc., applicant was present. His comments: the process of embalming uses no hazardous waste materials as defined under state or federal laws; there is no bulk storage of materials, storage is in pint bottles, 24 pints per case; access to this site off Nerli Lane has been a question, Nerli Lane has always been a fire lane, the easement connection to Nerli Lane has never been used as an easement and therefore adjacent businesses have parked on it, for 17 years Bay City Scales,•the previous tenant, used Rollins Road; Mr. Coffey had spoken to owners of the body shops which have rear access to the easement and both agreed this company could use the easement, there is a 33' wide space of which 201 is easement, room to park a car and still have access; the business will have four employees, none are full time, there will not be a lot of activity up and down the easement; a city sewer permit is required, no human/animal body parts will be discharged into the sewer system; while the use meets Webster's definition of mortuary, no meetings or services will be held at this location. Commission asked about the legal action against this company in San Mateo. Mr. Coffey said they were in business there 10 years with no complaints, a neighbor did complain in 1991, Byrgan, Inc. had no knowledge they were operating outside the laws of the city. William Scott, president of this company, was present. He advised his office is in his home at 2020 Easton Drive, Burlingame; he has friends in the funeral industry and is using their facilities at the present time; his drivers use company vehicles and take them home at night; there is only one vehicle parked at his home on Easton at night, his own business car; drivers sometimes stop by his home, extra vehicles will be kept at the site. Commission attempted to determine number of cases processed per month and number of -trip ends to the site. Trip ends appeared to be less than 70 per month, average number of bodies per month would be 15 to 18. Fire Marshal determined the type of fluid used is 20% by Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 April 27, 1992 volume solution of formaldehyde; Mr. Scott noted no more than 10 cases of 24 pint bottles each of formaldehyde will be on the site at one time. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. C. Deal found this use would not be detrimental to the area, there are enough safeguards, the business will not generate a lot of traffic. C. Deal moved for approval of the application by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Several other conditions were suggested during discussion on the motion, accepted by the maker of the motion and the seconder. Conditions follow: (1) that the applicant shall use and make improvements to the building as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 12, 1992; (2) that the applicant shall prepare and submit to the city for approval a plan for the storage and use of all toxic materials to be used on the site and for disposal of all embalming and human wastes and that the use of this site shall not commence until this plan has been found to be complete and can be approved by the appropriate city staff' and the required improvements and procedures fully implemented, certified and executed; (3) that the only access for this use to this site shall be via Nerli Lane and the access easement unless proper curb cuts are installed, paved driveway provided and parking to code dimensions is relocated and approved by the Planning Department or, if a variance is required, by the Planning Commission; (4) that all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code shall be met, inspected and approved for all improvements and installations on the site before the site shall be occupied by this use; (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in six months (October, 1992) and each year thereafter, upon complaint or upon any violation of any waste disposal or sewer discharge requirements; (6) that all existing signs from other businesses on this site shall be removed within 30 days; (7) that none of the vehicles associated with this business except that used by the president of the company shall be parked overnight at 2020 Easton Drive; and (8) that no memorial services shall be held at this site. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 15. TEMPORARY TRAILER PERMIT. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 This item was dropped from the agenda. 16. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, 2918 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONEI) R-1 Item dropped from the agenda. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 April 27, 1992 . *No • ; There were.no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 20, 1992 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary