Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.05.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, May 10, 1993 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 26, IL993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - CP noted: Item 11, variances at 1349 Sanchez Avenue, was noticed as an action item, then found to need another variance so staff has brought it forward as a study item, it will be renoticed; Item 16, no further information has been received from the applicant for the hillside area construction permit at 2760 Burlingview Drive, it will be renoticed if applicant wishes to pursue it. Order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR Designer for the project at 1349 Sanchez Avenue (study item #1) asked why this item had been put on for study. CP explained the site survey done after the study meeting showed there was another_ variance required and therefore the item must be renoticed for action. There were no other public comments. ELECTION OF OFFICERS C. Ellis nominated C. Deal for Chairman, the nominations were closed and C. Deal was elected Chairman unanimously. C. Kelly nominated C. Galligan for Vice Chairman, the nominations were closed and C: Galligan was elected Vice Chairman unanimously. C. Mink nominated C. Jacobs for Secretary, the nominations were closed and C. Jacobs was elected Secretary unanimously. C. Mink passed the gavel to newly elected Chairman Deal. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 1 May 10, 1993 ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT VARIANCES TO REMODEL THE FIRST FLOOR AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR AT 1349 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Requests: does the required 40% lot coverage figure cover both units on this R-2 lot; confirm/clarify side setback figures;; dimensions of the structures and figures on the site plan do not add up; clarify relationship of bedroom 12 wall (page 2 of plans) and garage on page 3; sketch showing declining height line on an elevation; exceptional circumstances statement from the applicant for the additional variance; FAR of this project; history of the property, how did it reach 50%+ lot coverage; do lot coverage figures include second floor overhang and first floor bay windows; clarify number of bedrooms, existing nonconforming parking, parking variance not required. Item set for public hearing May 24, 1993, staff to renotice the item. 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE FOR DIMENSION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING FOR A NEW FOUR STORY 16 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1495/1497/1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Requests: summary chart showing what is being proposed and what was approved previously; why can't applicant provide landscaping and parking to code; what is unusual about the property to support the parking variance; plans indicate B1 and R1 occupancy, what is B1; plans drawn with UBC 1988, have there been any changes since that time which would affect this project; staff review of prior application didn't reference a special permit for landscaping or a parking variance, were these requests made at that time; assembly of the structure between the floors and the ceiling heights; are the findings for variance the same for all standards; check exiting from the basement to make sure there is proper separation; statements from the applicant addressing findings for, the special permit and parking variance. Item set for public hearing May 24, 1993 assuming all questions can be answered within the time frame. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, PORTION LOT 8, BLOCK 7, BURLINGAME LAND CO. MAP NO. 2 - 1495/1497f 1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE Request: has the new UBC been adhered to with this map. Item set for public hearing May 24, 1993. 4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOT 3 AND PORTION LOT 4, LYON & HOAG SUBDIVISION - 113 ANITA ROAD There were no Commission requests. Item set for public hearing May 24, 1993. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 10, 1993 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE TWO LOTS - LANDS OF MOLAKIDIS - 1017-1025 ROLLINS ROAD Requests: will this proposal work with all staff's requirements. Item set for public hearing May 24, 1993. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT_- 2760 BURL:INGVIEW DRIVE Reference James Chu, applicant, letter (May 5, 1993) requesting continuance due to lack of time to redesign and erect new story poles on the site. No further information has been received from applicant, item will be renoticed when applicant wishes to pursue the project. 7. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 125 COSTA RICA AVENUE._ ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/10/93, with attachments and the following received after preparation of staff report: site plan, garage floor/foundation plans; May 4, 1993 letter from Michael Gaul, designer. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner asked about the height of the structure on the rear property line at 124 Occidental Avenue. Chm. Deal. opened the public hearing. Michael Gaul, designer, was present. His comments: there is a structure to the rear 13'-9" in height extending the length of the rear property line and there is another structure on the left of the site which is 13'-9" high, this is one of the reasons they are asking for a height variance to cover up these structures„ they also hope to do something with landscaping on the other side; they could have used more of the site area but there is a need for open space as well as area for the pool; height of the garage from floor would be 16'-6", 17' from grade; post locations in the center of the garage should have been included in the drawing; wall location on the side of the bedroom will be moved to meet the required 20' width in the garage; linen closet will not be converted to a shower, they need this space for towels, etc. outside the house near the pool; attic is needed for storage space. A Commissioner wished applicant to be aware that Commission is not reviewing plans for the second story of the house this evening, tonight's action will not prejudice any future action which might be required on the plans for the house. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: have a problem with the 17' height but not the pool house combined with the garage, believe structures applicant wishes to hide could be hidden with a 14'-15' structure, if Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 10, 1993 height were kept at 14'-15' could vote for the other two special permits; since this property is surrounded by two buildings almost 14' in height, the one at the back 50' long, do not think this 17' garage would be detrimental. C. Mink moved for approval of the three special permits for construction of a detached garage 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 April 16, 1993, Sheets 1, 2, Building Elevations, Demolition Plan, New First Floor Plan and New Second Floor Plan; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal set forth in his memo dated April 12, 1993 shall be met; (3) that the attic storage area in the garage shall never be used for living purposes or converted into a living area at any later date; (4) that the height of the garage roof ridge shall not be greater than 17' from grade; (5) that there shall be no encroachment of any structures, equipment or appliances into the 20' x 20' required vehicle parking area; and (6) 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 seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: referring to condition 15, should Commission also be concerned with vertical encroachment; 17' seems a little high; have a concern about the properties on either side: of this site, they will be able to see the structure; think 15' or 15'-6" would be enough as opposed to 171; garage as designed with the house as proposed maintains architectural integrity of site development. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Jacobs voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1369 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/10/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter in opposition received after preparation of staff report was noted from Charles and Inger Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue (May 10, 1993) . Declining height envelope regulations were discussed, this project does not need a declining height variance. Chm. Deal stated he would abstain on this item and passed the gavel to Vice Chm. Galligan. Acting Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing and advised applicant there are only five members of the Commission able to vote on this project this evening, any Commission action requires four votes for approval. Applicant has the option to ask for a continuance or to proceed this evening. Patrick O'Connor, applicant, opted to proceed His comments: he has lived in the Easton Addition, Burlingame for 1.5 years, has five Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 10, 1993 children, this property is located on a steeply sloping lot, 18' from top of curb to 24' at the north end, it is not possible to place a second story without exceeding the 30' height limit, without a height variance property would be limited to a maximum of 2,400 SF and one story; he did not think it was fair to limit him to one floor when other houses in the area have second stories; he is not a contractor, plans to live in this house himself; garage will bet excavated to lower the first floor which will increase the expense; existing lot coverage of one story house is 32%, proposed lot coverage 34%, required second floor setbacks have been increased. Alan Olin, JD & Associates, designer, was present. His comments: the new FAR ordinance will apply to this type of development, information on the drawings needs to be updated, FAR for the proposed design would be approximately 100 SF less than the new requirements allow. They have made an effort to reduce the mass and bulk of this house; site slopes less than 25% but it is still a steep site, it won't allow more than a single story structure within code; there are other two story homes on this street. They have attempted to diminish the amount of bulk, lowering the house as much as possible, the new second floor level is only 3' above the first floor of the existing house. commission/designer discussion: existing house has flat roof, pitch of the proposed house is less than some roofs, they tried to keep it low; depth of the back yard before it starts to slope up is about 15', they terraced the lower yard to make it usable for the family. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Michael Bates, 1373 Bernal Avenue: he lives adjacent to the site on the Hillside Drive side and has looked at the plans; it is difficult to tell the height of this project relative to the existing house, there was no information on the existing height in the packet; he believed the project would block his light, setback of the new house would be slightly forward of his house, the new house would be taller than the existing building; in reviewing reasons for the variance he saw nothing to convince him this is an exceptional case, his lot: slopes also and he has a single story house. Designer commented it was only recently the ordinance changed, if using the same guidelines used for many years for determining height, the ridge is only 2" above 30' measured from front setback line, they were only trying to do what has been allowed in the part; if the existing house had a pitched roof the roof wouldn't be that much lower than they are now proposing; they are not trying to decrease anyone's access to light by the proposed design, house would look much worse with a flat roof. Commission wanted to know top of ridge measurement of existing house. Designer replied existing house has no ridge as such, parapet is approximately 12' above the floor; the proposed second floor is only 3' above the existing first floor. CE reviewed his quick calculations for top of ridge measurements and noted that the difference in overall Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes page 6 May 10, 1993 height based on applicant's estimate of 3' difference in second floor would be about 7'-81. There were no further audience comments and Acting Chm. Galligan closed the public hearing. Commission comment: am opposed to -the application; this is a classic denial without prejudice situation, suggest redesign of the roof, lower it; could go along with that but have a concern about asking applicant to do a lot of work in redesign and then come back and Commission denies the application; there have been many questions this evening about what is existing on the site and the answers haven't been given, would suggest in the future Commission be given information with figures on what is to be demolished; comments have been made that a second story isn't possible. within code, if a flat roof is used it will look terrible but a second story is possible; can go along with a denial without prejudice but would caution about a lot of effort being spent and then Commission denying the application. Further comment: going back to why the city has height limits, trying to avoid monster houses, technically this is a two story house but from the street it will look like a three story house; have had respect for architects and designers for years turning out attractive houses in difficult situations on lots with problems, there is a need to be creative here, cannot support the application, it is too high, appears too bulky, will tower over everything on the street. Another comment: side setback on Mr. Bates' side is 41, if roof is to be pitched think setback should be greater on both sides, if pulled in further it would lessen the impact; some of these concerns would have been brought up if this application had gone to study. C. Ellis moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Mink and approved 4-1-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no, C. Deal abstaining, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Acting Chm. Galligan returned the gavel to Chm. Deal. 9. PARKING VARIANCE FOR ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE AT 2700 HILLSIDE DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/10/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. present. Responding to a question about th property, he advised he is the purchaser; require moving the outside wall of the prohibitive. Staff commented if applicant garage it loses its nonconforming status, it to within 4' of the pool, code requires Jerry Lee, applicant, was e "sale pending" sign on the enlarging the garage would house and costs would be does anything at all to the moving the wall would bring a minimum of 5' from pool to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 10, 1993 structure. Applicant confirmed current property owner is the son of Jackson Realty; moving the wall back would eliminate the laundry room and small shower stall and remove interior access to the pool area. Mr. Lee confirmed he will be occupying this house. Commission asked about the structure on the roof, no access from inside the building is shown on the plans. Applicant said there is one set of stairs which leads to the bedroom over the garage, they are proposing stairs to the master bedroom in the front, he asked his architect to include a skylight over the stair area, and what he provided will give access to the roof. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CE suggested the structure on the roof might be a solarium. C. Galligan found it is difficult to make findings for exceptional circumstances, this is not a minor change, it is substantial; property can only support one parking space, even the driveway is not sufficient for a single vehicle; some of the pool area and area adjacent to it could be used in this remodel, it is reasonable to expect the garage to be able to hold two vehicles. C. Galligan moved for denial of the parking variance, seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: support the motion, when doing something this extensive the garage should be widened to take two cars; plans were confusing, doubt they could be used for construction. Motion to deny the application was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:07 P.M.; reconvene 9:20 P.M. 10. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE AT 912 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 5/10/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. She noted the issue of removal of a protected tree which is addressed in the conditions. CP confirmed lot coverage would be 34% if this request were granted which leaves only 6% before reaching 40% allowed lot coverage in R-2. CE commented there is only one legal space for backup in this garage. A Commissioner noted at present applicant doesn't need the second space but if he intends to make another addition and needs the second space it would not meet the city's standard. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Ronald Chortack, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised they do plan to use the garage for two cars and discussed with staff shifting the angle of the garage Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ]Page 8 May 10, 1993 to provide legal backup area. Regarding window within 10' of rear property line, there are lights in the storage area but they felt if they wanted to use that area for work space it would be nice to have a window, they do not have to have a window and would be willing to consider a skylight. There were no audience comments_ and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: do not want to vote for this garage unless it meets the city's code for a two car garage. Staff" said condition #1 could be amended to require proper backup for both parking stalls. C. Jacobs moved for approval of these special permits by resolution with the conditions in the staff report, condition ;11 to be amended as discussed. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: regarding legal backup for two cars, am hesitant to condition this approval for something that may happen in the future, two cars can get in there anyway;. applicant said he intends to use the garage for two cars, this condition will create flexibility, it is not a mandate, just enabling; the garage may not meet the template for two cars but two cars can be parked there. Regarding the window, if the position of the building is changed it will change the position of the window, would rather have a skylight than a window. C. Galligan proposed the conditions be modified to :include replacement of the window with a skylight. This modification was accepted by the maker of the motion. Further comment: applicant only needs a one car garage, would prefer not to box applicant in by mandating he move the garage or put in a skylight. C. Jacobs withdrew her motion, C. Galligan withdrew his second. C. Mink moved to approve special permit 1 (accessory structure which would exceed 500 SF, special permit 2 (roof height) and special permit 4 (storage area which would exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the house) and to modify special permit 3 (window within 10' of rear property line) to a skylight 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 April 9, 1993, these plans may be modified to allow proper entry into a two car garage and to replace the window within 10' of rear property line with a skylight; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 19, 1993 memo shall be met, with any additional paving or fencing onto the drainage right-of-way to have special approval from the Department of Public Works and that all fencing be shown on construction drawings submitted for a building permit; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 12, 1993 memo and the Fire Marshal's April 12, 1993 memo shall be met; (4) that a permit for removal of the 66" circumference protected tree shown on the plans shall be obtained through the Park Department in accordance with Code Sec. 11.06.060; if such approval is not granted this permit shall be void; and (5) that Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 10, 1993 the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. The Chair confirmed applicant's understanding and acceptance of the conditions of approval. Motion was approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING AT 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARDS ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 5/10/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jonathan Wu, applicant representing all of the property owners; was present. He commented perhaps it was the recession that brought all the property owners together and made this proposal possible. Regarding the disabled accessible parking stalls, all are located within 200' of the primary street/attendant booth, door to door service will be provided. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis congratulated Mr. Wu for bringing this long term airport parking proposal together and moved for approval of the application by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. CE clarified his May 3, 199:3 memo, replacement of all curb, gutter and sidewalk is not required but removal of the existing curb cuts that are not used and replacement with new curb, gutter and sidewalk is required. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the long term airport parking lot shall be built as shown on the plans submitted tofthe Planning Department and date stamped March 26, 1993 Sheets A1.0 Site Plan Landscaping and Sheet 2 Airport Parking Lot West End Site and Landscaping Plan with the northwest maintenance gate (and the curb cut restored) deleted from all plans and not included in the building permit and that this use permit shall take precedence over all other permits for these sites; (2) that the conditions of -the City Engineer's October 14, 1992 and April 5, 1993 memos shall be met; that one curb cut for maintenance access on the north end of the: property shall be retained and all other curb cuts except at the entrance shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk to city code standards; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 1, 1993 memo and the conditions of the Parks Director's April 15, 1993 and October 20, 1992 memos shall be met including all the existing trees and shrubs shall be retained, as possible, to meet the new parking lot layout; (4) that this use permit shall include only the parcels identified as Block 7, Lots 1-13 (APN 026-34,4-090/100; and 026- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 10, 1993 363-300 to 390); and Block 5, Lots 8-12 (APN 026-344-040 to 080), and these lots shall be operated as a single facility with one entrance/exit at the designated airport parking gage identified as 615 Airport Boulevard, and one maintenance only gate; and that should the use of any of these lots.be changed from long term airport parking the use permit shall become void and a new application for a use permit shall be required; (5) that the use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with 1,267 total parking spacers (two reserved for employees, three reserved for vans), a maximum of five employees, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site; (6) that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the city harmless from any claims arising from such. problems; (7) that all construction work shall occur only between May and September, with areas subject to grading to be sprinkled continuously using reclaimed water and sprinkled in sufficient amounts to control dust during construction; stockpiled debris, construction materials, soil and trucks hauling materials shall be covered; trucks shall have their wheels washed before entering onto a public street and the driveway and the street shall be swept of debris at regular intervals as required by the city; (8) that all grading, paving and other construction shall be done during the hours set by the Uniform Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame; (9) that lighting of the lot shall be provided at intensities required for safety of people and property and shall be installed so light is focused on the site, shielded for glare and does not extend onto adjacent properties; (10) that the property owner shall prepare a landscaping and irrigation plan for the entire site to be approved by the city Parks Director, and the property owner shall install landscaping according to the approved plan within 90 days of the granting of this use permit; (11) that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalk and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier; (12) that overflow parking of rent -a -car agency vehicles and storage of other vehicles is permitted providing on -street loading or unloading of such vehicles does not occur during peak 7:00-9:00 A.M. and 4:30-6:30 P.M. hours, and providing the area used has legal internal access within the parking lot area; (13) that the project shall meet all the :requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (14) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions, including public access and landscaping maintenance, in one year (May, 1994) and each two years thereafter or upon complaint including maintenance of public access areas, landscaping and operation of the facility; and (15) that this use permit shall expire in five years on June 8, 1998. Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page it :May 10, 1993 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO REPAIR SERVICES AT 1315-1317 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/10/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Moez Moledi.na, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this is a less intense use than the previous tenant who manufactured and stored chemicals, the site has five nonconforming parking spaces outside and there are three spaces inside, this is an appropriate use for the site. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the auto repair facility shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 7, 1993, Sheet 1, Site and Floor Plan; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 12, 1993, Fire Marshal's April 12, 1993 and Chief Building Official's April 12, 1993 memos shall be met; (3) that the auto repair facility will be open 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Saturday, with a maximum of four employees at any one time; (4) that all parking stalls shall be designated for customer or employee parking and no repair shall be done on the public street, in designated parking spaces or on adjacent private property; and (5) 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 seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT FOR CHANGE OF COPY TO NONCONFORMING POLE SIGN AT 1601 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/10/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP discussed policy on removal of nonconforming signs when a use is abandoned. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Curt Schulze, applicant, was present. He advised his family and their business have been in Burlingame for many years, they are concerned about the image and appearance of the city; their business needs identification of this location, the main plant is on Ingold Road; they are leasing this site for four years for an assembly/shipping/receiving point; the lower portion of the sign is approximately the same elevation as the building next door. Regarding special privilege, he checked, with the Planning Department and found there were no previous denials of signs such as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 10, 1993 this in the vicinity; the only other option is to have the building owner paint out the sign and leave it there, they are just a tenant and do not know if they will be there after four years,; their business is approaching its 50th year, they have 150+ employees. In discussion with Commission applicant said raw materials for their business go to Ingold Road, in the last year they have added to their metal parts assembly business-, finished goods- would be returned to Adrian and shipped from there. They do some of their own shipping, particularly in the Bay Area, incoming material is by common carrier. A Commissioner commented there is a fine line between identification and advertising and asked who needs to know where their business is. Applicant replied a variety of deliveries come to them, many of the purchased items are delivered by the supplier, either its common carrier or the supplier's vehicles. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted foliage screens this site compared with auto row, she thought Commission should be pro business sometimes and since the sign is already there she moved for approval of the sign exception 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 April 7, 1993; and (2) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: this sign is not a destination sign, it is an advertising sign, maximum allowed height is 201, have not supported previous requests: to use these over height signs, cannot support the motion. Motion was approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Ellis voting no, C. Graham. absent. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 3, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary