Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1219 Burlingame Avenue - Approval Letter-��l �� � �.�.E lnx.�� .U.0 ��CZ',��"C.�CCa1'C.e SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 940I0 TEL:(415) 342-8931 September 20, 1983 Mr. Farro Essalat All On Board 1219 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Essalat: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the September 12, 1983 Planning Commission approval of your Sign Exception application became effective September 20, 1983. This application was to allow an awning sign at 1219 Burlingame Avenue. The September 12, 1983 minutes of the Planning Commission state your Sign Exception was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, Commissioner Garcia dissenting. Sincerely, I���z�r��� �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/ s cc: Chief Building Inspector Joseph & Sandra Karp (property owners) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 12, 1983 Discussion: the project is one structure, 150' in length, Fire Marshal had no objection to this length; ventilation will be ceiling hung; plans provide more common open a rea than required under the code, propose to landscape in pots and planters 50q of what is required. There was concern expressed about providing common open area on a cement slab, the roof of the underground garage; this could be precedent-setting and perhaps violate the spirit of the ordinance. Further comment: underground parking garage extends to the rear and side property lines, thus providing parking to code for the nine units, and guest parking is designated; front setback landscaping is more than the code requirement. C. Leahy moved for approval of this condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of August 29, 1983, the Director of Parks' memo of July 20, 1983 and the City Attorney's memo of July 20, 1983 be met; (2) that the project as-built be consistent with the plans date stamped by the Planning Department August 10, 1983 with revisions date stamped September 1, 1983; and (3) that all landscaping including the planters and pots in the common open area be sprinklered. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Commissioners Giomi and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A NINE UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMEtJT, LOT 1, BLOCK 6, MAP #2 OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY, 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE Reference City Enqineer's August 29, 1983 memo. CE Erbacher recommended Commission forward this map to Council for their approval. C. Cistulli moved for approval and recommendation to Council of this tentative sub- division map; second C. Garcia. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. �5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 1219 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY FARRO ESSALAT OF ALL ON BOARD � CP Monroe reviewed this request for an oversized awning sign at 1219 Burlingame Avenue. Reference staff report dated 9/6/83; Sign Permit application filed 8/1/83; Sign Exception application filed 8/1/83; letter from the applicant dated July 29, 1983; "no comments" memo from City Engineer, Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal dated 8/2g(�3�rTzi�wing date stamped August 1, 1983; photograph of the existing sign; and aerial pt�otagraph. CP discussed the request and code requirements; staff review; applicant's justification; Planning staff comments and the need to find exceptional cireumstances. If approved, one condition was suggested for Commission consideration. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant, Farro Essalat, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: issue is the height of lettering on the awning, square footage is within code; the sign for this new business was installed in March of 1983. Applicant advised sign was designed as a logo, the wall of this site is set back from the street and a sign there would not be seen from the sidewalk; if the signage were changed the logo would have to be changed; any change to the present sign would damage the awning. Staff was requested to advis� the painter of this awning sign that a sign permit is required in Burlingame to erect any sign; tt�e possibility of notifying property owners about the Sign Code was mentioned. CA advised that staff is working on a checklist _ to accompany each business license application in the hope of eliminating similar problems. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1983 C. Taylor found the applicant's testimony this evening supported a finding of special circumstances applicable to the subject property and that strict application of zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same vicinity. C. Taylor then moved for approval of this sign exception; second C. Cistulli. Comment on the motion: think 8" lettering could be used by a sign maker to produce a simple, effective and aesthetic sign; additional finding for aranting this application: the entrance is set back from the street and as a result it would be difficult to get signage on the building which could be seen by prospective patrons. ��otion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:30 P.M., reconvene 8:37 P.M. 6. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERP�IT FOR FERIAL'S DELI AT 840 STANTON ROAD, REFERRED TO COMMISSION QY COUNCIL ON 7/5/83 (CONTINUED FROM 8/22/83) CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow outdoor seating at Ferial's Deli. Reference staff report dated 9/7/83; new plan for outdoor seating and landscaping date stamped September 2, 1983; August 25, 1983 Monroe letter to Botrus Zaarour; August 22, 1983 Planning Commission minutes; August 2, 1983 letter from the new property owner, Dr. Ernest A. Siegel, with suggested alterations to the landscaping plan presented by the applicant; 13 letters in support of the outdoor seating presented by the applicant at the 8/22/83 Commission meeting; and 8/22/83 staff report with attachments. CP discussed Commission's request that a better plan drawn to scale showing table placement and plant materials be presented for their consideration; Planning staff contacts with the new property owner and conditions he would wish to place on the operator if.outside seating were allowed. Staff had requested a consensus plan to scale be presented for Commission review and action at this 9/12/83 meeting. If the amendment were granted four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Patricia Keller, attorney representing Botrus Zaarour, the applicant, addressed Commission: it was her understanding the applicant and the property owner were in agreement as to the use of the front setback but not in exact agreement as to the landscaping and how much square footage would be used in the plan submitted; believe Commission's main concerns were maintaining 10% landscaping and increased seating over that previously allowed in the use permit; applicants have been successful in increasing their business with this outdoor seating an� were not aware they should apply for an amendment to their special permit; the conditions suggested in the staff report are acceptable to the applicant. Dr. Ernest Siegel who recently purchased this property also addressed Commission: former owner took little interest in the property; he does want to be involved, particularly with any change in the structure or site, and wants to meet all the city's codes; would like to improve the neighborhood, providing a well maintained luncheon spot for nearby employees; would like to keep the area private, perhaps with a hedge on the north side; would prefer to retain the asphalt and decorate with large planters, maintained by the tenant; would like to keep the outdoor seating, think it's an asset to the neighborhood. Other audience comment in favor: P�r. Stanton, on behalf of his employees who work nearby and enjoy the outside seating; he presented photographs of the site and of an adjacent poorly maintained site; his feeling was the outside seating at 840 Stanton enhances the area and benefits the people wtio work there. It was pointed out the outside seating had been in use without an amendment to the permit for quite some time. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.