HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.05.24THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
CistulIi
Francard
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
May 24, 1976
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
None
City Planner Swan
City Attorney Coleman
City Engineer Kirkup
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Taylor at 7:34 P.M.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present.
MINUTES
Minutes of the May 10, 1976 meeting were approved as written after assurance by
City Planner Swan to Commissioner Kindig that the following sentence at the bottom
of page 5 was correct: "Burlingame does not qualify for people to obtain rehabili-
tation loans."
Chm. Taylor then introduced and welcomed Burlingame's new City Engineer, Ralph Kirkup.
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LANDS ADJOINING AND NE OF
BLOCK 9, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 5 (APN 025-261-110/120) AND
025-271-090), ZONED M-1, BY LOUIS ARATA FOR ANN MORI OF PENINSULA SPORTS
CENTER (APPLICANT) AND WAIKIKI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, SOUTHERN PACIFIC
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY WITH FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY (OWNERS).
Chm. Taylor introduced this item, ascertained that Ms. Ann Mori of Peninsula Sports
Center and Louis Arata, Civil Engineer were present, and asked C.E. Kirkup to comment
on this tentative parcel map.
The C.E. referred to his May 24, 1976 memo to the Planning Commission, commenting
that this is a subdivision legalizing a previous sale; that the properties are in
a former drainage easement and three of the properties do not have access to a
public street; this map is filed so the applicant can buy Lot 42. He referenced
his May 24 memo recommending approval of this tentative map with the following
conditions: (1) Dedication of Parcel "A" to City; (2) Dedication of access easements
adequately connected from Rollins Road to each new parcel; these easements to provide
access for the respective Lots and for the City; (3) Preliminary Final Parcel Map
(actually shown on the unsigned pian for Main Drainage Channel dated 5/20/76
prepared by Louis Arata) Note 4 - "Finish grade and/or subgrade shall be such that
there will be positive drainage of the finished site to the new drainage channel.
Finish grades shall be such that there will be no ponding or blockage of drainage
on or across the site."; (4) Plan for Main Drainage Channel Note 5 - "The Contractor
is to verify the location(s) of existing underground utilities." Further quoting
-2 -
the C.E.'s memo, "These conditions are proposed to be met as shown on tentative
parcel map, preliminary Final Parcel Map and accompanying plan of 'Main Drainage
Channel' received in City Engineer's office May 21, 1976, except that Lots 40, 41
and 42 and City, are to be included as grantees in the several access easements.
Development plans for Lot 42 appear to be feasible and generally meet most of the
City Engineer's requirements." The C.E. also outlined the earliest possible
approvals for Tentative and Final Maps. Ms. Mori and Mr. Arata confirmed that
they were familiar with the conditions as listed in the C.E.'s May 24 memo, had
discussed these matters with staff, and accepted the conditions of the C.E.'s
report. There being no audience comment in favor or opposed, Chm. Taylor declared
the public hearing closed, and asked for Commission questions. Planning Commission
discussion brought out the following facts. This complicated parcel map was
necessary as there was no way Ms. Mori could purchase an undivided parcel; she
could not define perimeters on the lot she wished to purchase; the C.A. advised
that the previously approved special permit for Peninsula Sports Center and this
tentative parcel map application were compatible; the C.E. stated there is a
drainage easement over the entire property and this subdivision will not interfere
with any drainage easement; also Engineering would prefer to have access easement
to Parcel 41 included as this had been deeded to rallroad.lt was determined the
preliminary title report showed three owners (as listed on the agenda item) and
that Peninsula Sports Center would become a fourth property owner. The C.E.
confirmed to Chm. Taylor that the map was sufficient from an Engineering standpoint
and the C.A. confirmed it was legally sufficient.
C. Mink moved acceptance of the Tentative Parcel Map, subject to the four conditions
as listed in the Director of Public Works' staff report of May 24, 1976. The
motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and carried by unanimous roll call vote. Chm.
Taylor told the applicants they would be informed as to when they may be required
to appear before City Council.
2. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-36P, FOR A CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL
AND INFANT DAY CARE CENTER, AT 1530 ROLLINS ROAD, BURLINGAME FOR THE SAN MATEO
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BY CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
At Chm. Taylor's request, C.P. Swan commented that the Commission has received this
Draft EIR for information only since the application for a continuation high school
has been withdrawn. He stated that under the revised State Guidelines information
in previous environmental impact reports can be included by reference in future
EIRs and it seemed wise to accept and recognize this EIR for these purposes. He
requested Commission accept and file Draft EIR-36P.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL AND INFANT DAY CARE
CENTER AT 1530 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-272-120), ZONED M-1, BY MAURICE GONZALEZ
OF SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Chm. Taylor asked the secretary of the Commission to read communication from San
Mateo Union High School District. Secretary Sine read into the record letter
dated May 19, 1976 directed to Wayne M. Swan, Burlingame City Planner, and signed
by Maurice Gonzalez, Director of Maintenance, Operations & Engineering, San Mateo
Union High School District, stating that the District wished to "remove without
prejudice" its application for a Use Permit to use 1530 Rollins Road as a temporary
site for its Peninsula High School. There being no objection, Chm. Taylor declared
Item 3 of the May 24, 1976 agenda withdrawn.
-3 -
Item #4 on the agenda was continued until Mr. Paul Kimoto arrived.
5. VARIANCE FROM SIDEYARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXISTING SWIMMING POOL EQUIPMENT
STRUCTURE AT 1725 HUNT DRIVE (APN 025-343-120), ZONED R-1, BY MAUREEN C.
AND KENNETH R. TOPPING.
The Chairman announced this item for hearing, ascertained that Maureen and Kenneth
Topping were present and that the applicants had read the staff report. Three
photographs showing the illegal accessory building were distributed. C.P. Swan
paraphrased the staff report which is attached to the last page of these minutes
and incorporated herein by reference. He mentioned that no building permit had
been obtained for the accessory building; the fence is higher than 6 feet; the
accessory building is not within the rear 30% of the lot; there is not a 5 foot
side yard as required by R-1 District Regulations. His comments indicated the
chronology of events leading up to this variance application, pointed out to
Commissioners documents which indicate the swimming pool contractor did not construct
the accessory building, and quoted part of the Fire Inspector's report of May 17,
1976 which stated: "The existence of side yards has been an advantage to the Fire
Department as the distance between buildings has decreased the hazard of a fire
spreading from one building to a neighboring structure. A second benefit of the
side yards is that the Fire Department has been able to use hose lines and ladders
on both sides which gives quick extinguishment." The C.P. stated staff believed
the applicants had not submitted material to substantiate granting of this variance.
Discussion between the applicants, Commission and staff ensued with some disagreement
regarding who signed the application form; applicants' desire to discuss the
illegalities on adjacent property; justification for a variance and proof of
hardship; alleged statements by staff; the seeming disregard of the Toppings to
cooperate with the City. It was determined that the pool equipment structure was
built by Mr. Topping himself, a licensed contractor, and has been there for three
years. Mr. Topping stated he was well aware of the laws and called the pool
equipment building a "temporary" structure (his definition: anything movable within
24 hours). The applicants claimed they wished to comply with City regulations but
did not care to remove the pool equipment structure.. Chm. Taylor advised the
application for variance must stand on its own merits; the burden is on the
applicants to show a hardship. C. Sine stated the Commission consensus: the only
matter under consideration was the Toppings' application for variance. Mr. Topping
stated there was no other place to put the structure in his opinion; the equipment
could be put in a smaller structure. The C.P. advised this lot is 72 feet wide at
the front and 88 feet at the rear; it gets wider as one gets deeper into the lot.
The Secretary reported a letter of support dated April 26, 1976 and signed by three
residents living next door and close to the Toppings.
Chm. Taylor requested audience comment in favor or against this application; there
being none, he declared the public hearing closed and asked for any further Commission
questions. C. Mink asked that the staff report dated May 24, 1976 be incorporated
in the minutes by reference, and pointed out a correction of date under "Background"
in this report: sixth item listed as August 6, 1973 should be "1974." In'his
opinion Exhibit E from the Fire Inspector dated May 17, 1976, paragraphs 4 and 5,
prove this building is a detriment to the public safety and therefore the application
does not meet the requirements for a variance under Sec. 25.54.020 (c).
C. Mink then moved that the Commission find this application does not meet the
requirements for a variance and therefore the variance be denied. Second by
C. Cistulli; motion to deny was unanimously approved by roll call vote. The Chm.
advised the applicants they had the right of appeal to City Council; C. A. Coleman
stated an appeal could be made up to 5:00 P.M., June 7, 1976.
-4-
Chm. Taylor noted Mr. Kimoto had arrived and with the consent of the Commission
agenda item #4 was heard next.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COURIER SERVICE AT 826 COWAN ROAD (APN 024-390-210),
ZONED M-1, BY PAUL KIMOTO OF DHL CORPORATION (ND -86P POSTED MAY 11, 1976).
The Chm. requested comments from the applicant, Paul Kimoto. Mr. Kimoto told the
Commission he did not feel his operation would create any adverse environmental
effects in the area; that originally he had applied for a business license and
was told by the C.P. he would need a special permit; he had read the staff report
of May 24, 1976,.and would be agreeable to a permit given until the lease runs
out (October 31, 1979). There were no audience comments in favor or opposed to
this application, and Chm. Taylor declared the public hearing closed.
In further discussion the C.P. noted that he and the Asst. C.P. had made separate
impromptu inspections of the parking lot and found empty parking spaces. There
appeared to be no parking problems now but he thought parking should be inspected
in future. Several Commissioners felt parking should be reviewed at a future date
since DHL had indicated it expects growth. In response to a question from C. Mink,
the C.A. believed staff review of parking in the future would be adequate if it
could be calendared satisfactorily.
C. Mink requested that the staff report on item #4 dated May 24, 1976 be made a
part of the record, and incorporated with the minutes. C. Jacobs moved that this
special permit be approved, with the stipulation that the traffic relative to this
site and parking on-site be reviewed in the year 1979, before 31st October, for
the purpose of considering continuation of the permit. Second by C. Kindig, and
unanimously approved by roll call vote. The Chm. informed the applicant that
unless the special permit is appealed to the City Council he would be free to
start business on June 8, 1976.
6. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING
GARAGE AT 1448 BALBOA AVENUE (APN 026-013-310), ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM E. AND
PAMELA J. FLOWERDAY.
Chm. Taylor announced this application for hearing. The applicants appeared before
the Commission and confirmed they had read the staff report of May 24, 1976. This
report is attached to these minutes and incorporated herein by reference. Snapshots
were introduced in evidence to show two cars parked in existing garage and the
location of the proposed addition to the rear of the house. Mr. Flowerday told
the Commission widening of his garage would cause him extreme hardship as it
would close off his dining room window; therefore, he had applied for this variance
in order to keep the garage as is and still add on to his house. The C.P. pointed
out that all of the proposed addition would be at the rear of the lot so essentially
any impact would be to the Flowerdays themselves. C. Jacobs agreed with this,
stating she had inspected the backyard, didn't believe the second story was a
problem and it did not crowd the backyard.
Chm. Taylor requested audience comment for or against this application; there being
none, he declared the public hearing closed, and asked for any further Commission
questions. C. Francard was told by the C.P. that a building permit could be obtained
to pave the front yard with concrete. C. Mink stated findings as follows: building
was in good condition and not ready to be rebuilt, torn down or replaced; the family
does need more space; the design as presented by the applicant does allow for
preservation and enjoyment of the property; it is not detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare; it is a proper use in R-1 and does not appear to injure
other property owners.
-5-
C. Jacobs moved approval of this variance per drawings submitted and Staff Report
#6 dated May 24, 1976. Second by C. Cistulli and approved unanimously on roll call
vote.
7. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A HOUSE LESS THAN 48" FROM ITS
DETACHED GARAGE, BY BRIAN J. JOHNSON OF 609 CONCORD WAY (APN 029-184-030),
ZONED R-1.
The Chm. announced this application for hearing and ascertained that Mr. and Mrs.
Brian Johnson were present. C.P. Swan told Commission plans were revised at the
advice of the Commission following the study meeting two weeks ago. These revised
plans, which were reviewed by the Commission, would not decrease the existing
distance between the house and the garage which is a separate detached garage.
He mentioned the Fire Department memo which stated Mr. Johnson had proven that a
24 foot extension ladder could be carried into the rear yard, so firemen could
gain access to the second floor from the rear yard. Staff Report dated May 24,
1976 is attached to these minutes and incorporated herein by reference.
Mr. Johnson addressed the Commission, stating he had lived in Burlingame all his
life, cannot continue to live here in his present house without an addition, cannot
afford to buy another house in Burlingame and didn't intend to leave the city unless
he was forced to do so. He advised he had read the staff report and had also read
the code and legal requirements for a variance. Cutting off the garage was not
acceptable to the applicant and he felt this stucco building would be damaged if
moved. Commission questions brought out that after the proposed improvement was
made the Johnsons would have three bedrooms and two baths, and one downstairs
bedroom would become a family room; most of the modification would be in the back;
the detached building is a single car garage, not a carport.
Chm. Taylor requested comments in favor or in opposition to this application.
Mr. Richard Perry, 601 Concord Way, Burlingame asked to see the sketch for informa-
tion; he was assured that this house would remain a single family dwelling. He
stated he was also concerned about additional cars parking in the street. The C.P.
advised it would be possible to park three more cars on the driveway in back of
the front setback. C. Mink stated findings that the circumstances which brought
about this request for variance and the result of granting a variance would, in fact,
meet the requirements for a variance in Sec. 25.54.020. Thereafter he moved approval
of this variance as represented in the drawings dated 4/12/76, revised 4/20/76 and
5/12/76. Second by C. Jacobs and approved unanimously by roll call vote. Chm. Taylor
advised the applicant this variance would become effective two weeks from tomorrow
(June 8).
8. VARIANCE TO ALLOW BEDROOM ADDITION TO HOUSE WITH 16 FOOT WIDE GARAGE, IN R-1
DISTRICT, AT 1225 MAJILLA AVENUE (APN 026-204-040), BY NEAL J. LUCETT.
Chm. Taylor announced this application; and before proceeding acknowledged the
presence in the audience of newly elected Councilman Martin.
Neal J. Lucett addressed the Commission stating at the present time he has four boys
and one girl in a three bedroom 1 bath house. He felt that aesthetically there
appears to be no problem since all addition would take place in the rear of the
home. He stated he had read the Staff Report of May 24, 1976 (attached to these
minutes and incorporated herein by reference), and advised he had a petition and
letter of support from his neighbors. Secretary Sine read this evidence into the
record which included a letter of support from Frank and Amy Seebode of 910 Laguna,
Burlingame, immediate neighbors of the Lucetts, and a list of nine supporters who
signed the statement, "I am in support of Mr. and Mrs. Lucett's variance request."
Photographs A -F submitted by the applicant were reviewed by the Commission.
C. A. Coleman commented on an inspection trip to the site on May 24, 1976 which
indicated Mr. Lucett's house may be over his neighbor's sewer lateral; further,
if the City grants this variance, City of Burlingame cannot take any responsibility
for damage over that lateral. The Chm, advised he was with Mr. Coleman when the
site was visited. Chm. Taylor asked for any audience comments in favor or opposed;
there being none, the public hearing was declared closed.
Commission determined the building was built in 1931; it is a substantial building,
can be properly improved and the needs of the family will be met by this improvement.
There was Commission consensus that a finding of hardship had been proven by the
applicant. In further discussion Commissioners Kindig and. Mink pointed out the
difference in this application from previous ones due to the single car garage and
there being no possibility of off-street parking behind the front setback. However,
it was not felt this would be a detriment to the public safety due to the particular
location on a lightly traveled street. C. Sine determined from the applicant that
a previous patio structure had been taken down, leaving a blank place where there
had been sliding glass doors.
C. Jacobs moved approval of this variance, with acknowledgment that the sewer lateral
of Mr. Lucett's neighbor goes through his backyard; the addition to be according to
the drawings and Staff Report of May 24, 1976. Second C. Cistulli, and approved
unanimously by roll call vote. The Chm. advised the Lucetts this variance was
approved subject to approval of City Council and will be effective on June 8, 1976.
}i# Discussion followed regarding the number of variance applications of this type.
C. Francard decried the practice of garages being converted to living space and
thereafter the resident gets a $2.00 permit to park on the street. C. Jacobs
questioned if there was any way the Planning Commission could allow additions that
are within code to homes that have very minor non -conforming garages; the C.A.
advised this was a policy question and up to the Commission. The C.P. thought
Burlingame could choose a review line and suggested that staff have some discretion
for narrow garages, subject to review by the Commission.
C. P. Swan remarked about the large number of notices to surrounding property owners
for variances in R-1 districts. For the variances on the May 24 agenda, staff did
not receive any inquiries, although on some lots there had been over 150 letters
mailed out. Pursuing the subject of variance applications, C. Mink asked staff to
consider all the variables in a staff report. Chm. Taylor pointed out that the P.C.
must give careful consideration to these applications and find that all conditions
for granting a variance do exist in accordance with the code. C. Kindig agreed that
a variance is a serious matter, including the sending of notices, and that a change
should be considered very seriously. The Commission agreed that they wanted to make
findings that the requirements for a variance have been met..
9. SIGN PERMIT FOR 96 SF REAL ESTATE SIGN ON A 30 FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN AT 310 LANG
ROAD, BY CLARKE/DONALDSON/CRAMER, INC. FOR CROCKER CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK.
This application was introduced by Chm. Taylor who requested C.P. Swan for a brief
history. The C.P. noted Lindal Homes' lease runs to 1984; the Linda] Homes sign
is underneath the six sheets of plywood fastened to that sign. He quoted Paul
-7-
Cramer's December 29, 1975 letter to the City: ". . . this sign is a real estate
sign and is intended to be of -a temporary nature. We are seeking a new tenant for
Lots 5 and 6, Anza Airport Park Unit No. 2, and when this has been accomplished the
sign will be removed."
Clarke/Donaldson/Cramer, Inc. are endeavoring to locate a suitable subtenant for
Linda]. One prospect failed to materialize. The file includes a letter from
Crocker National Bank dated Janury 6, 1976 stating, "This Bank, as Trustee, is the
owner of the subject lots." At their January 12, 1976 meeting the Planning Commission
approved a sign exception for the existing 96 SF real estate sign at 310 Lang Road
until March 15, 1976. The Commission agreed the sign would come down in approximately
two months. On May 7 the C.P. wrote to Mr. Cramer and requested that the sign be
removed within 30 days. This present application is for a sign permit to allow
the existing sign to remain. Commission discussion ensued regarding definition of
a temporary sign and real estate signs; the C.A. advised this particular application
is an exception because of its size.
Paul Cramer addressed the P.C., adding to the C.P.'s remarks; he said the property
is under lease, was used for a specific purpose by Linda] for the display of their
homes with the idea of attracting freeway traffic to their proudct, and that Linda]
was paying considerable rent for this property because it benefited them directly to
have their product in this particular location. They have had a difficult time
finding a lessee who can take advantage of all the amenities which are there. He
quoted from the second paragraph of May 6, 1976 letter from Milo D. Smith, Vice
President Administration, Linda] Homes: "Of all the efforts made to market the
property, that is, direct solicitation of known potential users, newspaper
advertisements, etc., the largest single lead producer on the property has been
the sign. We would expect the property to sell in the reasonable future and would,
therefore, request that you consider a favorable decision about the continuation of
display of the sign." Substantiating this letter, Paul Cramer -stated he felt the
sign was essential to marketing of the property. It was determined that Mr. Cramer
would have no authority to take down the .steel poles after the property is subleased.
C. Sine stated his feeling that Linda] Homes made a mistake in business judgment,
terminated their business in Burlingame, and now are asking the P.C. to help bail
them out.
C. Jacobs stated that even though she had not voted for the original sign, she would
be agreeable to granting a permit for six months, no longer. Chm. Taylor requested
audience comments and, receiving none, declared the public hearing closed. C. Sine
moved that the Planning Commission deny this sign permit with the further condition
that the sign poles be removed as well. Second by C. Francard.
Before the vote was taken some Commission discussion occurred explaining the history
of this sign to C. Cistulli. C.A. Coleman informed C. Cistulli that without this
permit it is an illegal sign and could be abated. C. Cistulli stated it seemed a
mistake to deny the sign at this time and he would approve granting it for six months.
The sign application was denied on the following roll call vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG
Chm. Taylor informed Mr. Cramer appeal to the City Council must be received by
5:00 P.M., June 7, 1976.
me
10. RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION FOR COUNCIL REFERRAL ON RECLASSIFICATION FROM
C-1 TO C-2 AND PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR-38P FOR STUDY.
Chm. Taylor requested comments from C.P. Swan on this agenda item. The C.P. noted
that in the adopted May 10, 1976 Commission minutes the Chm. summed up discussion
indicating the rezoning of this particular area does have Commission support.
Mr. Swan stated there is a requirement that a Draft EIR be posted 10 days prior to
the meeting; the Commission has an outline of the EIR which is now in preparation
and which can be scheduled for the June 14 meeting. It could be heard as a Final
EIR on June 28.
The C.P. continued, in preparing an EIR it is important to address the adverse
impacts and focus on what would reduce the impact. In this case there would be no
physical change and very little impact, which differs from an EIR for a tall building
or some other project which requires a special permit. Staff would like to focus
only upon that portion of the block fronting on California Drive and Highland Avenue
and between the City parking lot and Howard Avenue. The C.P. informed Chm. Taylor
he believed this would be consistent with the Council directive; the Commission
should report to Council within 40 days. C. A. Coleman mentioned that, lacking
that report, Council can initiate the reclassification.
C. Kindig agreed with the C.P. that this will not have a great impact and an elaborate
EIR would not be necessary. C. Jacobs and C. Mink wanted to be sure that traffic
would be included in the EIR. It was stated the Council directive was not intended
to include "Auto Row." C.P. Swan asked for direction from the Commission as to
evaluation; should it be positive, negative, neutral. Chm. Taylor believed it
should be presented as though the Commission were in favor of it. The C.A. hoped
both the pros and cons would be included in order for the Commission to make a
decision based on all the evidence. Mr. Swan added the Commission will be doing
an evaluation.and this will be added to the Final EIR to express Commission's
opinion.
OTHER MATTERS
C.A. Coleman commented on proposed ordinance code changes to be sent to City Council,
in response to Council's direction to make clear that all variance and special permit
matters are acted upon by the Commission and may be appealed to Council. It also
was suggested that the 500 ft. radius for noticing property owners be changed to
300 ft. to reduce the noticing workload. It has been estimated by the Planners
that this would produce a 2/3 reduction in cost. The C.P. detailed this workload:
for the May 24 agenda he had prepared a list of over 550 property parcel numbers,
which took approximately three hours of time. Succeeding steps of preparing and
typing list of property owners, typing envelopes, preparing notice letters, stuffing
envelopes and mailing requires considerable time. He repeated that staff had no
inquiries on any of the May 24 variances; however, when there is a controversy
staff does hear about it. The 300 ft. radius seems reasonable, and it would be a
marked economy. He suggested the code might be changed to "at least every property
owner within 300 feet." The C.A. said it was his plan to submit these proposed
ordinance code changes to the Council for their next meeting.
C.P. Swan reminded Commission of the special meeting on accessory buildings which
has been scheduled for Saturday, June 12. He mentioned Council directive to study
a formula for special permit applications in the Parking Assessment District; this
should have precedence and could be documented with options and placed on the
Commission study meeting agenda of June 14. The Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission
is also interested in this matter. An announcement of a sign conference to be held
at the Sheraton, Burlingame on Thursday, June 10 was handed out to Commissioners.
C. Jacobs volunteered to attend.
WE
C. P. Swan commented on the Proposed Procedure to Satisfy CEQA Requirements which
had been sent to Commissioners. The new procedures are based on the updated State
Guidelines which will soon be adopted. On May 17 The.Resources Agency advised they
would hold open the record of hearings for receipt of written comments until June 1,
1976 and, further, "we will take final action on the amendments after that date
without further notice." The new State EIR Guidelines would become effective
90 days thereafter. Two major changes affect the Burlingame process of meeting
CEQA requirements. Local government may accept input for a Draft EIR but payments
to a consultant are to be channeled through the city. The consultant preparing an
EIR would be on contract to the city and not the applicant or developer. The
second important change is to allow a two week period between the Draft EIR hearing
and the meeting when Planning Commi-ssion takes action to certify the Final EIR.
This change permits material and comments received from other people, plus hearing
testimony, to be incorporated. This will be done by an addendum to the Draft EIR,
including the hearing minutes, which will then constitute the Final EIR.
For discretionary action such as special permits, action on the special permit may
be taken after certification of the Final EIR. There would then be an appeal period
for the Final EIR and the special permit. Under the new procedure to be clarified
by ordinance, all special permits will be final and conclusive by action of the
Planning Commission but subject to appeal and suspension by the Council. The
Commission will be certifying all Final EIRs and they, too, will be subject to
appeal to the City Council. When an EIR.is required for a discretionary special
permit we will add two weeks time for processing the application. This is only
when an EIR is required. The $200 EIR fee remains unchanged. When an EIR is
required the applicant will have to pay all the costs: additional cost to the city
over and above the $200 fee and the total amount of the consultant's contract.
The proposed procedures will be forwarded to Council for approval after the new
State Guidelines for Environmental Impact Reports have been adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,.
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary
Staff Report
Item No. 4
May 24, 1976
SPECIAL PERMIT
DHL CORPORATION 826 Cowan Road
Summar
DHL Corporation is a service organization employing 18 persons who provide for the rapid
transportation of documents to points within the continental U.S. and overseas Four-
teen station wagons and light pick-up trucks are used for collection and delivery of
these documents. The corporation has been at 826 Cowan Road since November, 1974, and
no problems have been observed with their courier service.
rulBackground
Kimoto of DHL Corporation reports that it is a "service organization which picks
up and delivers documents to various businesses in the Bay Area. We also pick up and
send out shipments via the scheduled airlines at the International Airport." To supply
these services DHL .presently employs 18 persons and operates 14 light vehicles. The
company normally operates between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight during the
week. The hours are reduced on the weekends, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and
7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Sundays.
A typical working day has the following pattern:
6:00/6:30 a.m.
7:00/7:30 a.m.
,M'14 8:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m./5:00
p.m.
4:00/5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
12:00 p.m.
- 7 day -shift operations employees arrive in company vehicles, having
taken them home the previous night.
- These emplyees set off on their routes. They tend to work until
perhaps 12:00, are off until perhaps 3:00, then work through the
afternoon, arriving back at Cowan Road between 5:00-6:00 p.m.
- 7 office staff arrive in their personal cars, which are parked on
the company lot until 5:00 p.m.
- 2 outside firms make collections and deliveries during the day,
usually one trip per firm each afternoon. One firm handles film,
the other documents. Cars or station wagons are used, not trucks.
- 4 night -shift operations staff arrive, then set off on their routes.
- Office staff depart.
- Night -shift operations staff go off duty.
The above data suggest that the principal impact of this firm on its neighbors is limited
to a relatively modest increase in traffic on Cowan Road. Twice during the morning and
twice during the afternoon,,up to 7 or 8 vehicles per hour arrive or depart.
Off-street parking is more likely to become a concern to the City. At present there is
an off-street parking need for DHL employees' cars and company vehicles of approximately
12 spaces. Code requirements for 2,000 SF of office space and 4,000 SF of warehouse area
specify 11 parking spaces. Within the area presently leased by DHL from Paul Munroe
Hydraulics, Inc. (holding the master lease from Eric Cowan, property owner) 12 cars can
be parked to code, and perhaps 3 or 4 additional cars could be sqeezed in or parked
tandem. Several site inspections over recent months confirm that there are no obvious
off-street parking problems at present. However, the Environmental Assessment form
filed by DHL suggests that their parking needs will more than double within five years
(page 3, item Q. No additional parking spaces are available at this location, unless
cars are parked inside the warehouse or in spaces presently beinq used by the sub-
Staff Report
Item No. 5
May 24, 1976
VARIANCE
MR. AND MRS. TOPPING, 1725 Hunt Drive
Summary
In June, 1973, a swimming pool was constructed at 1725 Hunt Drive by Lee -N -Carol, Inc.,
for Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Topping. At about the same time a pool equipment structure
was constructed by Mr. Topping, a licensed contractor. A separate Building Permit for
this accessory building was not obtained, and the structure was later found by the Build-
ing Department to be located within the required sideyard.
Repeated requests by City Staff for reported faults to be corrected and a final inspection
to be obtained were ignored by Mr. Topping. Futile attempts by the City Attorney to re-
ceive a response from Mr. Topping continued through 1975. An abatement action was filed
and on December 2, 1975 a default hearing was held in Superior Court with judgment made
that "all pool equipment and structures (be removed from) the side yeard of your premises
and that adequate wiring (be installed)." No action by the Toppings followed this judg-
ment, and on March 31, 1976, the City Attorney informed Mrs. Maureen Topping (the property
owner) that contempt proceedings were being initiated. On April 30, 1976, a variance
application was filed with the Planning Commission.
This application is to permit the existing pool equipment building, which extends between
the north-west side of the house and to within 18" of the property line, to remain as
constructed,
Background
June 1, 1973
- Building Permit U951 issued to Mr. and Mrs. Topping for new
24' x 37' swimming pool.
June 19, 1973 )
July 2, 1973 )
July 17, 1973 )
- Preliminary inspections and subsequent attempts by Building
January 11, 1974 )
Department to obtain final inspection.
August 6, 1974 )
February 7, 1975
- Letter sent recorded delivery by Building Department asking for
final inspection or file will be turned over to City Attorney.
March 4, 1975
- City Attorney writes to Mr. and Mrs. Topping requesting they
arrange for final inspection, and drawing attention to their new
pool equipment building which has no sideyard setback.
(undated)
- City attorney sends second letter requesting Toppings' appearance
at his office April 2, 1975.
April 2, 1975
-Mr. and Mrs. Topping fail to show up for meeting with City Attorney.
City Attorney sends letter advising that court action will follow.
May 6, 1975
—City Attorney sends fourth letter to Toppings; advises that the City
is proceeding with a court action.
May 22, 1975
- City of Burlingame action against Mr. and Mrs. Topping filed with
Superior Court.
July 3, 1975
- City Attorney requests Police Department to serve copy of Summons
and Complaint upon defendant, Mrs. Maureen Topping (property owner).
July 29, 1975
- Building Inspector makes final inspection. Three code violations
noted. Copy of Inspector's letter to Lee -N -Carol Pools, Inc.
attached (EXHIBIT A). Their August 6, 1975 reply is also attached
(EXHIBIT B). The illegal work was apparently not done by the pool
contractor, but rather by Mr. Topping, who has a contractor's license.
Staff Report
Item No. 6
May 24, 1976
VARIANCE
MR. AND MRS. FLOWERDAY, 1448 Balboa Avenue
Summary
The present .2 bedroom, 1 bath house at 1448 Balboa Avenue has a 17' wide garage. Code
Sec. 25.70.030 specifies that no.additional bedrooms shall be added to such house un-
less additional parking space is provided behind the front setback. The 17' setback on
this house does not allow tandem parking which conforms to the above code section, and
thus a variance is required to add 3 new bedrooms, 1 bath and family room.
Background
Mr. and Mrs. Flowerday have two children and are expecting a third. They propose to
add a family room at the back of the present house, and then add a second story with
3 bedrooms and l bath over the new family room.
The single story house at 1448 Balboa Avenue was constructed in 1941/42. It has an
attached garage at front approximately 17' behind the property line. The garage is 3'
too narrow to conform to present off-street parking regulations.
Lot area is 7,000 SF; future lot coverage would-be 33%, which is well within the 40%
permitted by code. Front setback, side and rear yards all conform to code. No technical
deficiencies exist with this application except the 3' non -conformity of the present
garage.
There are four conditions required for the approval of a variance. The applicant's
affidavit addresses --the first two of these conditions; their adequacy should be reviewed.
JW
,; Building elevations of the proposed addition show that there will be little visual impact
to properties along Balboa Avenue, as the addition will be at the rear of the present
house and will have similar roof lines and roofing materials. Some.overlooking of
neighbors' backyards may exist.
WMS/J RY/ k
Staff Report
Item No. 7
May 24, 1976
VARIANCE
.:MR. AND MRS. BRIAN JOHNSON, 609 Concord Way
Summary
609 Concord Way is a single story,2 bedroom house with detached single car garage.
The garage location is non -conforming, because the original construction placed it only
34" away from the house. Present code requires a full 48" of separation between struc-
tures on a lot. A variance is requested because the house is to be enlarged with a
second floor: 2 new bedrooms, study and bath. Code Sec. 25.50.080 specifies that addi-
tions can be made to a non -conforming structure only if it is brought into conformance
with the present code. Mr. Johnson believes that moving the existing garage 14" would
constitute hardship.
Background
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have two children, a boy and a girl. Their home has two bedrooms
and one bath. They propose to add a second story with two new bedrooms, a study and a
bath.
The house at 609 Concord Way was constructed in 1936. It has a detached, single car
garage to the rear of the house, but .separated by only 34". This is non -conforming by
14". Additions to non -conforming structures are prohibited by Code Sec. 25.50.080.
The construction plans for the proposed addition have complicated the above situation by
introducing a cantilevered second floor that projects out beyond the present rear wall
towards the garage. Separation between structures was therefore to be diminished from
34" down to only approximately 20". This would be non -conforming by 28", and probably
unacceptable to the Fire Department because of potential fire spread between structures.
;The garage is an accessory building located along the side property line.
At the Commission's meeting May 10, 1976, Mr. Brian Johnson stated that this 20" separa-
tion had been an oversight on the part of his architect, and that the second floor plan
would be amended to preserve not less than 34" between house and garage. These new plans
have since been received, and show that the second floor has been redesigned to permit a
41" average separation.
The obvious question is: Will a 34" ground floor separation and a 41" second floor
separation satisfy the Fire.Department safety concerns? This question is addressed in
the attached memo (see EXHIBIT A).
609 Concord Way is a 50' x 100' lot; present lot coverage is 34%,.which is well within
the 40% permitted by code. Front setback, side and rear yards for the house all conform
to code. However, the garage is non -conforming for two reasons:
1. Itis only 34" from the house (already mentioned).
2. It is built to the side property line, although it should have a 4' sideyard.
As it is not in the rear 30% of the lot. it does not aualifv for a sidevard
exemption under Code Sec. 25.66.060.
The heart of the issue raised by this application can be traced to the improper location
of this non -conforming garage in 1936. If the garage had been located a further 10' to
the rear of the lot, this variance would not be necessary today. There are no technical
deficiencies with the house itself.
There are four conditions required for the approval of a variance. The applicants'
affidavit addresses the first two of these conditions; their adequacy should be reviewed.
WMS/JRY/k
Staff Report
Item No. 8
May 24, 1976
VARIANCE
Deci MR. AND MRS.;LUCETT, 1225 Majilla Avenue
Summary
The present 3 bedroom, 1 bath house at 1225 Majilla Avenue has a 16' wide garage.
Code Sec. 25.70.030 specifies that no additional bedrooms shall be added to such house
unless additional parking space is provided behind the front setback. The 17' setback
on this house does not allow tandem parking which conforms to the above code section,
and thus a variance is required to add 1 new bedroom with bath.
Background
Mr. and Mrs. Lucett have five children,.4 boys and 1 girl. Their personal reasons for
applyiing for a variance are explained in their letter attached to this application.
The single story house at 1225 Majilla Avenue was constructed in 1931. It has an at-
tached garage at front, excavated under the main floor, approximately 17' behind the
property line. The garage is 4' too narrow to conform to present off-street parking
regulations.
Lot area is 6795 SF; future lot coverage would be 38%, which is within the 40% permitted
by code. Front setback, side and rear yards all conform to code. No technical deficien-
cies exist with this application except the 4' non -conformity of the present garage.
There are four conditions required for the approval of a variance. The applicants'
letter addresses the first two of these conditions; their adequacy should be reviewed.
The proposed addition will be 1 bedroom and bath at the first floor level. At its closest
it will be 16'0" from the side property line. No intrusion on the privacy of neighboring
properties will exist, and its style will be architecturally consistent with the present
house.
WMS/JRY/k