Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.02.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Cistulli (excused) Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the January 23, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. Chm. Graham welcomed Ruth Jacobs (in the audience), newly appointed Commissioner who will be taking her seat on the Commission in April; and noted C. Cistulli's absence was because February 14 is his 47th wedding anniversary. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BEDROOM ADDITION TO THE HOME AT 223 VICTORIA ROAD, BY CAROL AND NOEL PHILLIPS CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 180 SF bedroom addition. Reference staff report dated 2/3/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/16/84; staff review: City Engineer (1/23/84), Fire Marshal (1/23/84); January 10, 1984 letter from the applicant; "no objection" notes from Max Kroll, 225 Victoria Road and Charles Rudd, 221 Victoria Road; aerial photograph; February 8, 1984 letter from the applicant; and plans date stamped January 16, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, Planning staff comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Carol Phillips, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion/determinations: applicant advised her husband works out of an office in San Francisco but spends many evenings on paperwork at home and the extra room would be a great convenience, he does not operate his business out of his home; at present the garage is being used for storage of their household goods following their move from a much larger home; applicants have friends in the construction business who will help build the addition; front setback is 15', most houses on the block are the same distance from the street; applicant does not intend to change the front of the house in any manner. C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house on the lot, that it was built within existing codes at the time of construction, to require expansion of the existing garage, removing part of the kitchen, to meet the Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1984 code requirement of two covered off-street parking spaces would be an undue hardship; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner; that it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners; that the zoning would remain R-1 and would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Giomi moved for approval of this variance with the following condition: (1) that the addition be built according to the plans submitted and date stamped January 16, 1984. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES ON AN R-1 LOT AT 17 CHANNING ROAD, BY DONA L. TRIPLETT CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow additions to a nonconforming garage and a nonconforming house. Reference staff report dated 2/3/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/12/84; staff review: City Engineer (1/23/84) and Fire Marshal (2/1/74); January 12 and January 23, 1984 letters from the applicant; August 29, 1983 and January 27, 1984 letters from Barbara and Jerry Carmine, 9 Channing Road with attached boundary survey date stamped January 31, 1984; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped January 18, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters and justification for variance, letters from the next door neighbors, Planning staff comments. February 10, 1984 letter from the applicants, distributed this evening, was also referenced. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Dona L. Triplett, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments in favor. In opposition: Jerry Carmine, 9 Channing Road,expressed concern about preserving the hedge which is on his property and new construction will require removal of the fence which is also on his property, therefore objects to this construction so close to the property line; when purchased the property, the fence and hedge were where they are now; because their dog tends to chew it is logical to put the fence in front of the hedge so that the dog will not harm the hedge. There were no further comments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Dona Triplett, applicant, presented photographs of the site and a petition in support signed by 20 neighbors on the block. She advised they provide maintenance of the hedge on their side and had told Mr. and Mrs. Carmine they wished to preserve the hedge and would give them total access to it by moving the fence. Commission pointed out this had been stated in the applicant's letter of February 10, 1984 as well as that the fence blocking the neighbors' access to the hedge would be moved to the other side. Barbara Carmine, 9 Channing Road, stated their desire to bring the hedge back to its previous height and provide privacy for both property owners; the Carmines did not want to spend money to move the fence in addition to the boundary survey costs they had already incurred. Commission discussion: previous application for addition of a breakfast nook on this property dealt with height and rear yard setback of the main structure, side yard setback of the garage was not considered at that time; if the proposed carport were moved away from the property line to meet code 4', access to the existing garage would be eliminated; applicants' second vehicle would be parked in the new carport; applicants have told the Carmines removal of the existing fence would be at their (the applicants') expense; very little of the hedge is visible now, carport would not change the visibility of the hedge. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1984 C. Giomi found there were exceptional circumstances in the original placement of the existing garage and the lack of an alternative to expand the garage; that the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owners; that it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners in view of the applicants' February 10, 1984 letter which indicates they would, at the request of their neighbors, move the fence at their expense; and that it would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, the property will remain R-1. C. Giomi moved to approve the variance for the carport with the following conditions: (1) that the new walls within 3' of property line be built as one hour walls; (2) that should any damage occur to the hedge on the adjoining property at 9 Channing Road as a result of the carport construction the applicant would replace the damaged portions of the hedge at his expense; (3) that the applicants would move the fence at their expense, if requested by the neighbors at 9 Channing Road, this to be accomplished by the time the new carport is completed; and (4) that the future construction would conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 18, 1984. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. For the variance to add 80 SF to the main structure C. Taylor found the letters from the applicants (January 12, January 23 and February 10, 1984) form a basis for making a finding that there are exceptional circumstances and to deny the application would result in undue property loss; that lot coverage is only 20%, 40% maximum allowed; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owners; that it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; that it is consistent with the objectives of the general plan and zoning plan of the city to encourage development of single family residences. C. Taylor moved to grant the variance for living room expansion of this nonconforming house with the following conditions: (1) that the new walls within 3' of property line be built as one hour walls; (2) that should any damage occur to the hedge on the adjoining property at 9 Channing Road as a result of the construction the applicant would replace the damaged portions of the hedge at his expense; and (3) that the future construction would conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 18, 1984. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AFTERSCHOOL DAYCARE PROGRAM AT MC KINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 701 PALOMA AVENUE, BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate an afterschool childcare program in a vacant classroom at McKinley School. Reference staff report dated 2/6/84; study meeting minutes, January 23, 1984; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/7/83; memo and drawing from the applicant describing the operation (received December 7, 1983); "no comments/requirements" memos from the City Engineer (1/9/84) and Fire Marshal (1/9/84); Burlingame School District letter, January 9, 1984; February 6, 1984 letter from the principal of McKinley School; aerial photograph; February 6, 1984 letter from Liz Weiss (applicant) with attached school room plans for McKinley School. CP discussed details of the program, staff review, applicant's description of the operation, School District support of the request, study meeting questions, code requirements for non-public school use on a public school site. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined adjacent property owners had been duly noticed of this hearing and the principal of McKinley School had said the parent group was very supportive of the program. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Liz Weiss, applicant, stated a poll Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 14, 1984 of parents using the program at this time showed only one who parked on Fairfield Road to pick up children, all others parked on the Paloma Avenue side; no more than seven children are picked up within a one-half hour block of time. She presented letters in support from the following parents: Kathleen S. England; Harvey J. and Dona L. Triplett, 17 Channing Road. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern that the outside playground might be seen as off-limits to others after the public school children are released because of the presence of this program; applicant advised neighborhood children could use the playground at the same time but are not allowed in the Y classroom or to join in the supervised Y games. C. Giomi commented that no concerns about traffic had been received from the neighbors since this program began in October. She then moved for approval of the special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the daycare program shall operate in one classroom at McKinley School and serve a maximum of 35 children grades K-6 from 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with an employee ratio of 1:11.6 children; (2) that children shall be brought to the site by a Y van three times a day and picked up by 6:00 P.M.; (3) that any changes to these conditions of operation shall require an amendment to this use permit; and (4) that this use permit shall be reviewed in June, 1985. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AFTERSCHOOL DAYCARE PROGRAM AT FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 2385 TROUSDALE DRIVE, BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA CP Monroe reviewed this request for operation of an afterschool childcare program in a vacant classroom at Franklin School. Reference staff report dated 2/6/84; January 23, 1984 study meeting minutes; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/7/83; memo and drawing describing the operation received from the applicant December 7, 1983; Burlingame School District letter, January 9, 1984; staff review: Fire Marshal (1/9/84) and City Engineer (1/9/84); aerial photograph; February 6, 1984 letter from Liz Weiss, applicant, with attached school room plans for Franklin School; letters in support from Jane Stahl, 1461 E1 Camino, Apt. 3 and Susan Perrett, 3008 Alcazar Drive; letter in support from the principal of Franklin School (received after preparation of staff report). CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's description of the operation, School District support, study meeting questions, code requirements for non-public school use of a public school site. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Liz Weiss, applicant, reported that their van used to transport children had been vandalized twice and was no longer parked at the school after 6:00 P.M. She also noted that the car at McKinley would be relocated or she would get a parking permit. She read letter in support from Mr. and Mrs. Joel S. Hagedorn, 1337 Drake Avenue. Responding to Commission questions, Ms. Weiss discussed the 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. program schedule for gradesK-6 and physical arrangements within the classroom. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern about impact on parking and impact the Y's use of school facilities might have on use by public school children and the neighborhood; students in the program are not solely from Burlingame public schools; find there is minimal traffic impact; elementary schools no longer offer afterschool recreational programs, this use fills that need with a supervised and organized program. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1984 C. Giomi moved to grant this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the daycare program shall operate in one classroom at Franklin School and serve a maximum of 35 children grades K-6 from 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with an employee ratio of 1:11.6 children; (2) that children shall be brought to the site by a Y van three times a day and picked up by 6:00 P.M.; (3) that any changes to these conditions of operation shall require an amendment to this use permit; and (4) that this use permit shall be reviewed in June, 1985. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW SIGNS TO REMAIN AT 1222 BROADWAY, CAN'T WAIT PHOTO CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow existing signage which exceeds the limits of the Sign Code. Reference staff report dated 2/2/84; January 23, 1984 study meeting minutes; Sign Permit application filed 12/28/83; Sign Exception application filed 12/23/84; note from applicant received December 28, 1983; photographs with notations giving dimensions of the signs received December 28, 1983; "no requirements/comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (1/3/84), City Engineer (1/3/84) and Chief Building Inspector (12/30/83); and aerial photograph. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's justification for retaining the signage, code requirements, study meeting question, Planning staff comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Stephen Wesley, applicant, advised the distance from the front edge of the marque sign to the curb was 59 inches, that Signs E, F and G have been removed from the site and from his application; Can't Wait Photo opened in February, 1983 and has changed hands since then, he is the new manager; would like to retain Sign A over the door which was placed over an existing sign for which no permit had been taken out; will be happy to pay any fees and/or penalties for what was overlooked in the past; this sign would provide identity and visibility on Broadway, it is clean, clear and not garish; this business has fewer signs than other businesses on Broadway; request consistent sign policy and maintenance requirements on Broadway. He presented photographs showing Can't Wait Photo signage in relation to that of other stores on Broadway and advised the struts which support his major sign are necessary for earthquake safety. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant advised the language on the signs which have been removed from the application does appear in Sign A; feel the struts look unprofessional, would like an alternative which would enhance the sign; difficult to find special circumstances with this site, Broadway is a busy street but it is a slow street, signage can be easily seen by passing cars; this sign is mounted at approximately 18' and is much large than code allows, an example of what the city was trying to mitigate when the Sign Code was adopted in 1977; the struts were added to the sign when the Can't Wait Photo sign was installed; can understand the applicant's reason for going ahead and using the existing sign structure but think it would be better visually for the street if it were cut down in size, suggest applicant be given a chance to explore bringing the sign into closer conformance with code. C. Taylor moved that this sign exception application be denied. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SIGN EXCEPTION TO RELOCATE A SIGN AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FOR HERTZ RENT -A -CAR CP Monroe reviewed this request to relocate an existing pole sign on the Hyatt Hotel site. Reference staff report dated 2/7/84; Sign Permit application filed 12/19/83; Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1984 Sign Exception application filed 12/19/83; sign drawing (9/2/81); site drawings received January 10, 1984; letter from Hyatt Burlingame indicating approval of this request; "no comments/requirements" memos from City Engineer (1/3/84), Fire Marshal (1/3/84) and Chief Building Inspector (.12/30/83); January 10, 1984 letter from Nancy Vujko, Permit Service Company (applicant's representative); photograph of existing pole sign; January 23, 1984 study meeting minutes; Towber memo to Monroe (February 2, 1984) responding to study meeting requests regarding use permits and total signage on the site; aerial photograph. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's justification for the new location, study meeting questions, Planning staff comments, code requirements. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicant was present. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: total signage on the Hyatt site is excessive; when the proposed new hotel on this site is approved staff will request an application be made for a new signage program for the entire site; this proposal is to move the existing Hertz pole sign from the south side of the driveway to the north side.of the driveway closer to the place where cars are rented; dimensions of the sign are the same. C. Schwalm found there were special circumstances in the need for identification; that this is merely a relocation of an existing sign, not adding any signage; that Hertz has been in business on this site for a long time and needs this relocation for the benefit of the business and the public. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this sign exception. Second C. Giomi. Comment on the motion: existing sign is visible from the highway now, sign itself will not be long at its new location if the proposed new hotel is approved, not in favor of relocating it. Following roll call,motion approved on a 4-2 vote, Cers Garcia and Taylor dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHARTER BUS SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 980 DAVID ROAD, BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a charter bus service in the M-1 District. Reference staff report dated 2/3/84; January 23, 1984 study meeting minutes; photographs of the site taken 1/30/84 (P.M.); Towber memo to Monroe (1/31/84) regarding driveway access to 980 David Road; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/21/83; applicant's project description and detail of on-site parking received 12/21/83; staff review: City Engineer (1/3/84), Fire Marshal (1/3/84) and Chief Building Inspector (.12/30/83); Existing Site Conditions, 1530 Rollins Road, received 12/21/83; aerial photograph of the site; and letter in opposition from Robert F. Edwards, Jr., 1565 Adrian Road (February 7, 1984). CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's description of his proposed use, study meeting request regarding access to the building, on-site parking and parking requirement. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Rudi Muggli, applicant, commented on the use of David Road and Robert F. Edwards' concerns (letter 2/7/84); there is traffic problem with trucks parked for long periods of time; the applicant's buses do not use David Road but enter from Rollins Road; the 24 foot vans used by this company can easily get around the building; have had no problem with parking since December when business located here and no problem with other tenants; the deli is busy at lunch time but there has always been adequate parking. Those speaking in favor: Douglas Woodworth, property owner - this use has been in agreement with the site and no complaints have Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 14, 1984 been received from other tenants; the parking plan as submitted showed 24 spaces, actually there are 27 which can be used. A representative of Winston Management Company who manage this building - there has always been plenty of parking on the site, with the addition of this company there still is no problem, there are 27 spaces available. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: available on-site parking; the three spaces shown in the public utility easement cannot be counted; spaces for the deli have been designated, spaces for Winston Management are designated but not lined; the potential for problems when the adjacent vacant parcel is developed; property owner advised there is no difficulty in going around the building at the present time and that would not change with a building on the vacant parcel; paving the rest of the site could increase available parking, property owner and building management felt that it was not necessary at the present time since there has been an excess of parking; concern about this business which is a change of use away from M-1 and which would generate more traffic than M-1 calls for; this is not good planning, Commission direction the last few months has been to redevelop the M-1 area into a higher and better use (office); a detailed traffic analysis of the M-1 district would be helpful, find it difficult to deny this application until presented with facts to support a finding there is a traffic problem in the area; it appears three or four more spaces could be generated on-site; applicant advised he has a two year lease. C. Taylor moved that this special permit be denied. Second C. Giomi; following roll call, vote was 3-3, Cers Garcia, Leahy and Schwalm dissenting, C. Cistulli absent. Application was denied. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE Reference CE's agenda memo (February 7, 1984) and attached map. CE recommended this final map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Giomi moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this final condominium map. Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent. 9. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1457 BELLEVUE AVENUE Reference CE's agenda memo (February 7, 1984) with attached map. CE discussed front setback discrepancy with original approvals discovered after construction had begun and staff's determination that construction should continue. CE recommended this map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Giomi moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this final condominium map. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 10. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS, 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (CIF OFFICE BUILDING) Reference CE's agenda memo (February 7, 1984) with enclosed map. CE recommended this map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Garcia moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative and final parcel map. Second C. Giomi; all aye voice vote. Recess 10:02 P.M.; reconvene 10:07 P.M. Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1984 ITEMS FOR STUDY 11. VARIANCE - 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE - BY DOMINION-STOPPA FOR SARTI & SARTI, INC. Requests: garage depth of structures on adjacent sites, any reports of flooding in the past two or three years; sketch illustrating the variance request. Item set for hearing February 27, 1984. 12. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1109 BURLINGAME AVENUE - FAMOUS AMOS COOKIES Is this an awning or a canopy? Set for hearing February 27, 1984. 13. PARKING VARIANCE - 1199 BROADWAY - BY GARBIS BEZDJIAN Requests: regarding use of the easement and required encroachment permit, would like criteria and policy of the city regarding encroachment permits; clarify proposed uses of the structure; map indicating available public parking giving time limits and estimated number of spaces; designated area for trash receptacle, covered/uncovered; possible pedestrian hazard on sidewalk with difference in grade, Sheet A2; regarding CE's condition #4, why not require transformer underground; are two small lighting fixtures in the back adequate; is drainage to the street. Item set for hearing February 27, 1984. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 6, 1984 regular meeting and February 8, 1984 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary