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