Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.02.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, February 23, 1987 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the February 9, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: item 2, page 2, second paragraph, line 9, delete "deck and". AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION, PORTION OF BLOCK 21, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2, 2840 CANYON ROAD Reference staff report, 2/23/87, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this request. Applicant has complied with the condition to close the driveway at the corner and now has the required 24' backup from the garage to the rear. Staff recommended approval of tentative map extension to June 7, 1987 which is State Map Act maximum limit. Vladimir Sommer, applicant, stated he had tried to comply with all conditions, family illness had caused the delay in requesting this extension. C. Jacobs moved to approve tentative map extension to June 7, 1987 with all previous conditions. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 2. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR TWO SIGNS AT PENINSULA HOSPITAL, 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED Reference staff report, 2/23/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this application to replace the face of the existing 87.5 SF double faced 20' tall pole sign and to add a 33 SF double faced monument sign on the E1 Camino Real frontage. She discussed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter and justification for the request. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined no changes have been proposed as yet for any other signs on site. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1987 Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant, James DuCharme, was present. Commission/applicant discussion: application has indicated a plan for consolidation of signs, concern that the emergency entrance sign on site might be removed; applicant stated this sign would not be eliminated with the present proposal; possibility of eliminating the pole sign and adding a more elaborate monument sign; applicant stated hospital had not considered this, the pole sign was existing and in good condition. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham found there were special circumstances applicable to this property in that the new signage is necessary with the merger of the two hospitals, there is a need to show the new logo; a monument sign would be better than the existing multiple signs it will replace. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the placement of the signs as installed shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 9, 1987 and to the description in the sign permit application date stamped January 9, 1987; and (2) that any additional signage on this site would require an amendment to this sign permit. Second C. Schwalm. Additional findings: the fact that it is a hospital and has a special community need; topography of the site with hospital on the hill as well as the type of services offered lends itself to retaining the pole sign in addition to the monument sign. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR NON -AUTO RELATED USE AND CLASSROOM USE AT 211 WEST LANE, ZONED C-2, SUB -AREA D Reference staff report, 2/23/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow self defense classes. She discussed details of the proposal, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Frank Bianchi, applicant, and Richard Schiller, guarantor of the lease on this property, were present. They advised their parking survey had indicated the parking area was 3/4 full in the afternoon, in the evening when most of their parking need is generated the area is empty, there is designated parking in front of their door; when they moved from California Drive to this location they were unaware of the zoning on the property and the need for a special permit. Responding to Commission questions, applicants had concern about suggested condition #1 which limits the daytime adult classes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday to five people, they did not want to limit number of students to number of designated parking spaces (five), they would be willing to ensure no more than five spaces were used, it would be possible to have 15 students in a class but use only five parking Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1987 stalls; children come to class at designated times, adults come when they can, children are dropped off and picked up; there is one instructor on site for each class, classes vary in size; adult classes have 5-10 people in the afternoon; it would be difficult for the business to stay in operation with only 2-3 students in the morning, they would like to have 7-9 adult students in the morning and afternoon classes. Applicants felt enforcement of parking by the instructor could be handled without restricting the size of daytime classes, they could encourage evening attendance, many students could ride bikes, take buses or walk if they were working in the area. This business left its previous site to find a location with more space, it had been there for 10-12 years but the estate of the property owner imposed rental rates they could not afford, they then found the proposed site which was affordable and a few square feet larger. Commission expressed concern about the number of students in the Monday, Wednesday and Friday daytime adult classes, this could vary from three to eight or 10 people; applicant's five year projection was noted which indicated evening classes were expected to more than double. Applicant stated most people who train also work and long term students train in the evening; they hoped to increase the evening classes, particularly since that appears more compatible with available parking in the area; they were aware of the suggested condition concerning use of the parking area and special permit expiration should lease of the parking spaces be terminated; their lease is for two years with a two year option and they expect during this period to consider the present situation and possibly look for alternative space. A Commissioner asked if it would help to change the student age from less than 16 to less than 18; applicant explained student classes are for 12 and under, they believe it is unsafe for 12 year olds to train with 16 year olds. Applicants would be satisfied with a limit of 10 students for the 10:30 A.M. and 3:30 P.M. classes and respond to any problems at the time of the six month review; regarding Saturday classes, they had found it was necessary to separate adults and children, there is a Saturday class restricted to children and an advanced adult class averaging two or three people Saturday afternoon; one instructor does work a 15 hour day but it is not continuous as there are open time slots throughout the day. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of the application: Mary Ann Barrett, 1206 Lincoln Avenue; a Burlingame High School student; Joshua Schiller, 1635 Hunt Drive; Betsy Schiller, 1635 Hunt Drive; Nancy McKay, Hillsborough; Dave Loutzenheiser, 63 Loma Vista Drive. Their comments: have been working out at this studio for eight years and have great respect for the school's philosophy, if it would help would park two blocks away, there are usually advanced students present who can help the one instructor; support the proposal and applicant's request for classes larger than five people, parking is not a major problem as students can carpool, take the bus or walk; have been training for 4-1/2 years and would like to continue, this training teaches more than self defense, it teaches a respect for Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1987 one's self and for others; have experienced no deficiencies in parking at the new location even with an inconsistent schedule, at 5:30 P.M. the parking lot is empty; drive to class and carpool, sometimes with two or three students; carpool for my children and other children and generally do not stay downtown, this location is much easier for drop-off than the previous one; this school presents a positive environment and creates athletic and mental discipline. A letter in support was read from Pam Rosenblum,,2958 Arguello Drive who felt the school is a real opportunity for students of all ages, it teaches self- confidence and self-esteem. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: am aware of the benefits of this type of class but concerned about classroom use in the area because of parking, if applicants can live with five person adult classes during the daytime would vote to approve; believe this is the only karate school in the city, perhaps applicant could increase number of classes to compensate for the smaller class size; Commission confirmed with applicant the student population is such that in order to break even they need to have as many as 10 students in the morning and afternoon classes, with more classes each would probably have only two students and would not be economically feasible; instituting another class when one class reached five students was not feasible because applicants had found they need to be flexible in order to retain students. Applicant added this is the only martial arts school in the city and has been for the past 10 years, it is a value, to the community. Additional Commission comment: support the classes, there is a need, but have a problem with the location; applicant has said he cannot survive if approved with the four suggested conditions; concern that supervision of parking by the applicant is not feasible. Responding to a question, applicants advised they could live with these conditions if they must. The Chair noted Commission consensus seems to be this use would be good for the community but there is a concern about parking in the area; with review in six months time the city has control. C. H.Graham moved to grant these special permits with the conditions listed in the staff report; second C. Leahy. C. Jacobs moved to amend the motion with a change in condition #1 to increase maximum class size to eight. Second C. Schwalm; motion for amendment was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and S.Graham dissenting. The amended motion with adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits passed on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and S.Graham dissenting, with the following conditions: (1) that a 1,600 SF area at 211 West Lane shall be used for self defense classes Monday, Wednesday and Friday for adults from 10:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. where the maximum class size shall not exceed eight and Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 6:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. where the maximum class size shall not exceed 15 persons over 18; (2) that classes on Tuesday and Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1987 Thursday afternoons from 3:30 P.M. to 5:45 P.M. shall be for children only (less than 16 years of age) and shall be limited to a maximum of 15 students, Tuesday and Thursday evening classes from 8:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. and Saturday classes from 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. shall be limited to a maximum of 15 students of all ages; (3) that five spaces of the 20 spaces leased by the property on the adjacent S.P. right- of-way shall be designated and signed for the exclusive use of this business; and (4) that these use permits shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in six months time (August, 1987) and every two years thereafter, and that this use permit shall expire if the lease to the 20 parking spaces on the S.P. right-of-way is ever terminated. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no audience comments. C. Schwalm was excused at 8:50 P.M. STUDY ITEMS 4. SPECIAL PERMIT - TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICE - 725 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Requests: what type of curb markings are in front of this site; is there parking behind on San Mateo Avenue; is there an entrance at the rear; check parking at end of the building, is it on another property; clarify exiting at the rear. Item set for public hearing March 9, 1987. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - AUTO DETAILING - 1405 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE Requests: how will they handle washing of cars; on-site parking available for this use; volume of business, number of cars per day; use of area designated 'additional storage'. Item set for public hearing March 9, 1987. PLANNER REPORTS - Special Permit review - 1450 Howard Avenue Chm. Giomi reviewed Council actions at its February 17, 1987 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy, Secretary