HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.04.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 27, 1992
e 14 -ON -Z4
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, April. 27, 1992 at 7:30
P.M.
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs,
Kelly, Mink
Absent: None
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Keith Marshall,
Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the April 13, 1992 meeting were
unanimously approved with the following correction: page
2, item 17, address is 1280 Rollins Road.
AGENDA - Item 115, temporary trailer permit, 1.450 Rollins Road -
removed from the agenda. Item 116, tentative parcel
map, 2918 Adeline Drive - removed from the agenda.
Order of the agenda was then approved.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A RECREATION ROOM AT 1524 MEADOW
LANE, ZONED R-1
Requests: include clearer map of layout of lot and adjacent lots; will
there be any water/sewer connections in accessory structure; when was
the accessory structure built; has applicant considered adding a
recreation room attached to the house; describe method used to
determine setbacks; 1978 aerial, if -possible; was the accessory
structure built by the current owner; what recreational activity takes
place in this structure; CBI requires waterproofing membrane under the
slab, if there is none does this mean the structure must be torn down
and rebuilt with membrane; who built the structure; if this replaced an
earlier structure was it identical, what were the similarities. Item
set for public hearing May 11, 1992.
2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A
FOUR STORY, 38 UNIT. RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL,
ZONED R-3
Requests: comments from Engineering on the issue of :intensified use of
exit/entry to E1 Camino Real since Almer access is eliminated; are
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
April 27, 1992
backup aisles O.K., what is located on the roof; there are wall storage
units above the cars in the garage, what are the requirements for
these; how will BFI pick up garbage; is that a dead end corridor
leading to the storage area in the garage to the southeast; will
parking be assigned by unit; there appears to be an error in the
elevation of the top floor which could affect height of the building,
this should be corrected. Item set for public hearing May 11, 1992.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MEDICAL CLINIC AT 345
LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B1
Requests: what is typical length of a conference with a client, will
there be overlap in scheduling or arrival and departure of clients;
describe existing nonconforming parking and parking requirements in
effect now, why is a.three space parking variance required; what are
time restrictions in the public parking lots, particularly
Lorton/Donnelly; comment from applicant on measures to be taken to
address parking impact; further clarification of number of
employees/ clients as shown on the supplement to the application, where
is each group intended to park. Item. set for public hearing May 11,
1992.
4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A LONG TERM
AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 350 BEACH ROAD/301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,
ZONED C-4
Requests: if theater will not be used, why retain the two screens; map
of that area showing other auto storage and airport parking uses;
clarification of why a special permit for 4.6% landscaping within
parking area is being requested; at the entrance, entering and exiting
is on the left side of the driveway, why; more information on the
lighting plan since patrons will walk to the central building, how
bright and how well shielded from adjacent uses and properties; what
landscape materials are proposed for landscaping on the perimeter; how
much demand is there for airport parking within the area, is another
lot needed; if this is approved and the Council later applies a parking
tax will a condition be needed addressing this; consider a condition
that no auto storage for new or rental fleet cars be allowed on the
site, the purpose of these parking lots is for owner operated cars, not
car rental. Item set for public hearing May 11,, 1992.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AUTO BROKERAGE, RETAIL AUTO DETAILING AND A
PARKING VARIANCE AT 1368 ROLLINS ROAD. ZONED M-1
Requests: when did this business move to 1368 Rollins Road; there are
eight employees expected in five years, at least 44/66 trip ends per
month in two/five years, where will they park; a parking layout is
necessary before this proposal can be considered; need a better and
more readable site plan; does this operation have a properly drained
washing area; length of time it takes to detail each car, how long will
the car be on the lot before it is delivered; what does applicant mean
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
April 27, 1992
by auto brokerage, is it auto sales. Item set for public hearing May
11, 1992 if all information has been received; or brought forward to
the meeting of May 26, 1992.
6. SPECIAL PERMITS, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND FENCE EXCEPTION FOR
THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AT 1625 ROLLINS ROAD, Z014ED M-1
Requests: did this proposal need a traffic allocation; discuss required
parking and parking provided, property owner's and applicant's figures
seem to differ; why can't the fence be made to be opaque; elevation of
the fence at the front; why is a storage area needed at the front; what
provisions are there for landscaping; specific list of types of
equipment to be stored in the front area; discuss peak hour traffic for
this operation, cars and trucks; is a retail postal outlet for the
public anticipated at this site now or in the future. Item set for
public hearing May ll, 1992.
7. SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND
NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1468 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, letter in
opposition from a neighbor at 1616 Adeline Drive, study meeting
questions, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP also noted letter in
opposition received after preparation of the staff report from Marite
Grandovskis at 1464 Cabrillo Avenue.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Sandy Belluomini and Dan
Hartman, applicants and property owners, were present. Ms. Belluomini
addressed the required findings for the variances: they wish to retain
the garage at its present size and not extend it 2' in length to meet
code; she presented photographs to show that the garage is adequate for
two standard sized cars and storage of additional. items; with the
existing driveway they have parking available for six cars off the
street; the design of the new addition will preserve the traditional
look of Burlingame homes, garage at the rear will keep the bulk down;
they are trying to retain as much of the original structure as
possible; it would be unnecessary hardship to add onto the garage at a
substantial cost; they are trying to retain open space on the property,
going back even 2' on the garage will remove yard for their children.
The proposal would not be detrimental to property or improvements in
the vicinity, they are attempting to maintain the structure as it is
since they understand people in the city have a problem with large
expansions.
Ms. Belluomini presented photographs of the house at 1616 Adeline and
noted it is not small. Dan Hartman spoke in response to the letter
from their neighbors at 1464 Cabrillo: the side deck area will not be
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
April 27, 1992
lit and the new deck will be less than what is existing, the new deck
is for privacy, plants, flowers, etc., not big enough to sit on; houses
are close together in Burlingame, they are not changing the existing
foundation line, driveway remains unchanged; house is in the same place
except for the 3' x 6' deck, only a 3' extension at the dining room
toward the back of the house. Applicants discussed the proposed
windows, there is an 8' distance between the fence and windows because
of the driveway, they are keeping the existing windows in the living
room; the current deck and large sliding.glass door will be removed;
size and location of new windows will be about the same as existing;
they are within code at 40% lot coverage. Applicant presented
additional photographs of the house on the other side which she said
shows there is adequate space between their homes.
Commission/applicant discussion: plans show the side deck as 4' x 100,
not 3' x 61; applicant said this deck was intended to be decorative,
not functional, they could reduce it but wanted to create an
aesthetically pleasing space outside the dining room; on the other side
of the driveway there is a large rosebush which will block the
neighbor's view of the deck, they have done some additional planting
along that side also. Applicants advised windows on the second floor
are dormers with seating area in front of windows in their children's
rooms, they are the only true windows in these rooms. Staff confirmed
with this proposal the site would have 40% lot coverage including the
garage.
Commission questioned why the fireplace extends an additional 6" into
the side setback. Applicant replied this was an engineering problem,
if it did not do so they would have to move a wall in. Commissioner
comment regarding Sheet 2, demolition page: it appears applicants are
gutting the entire inside of their house. Applicant responded they
could not get the staircase to the second floor without creating the
central hall, they are keeping the floor plan of the existing house
except for changing the hallway. They discussed portions of the
foundation to be retained. The Commissioner noted that basically
applicants are demolishing the house and building a new one. Mr.
Hartman said view of the house from the sidewalk today and after the
proposed project is completed would be about the same.
Further Commissioner comment: applicant has an existing 3' side setback
and wants to extend that another 101, he will then have an even longer
nonconformity; why not take up the foundation and move it over since
the house is being gutted anyway, loss would be 1' on rooms on that
side. Applicants noted about 60% of the hardwood floors will be
retained, they refinished the floors recently and do not want to
replace them.
There were no audience comments in favor. Marite Grandovskis, 1464
Cabrillo Avenue, spoke in opposition: regarding using the driveway as
a buffer area, she thought recreation area for the children and family
should be at the rear, by extending to the rear they will reduce usable
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
April 27, 1992
back yard; placement and size of the new windows will result in
neighbor's loss of privacy, windows upstairs appear to be 5' in length;
the rosebush on the fence is large and beautiful now but in the fall
and winter it will lose leaves and not block view; the proposed deck
and doors onto that deck will take away her privacy.__ There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. C. Graham
stated she could not find exceptional circumstances applicable to this
property to support the variances requested, there is nothing unusual
about this site that makes it different from the rest of the
neighborhood, she could live with the parking variance but not the side
setback variance which would create a very narrow corridor on that side
and take lot coverage up to the 40% maximum; a 3,400 SF house is not a
small house. C. Graham moved to deny the side setback and parking
variances, seconded by C. Jacobs.
Comment on the motion: do not have a real problem with extension of the
side wall but applicant could get parking to code by removing the shed,
will support the motion; cannot find exceptional circumstances, with
this degree of reconstruction applicants could have moved the home
over; have a problem with the 3' side setback and the added intrusion
of 6" with the fireplace, it would be easier to consider area in the
rear for the family if the project had a new side setback of 41,
concern about the windows is a legitimate concern, they might need to
have windows as high as 5' but this could be mitigated in some way such
as recessing them, design itself is very pleasing but am concerned
about the 40% lot coverage, if someone in the future wanted a larger
garage they would be asking to go over 40% lot coverage, parking is a
significant problem in the neighborhood, think it is appropriate to do
it right at this time; side deck is well done,,it is cut in and in the
middle of the lot, not as offensive as it might be, fairly small and an
architectural touch rather than functional. If this plan were to come
to Commission for a new house the Commission wouldn't even consider it
because of the side setback, this proposal is enough of a
reconstruction to be considered a new house, applicants will have to
bring electrical, plumbing, sewers, all services up to code except for
the foundation and that's not logical.
Motion to deny the application was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C.
Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXTEND
THE FIRST FLOOR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE AT 1813
LOYOLA DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, study meeting questions, required findings.
Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
April 27, 1992
i
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Paul Constantino, applicant and
property owner, was present. His comments: they have owned this home
since the early So's and twice have received building permits for
improvements which met code prior to enactment of the hillside area
construction permit ordinance; their proposal will be an attractive
addition which meets code requirements, the house wi-11 remain a one
story structure, it is compatible with the neighborhood; they need the
extra space for their four children. Commission and applicant
discussed lengthening the driveway 21, a beautiful tree which could be
affected, keeping the driveway as far back from the fence line as
possible. Applicant said they will redesign the entire -area putting in
paving block which will be better looking than a concrete pad. There
were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal stated he had no problem with this application, applicant can
park two cars in front of the house now, adding a small parking space
on the side will not be detrimental in this case because of the lot.
Incorporating the material in the staff report, C. Deal moved for
approval of the hillside area construction permit and parking variance
by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was
seconded by C. Mink with the request the applicant make the open
parking space on the side deeper if this can be done without damaging
the tree.
Conditions follow: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 27,
1992 Sheets 1, 2 and 3; (2) that the finish material used on both the
flat and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as
approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the
highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed
17' from the existing grade and that the framing shall be surveyed to
confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer
before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing
material is attached; and (4) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended
by the City of Burlingame.
Comment on the motion: this 3,600 SF house is not small but it is
located on almost an acre, they are only requesting 1.2.2% lot coverage;
it is a pleasure to have a house that is so much smaller than the lot.
Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
Recess 9:02 P.M., reconvene 9:10 P.M.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
April 27, 1992
9. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR
ADDITION AND A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE,
ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe noted
this project was called up for review by a neighbor -at 2705 Summit
Drive. CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, petition in
opposition with 68 signatures, required findings, study meeting
questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Jack Khouri, son of the property
owner, represented the applicant and property owner. He advised the
satellite dish antenna would be removed; they decided to make the
addition because they needed more space, there are five children and
four live at home; they frequently have guests and need a guest room,
also they would like an office for study; for most neighbors trees
obstruct the view, obstruction is minimal for the neighbor across the
street, only one wall of her house faces the site and only an opaque
bathroom window is blocked. Mr. Khouri advised his mother had talked
to the neighbor who objected, it was his mother's impression there was
no objection; they did no serious research about the hillside ordinance
but after talking to the Planning Department they did look into roof
height and placed a frame on the house to show the height of the
proposed addition. They have lived in the house since August, 1991.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition. Dolores Rieman, 2705 Summit Drive: she and her husband
selected the site at 2705 Summit because of the view; her husband, an
architect, designed the house to take advantage of -the views; she was
pleased when the hillside area construction ordinance was enacted;
views belong to the house, loss of views means loss of value. Mrs.
Rieman noted petition in opposition with 68 signatures and presented
another petition in opposition with 10 signatures. She visited many of
her neighbors and the mood was one of anger about the proposal at 2700
Summit. Mrs. Khouri had told her they wanted to add one bedroom over
the garage, now they are asking for something much larger which will
eliminate some of her views and reduce others.
John Moran, 2616 Summit Drive: the ordinance speaks to obstruction of
existing distant views of nearby properties; in the case of a house
with many views from many rooms, one obstruction should be enough to
deny the application; City Council upheld this determination in a
recent application elsewhere. Michele Mahmoudi, :3 Kenmar Way: she
lives behind the Khouri's house and her existing distant view will be
blocked, her dining room, kitchen and patio will be in shadow, sun and
air will be blocked, Mrs. Khouri did not accept her invitation to
observe this; applicant's rear living room rises above her house, a 10'
addition on top of this will put most of her home in shadow; both
families will lose privacy. Mrs. Khouri polled some of the neighbors
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
April 27, 1992
but said they only wanted to add one room, those in opposition are not
asking for anything more but want to keep what they have. There were
no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal stated he had inspected view in the area, the proposed addition
will definitely block views, Commission must look at the bigger picture
and protect views of residents who have been there for many years. C.
Deal moved for denial of the hillside area construction permit for the
reasons stated, seconded by C. Graham.
Comment on the motion: made a site inspection, from Mrs. Rieman's
bedroom the view would be lost, there may be some confusion regarding
the trees because the eucalyptus grove belongs to the people on Canyon,
view from some other rooms in this house are not as noticeably blocked
because of the eucalyptus grove, basically view is blocked from the
bedroom, it is not one of the worst blockages Commission has seen but
it still does block; what is view - view is not just bay, it is trees,
sky or whatever the beholder wants it to be; the view ordinance is very
clear, there may not be a good understanding by the public, Commission
and Council have the discretion to review an entire project and make a
determination whether view obstruction should factor into denying or
permitting a project, in this case there is a view which will be
blocked, most homes in this neighborhood are one level at the street,
most second stories have been built below street level, applicants
could develop the lot by going down; Mrs. Rieman's house was obviously
built to take advantage of every possible view, there is a view from
every room in the home, this is why the city has a 'view ordinance, to
protect views that people already have.
Motion to deny was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
10. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT 1720 SHERMAN AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, history of improvements, applicant's letters
and forms, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings.
A letter in opposition from Chuck and Sandy Chance, 1256 Cabrillo
Avenue was received after preparation of the staff report. Six
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Staff/Commission discussed site plan for the carport in 1972 which
shows 26' on the side, it should be 18.51, and the variance for tandem
parking. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. David Gallegos,
applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: the drawing
in 1972 is one he drew and submitted to the Planning Department, the
26' figure is not in his handwriting; his outline indicates conditions
existing when he purchased the property, most improvements were done
over 20 years ago with the exception of the skylights which he just put
in; when he moved in carport area was where cars were parked, the rear
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
April 27, 1992
section was a workshop; he has a lot of hobbies and several cars; when
he put in the pool he needed more storage space so enlarged the
workshop area to store everything including a small boat and
motorcycle; at that time the building inspectors were there and no one
seemed concerned.
Bill Kannasto, 1245 Cortez Avenue spoke in support; he has lived across
the street since 1960, the size of the garage/workshop area has been
the same since the early 19601s, he used to play in the workshop.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Jacobs commented that she had looked at the site from 1256 Cabrillo,
there are only two ways into the back yard, a door into the garage from
the easement and the front door, there was a lot of storage, the wood
of the wall on the neighbor's side looked new, it is difficult to
believe the city allowed a garage from one end of the lot to the other,
the accessory structure should be put back to some kind of compliance
with code, there is no apron for parking, garage is much too large. C.
Jacobs moved to deny the application, seconded by C. Graham.
Considerable Commission discussion ensued: site inspections; impact on
the neighbors at 1256 Cabrillo; improvements made through the years,
mainly without building permits; when were each of these improvements
made; extremely large size of the garage/workshop area; difficulty in
determining what is new and what is old; special .permit required for an
accessory structure over 500 SF; parking requirements; what size should
be allowed for the garage, should the shop area be allowed in addition;
regarding bathroom in the pool house, a second unit is unlikely; keep
the garage area because it allows applicant to park four cars;
eliminate the shop area, it is the portion of the structure which
impacts the neighbors most since it extends to the side property lines;
in surrounding areas garages are generally close to the street; work
bench shown in the original drawings is not so different, if city
personnel were there in 1972 they must have known work was being done;
after 20 years it is too late to complain about mass and bulk of the
structure, do not want to put the carport back.
Further comment: cannot allow this structure just. because it grew
little by little, year by year, it will be precedent setting; there was
no permit for the bathroom nor were other required permits applied for,
now it is Commission's problem; could the converted garage attached to
the house be called a family room instead of a bedroom, only access is
through the kitchen, then he would only need two parking spaces; it is
not incumbent upon the Commission to show how these additions came
about, that is up to the applicant and has not been done
satisfactorily, therefore would like to retain only the 31' x 21'-2"
garage area; corner lots can be difficult but this is not Commission's
problem, think applicant has heard enough so that a denial without
prejudice would give him the opportunity to return to the city with a
more acceptable proposal; applicant says he has not made all these
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
April 27, 1992
improvements but he has been living there since 1969, with his past
history would like some action taken, not just a denial without
prejudice.
CA suggested a motion to approve with certain limitations. Maker of
the motion to deny and seconder withdrew their motion -and Commission
discussed what limitations to include.
C. Graham moved to deny the special permit to cover- more than 50% of
the rear 30% of the lot, to deny the special permit to allow the
existing shower and toilet installed'in the accessory structure, to
deny the lot coverage variance, and to approve a parking variance for
one space, the special permit for an accessory structure to exceed 500
SF (657 SF proposed) and the special permit for 3 skylights within 10'
of proPerty line with the following conditions: (1) that the structure
to the rear of the partition wall including the bathroom (March 10,
1992 plans, page 6) shall be removed; (2) that the portion of the
structure 31' x 21'-2" clear inside dimensions shall be retained to be
used for parking cars and the special permit for three skylights within
10' of property line in this area shall be approved; (3) that the
project shall meet the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's
and Fire Marshal's memos dated March 12, 1992; (4) that plans shall be
resubmitted to the Building Department and penalty fees paid within 90
calendar days of the effective date of action on this application; (5)
that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes
as amended by the City of Burlingame; (6) that the.garage or any part
of the accessory structure shall never be used for living or
residential purposes and should it be so used this permit shall become
null and void and the structure must be demolished or remodeled to
conform to the codes for on-site parking at that gime; and (7) that
this approval shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in
one year (April, 1993) and every three years thereafter or upon
complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 5-2 roll call vote,
Cers Ellis and Galligan voting no. Appeal procedures were advised.
11. SIGN EXCEPTION AND MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM AT 1017, 1019 AND 1025
ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, comments on theapplication form,
study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Michael R. Harvey, Burlingame
Automotive Management, applicant, was present. He questioned the 7th
condition suggested by staff regarding receiving a permit from CalTrans
for installation of'all signage on the sites, he believed the CalTrans
requirement for off -premise signs was only for the operation, not the
installation of signs, from a safety standpoint a :sign cannot change
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
April 27, 1992
more frequently than every four seconds. He advised they will not use
any signs to advertise off -premise products or services. Ken Allen,
Arrow Sign Company explained the glowcube to be used for the
readerboard; the cube is pigmented, not painted; the sign is not
illuminated from within; the glowcube display wili_ be indirectly
illuminated by lamps focused back on the sign face for night time
visibility, no illumination is required during daylight hours.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Graham stated she had no problems with this application, it will not
be a grant of special privilege for this property, it is a standard
sign application similar to those approved for other automobile
dealers. C. Graham moved for approval of the sign exception and master
signage program by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped March 11, 1992 Section, Elevation
and Plot Plan; (2) that the double faced readerboard sign shall have a
maximum height of 26'-0" and neither face shall be larger than 164 SF
and the Jeep -Eagle double faced sign shall be 150 SF per face with a
maximum height of 35'-011; (3) that the conditions of the City
Engineer's March 16, 1992 memo (all signs and parts of signs are to be
placed within the property lines and not in the public right-of-way
which is 10' from the face of the curb on Rollins Road to the property
line) shall be met; (4) that the message on the readerboard sign shall
change copy at a maximum frequency of every five minutes; (5) that no
off -premise products or services shall be advertised by any signs on
this property; (6) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (7) that
prior to receiving a building permit from the City of Burlingame the
applicant shall apply for and receive a permit from CalTrans Outdoor
Advertising Branch in Sacramento approving installation of all signage
on the sites requiring CalTrans review.
Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
12. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR CHANGE OF COPY ON AN EXISTING POLE SIGN AT 1010
CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, comments on theapplication form,
required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Vern Erickson, Economy Signs,
Inc., representing the property owner, James Hannay, was present.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Mink moved for approval of this sign exception by resolution with
the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
April 27, 1992
on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
April 3, 1992 Elevation, Section and Plot Plan and the maximum size of
the 'Oldsmobile' portion of the pole sign shall be 100 SF; (2) that the
applicant shall apply for a sign exception for any additional signs to
be put on this site or any changes in copy on these signs prior to
installation of the sign or change in copy; and (3) that the project
shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the
City of Burlingame.
Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TAKE-OUT RESTAURANT AND SERVICE AT 1302
BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, history of uses at this location, staff review,
applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Ch m. Kelly opened the public hearing. Ronald Karp, applicant, was
present. He questioned the need for a special permit for take-out
service, this use will be a continuance of a nonconforming use, this
location did serve food previously and could be defined as an eating
establishment, 20% of his business will be take-out, he wants to
compete fairly with other restaurants in the area. Mr. Karp objected
to the suggested condition concerning provision of •trash receptacles,
he indicated he would not have a litter problem because he only sells
whole pizzas. He saw no reason for the suggested nine month review for
compliance but had no problem with review upon complaint. Staff
advised review is a normal procedure with. this type of application;
litter is a concern when there is take-out service.
During discussion it was determined there are trash dumpsters at the
rear of the property, applicant intends to have a delivery service with
one or two vehicles, at certain times of the day only the manager will
be in the restaurant, this is not a large operation nor will there be
a lot of deliveries; he will only sell whole pizzas,, will not sell by
the slice, therefore applicant did not think there would be a litter
problem. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Galligan had no problem with the application, he found it is a
fairly simple, quality operation, this company already does business in
town with take-out service and delivery, the proposal appears to be an
extension of that; it will be a compatible use :in toe area. C.
Galligan moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with
the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date.stamped
March 12, 1992 Sheet Al Elevation and Site Plan, A2 First Floor Plan,
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13
April 27, 1992
A2 Front First Floor Plan, A3 Second Floor Plan, and Suite Location
Plan, and April 16, 1992 Site Plan and Fire Lane Location Plan; (2)
that as built and operated the project shall meet Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (3) that
the site shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in nine
months (January, 1993) and upon complaint thereafter.
Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMBALMING AND REFRIGERATION HOLDING
FACILITY AT 1280 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 4/27/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, comments
on the application form, required findings, study meeting questions.
Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Mike Coffey, representing the
Dore Trust, property owner and Byrgan, Inc., applicant was present.
His comments: the process of embalming uses no hazardous waste
materials as defined under state or federal laws; there is no bulk
storage of materials, storage is in pint bottles, 24 pints per case;
access to this site off Nerli Lane has been a question, Nerli Lane has
always been a fire lane, the easement connection to Nerli Lane has
never been used as an easement and therefore adjacent businesses have
parked on it, for 17 years Bay City Scales,•the previous tenant, used
Rollins Road; Mr. Coffey had spoken to owners of the body shops which
have rear access to the easement and both agreed this company could use
the easement, there is a 33' wide space of which 201 is easement, room
to park a car and still have access; the business will have four
employees, none are full time, there will not be a lot of activity up
and down the easement; a city sewer permit is required, no human/animal
body parts will be discharged into the sewer system; while the use
meets Webster's definition of mortuary, no meetings or services will be
held at this location.
Commission asked about the legal action against this company in San
Mateo. Mr. Coffey said they were in business there 10 years with no
complaints, a neighbor did complain in 1991, Byrgan, Inc. had no
knowledge they were operating outside the laws of the city. William
Scott, president of this company, was present. He advised his office
is in his home at 2020 Easton Drive, Burlingame; he has friends in the
funeral industry and is using their facilities at the present time; his
drivers use company vehicles and take them home at night; there is only
one vehicle parked at his home on Easton at night, his own business
car; drivers sometimes stop by his home, extra vehicles will be kept at
the site. Commission attempted to determine number of cases processed
per month and number of -trip ends to the site. Trip ends appeared to
be less than 70 per month, average number of bodies per month would be
15 to 18. Fire Marshal determined the type of fluid used is 20% by
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14
April 27, 1992
volume solution of formaldehyde; Mr. Scott noted no more than 10 cases
of 24 pint bottles each of formaldehyde will be on the site at one
time.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C.
Ellis advised he would abstain from discussion and voting.
C. Deal found this use would not be detrimental to the area, there are
enough safeguards, the business will not generate a lot of traffic. C.
Deal moved for approval of the application by resolution with the
conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan.
Several other conditions were suggested during discussion on the
motion, accepted by the maker of the motion and the seconder.
Conditions follow: (1) that the applicant shall use and make
improvements to the building as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department and date stamped March 12, 1992; (2) that the
applicant shall prepare and submit to the city for approval a plan for
the storage and use of all toxic materials to be used on the site and
for disposal of all embalming and human wastes and that the use of this
site shall not commence until this plan has been found to be complete
and can be approved by the appropriate city staff' and the required
improvements and procedures fully implemented, certified and executed;
(3) that the only access for this use to this site shall be via Nerli
Lane and the access easement unless proper curb cuts are installed,
paved driveway provided and parking to code dimensions is relocated and
approved by the Planning Department or, if a variance is required, by
the Planning Commission; (4) that all the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and Uniform Fire Code shall be met, inspected and
approved for all improvements and installations on the site before the
site shall be occupied by this use; (5) that this use permit shall be
reviewed for compliance with the conditions in six months (October,
1992) and each year thereafter, upon complaint or upon any violation of
any waste disposal or sewer discharge requirements; (6) that all
existing signs from other businesses on this site shall be removed
within 30 days; (7) that none of the vehicles associated with this
business except that used by the president of the company shall be
parked overnight at 2020 Easton Drive; and (8) that no memorial
services shall be held at this site.
Motion was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis abstaining. Appeal
procedures were advised.
15. TEMPORARY TRAILER PERMIT. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1
This item was dropped from the agenda.
16. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, 2918 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONEI) R-1
Item dropped from the agenda.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15
April 27, 1992
. *No • ;
There were.no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 20, 1992 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry L. Deal
Secretary