Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.01.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, January 12, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the January 12, 2015 meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum Present 7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. November 24, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the November 24, 2014 minutes with the following amendment: > Agenda Item 8d (1547 Vancouver Avenue); note that Commissioner Yie was recused for non-statutory reasons. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 - b. December 8, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve minutes of December 8, 2014 as submitted. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Kay Meskin, Graffeo Leathers: Concerned that a number of businesses are only open certain days, others seem to be closed most of the time, and still others appear closed even if open. This is not good for the rest of the businesses in the area. Permits for new businesses should be for uses that include offices and showroom type businesses that will contribute to the area. Many of the businesses do not bring people to the area. 6. STUDY ITEMS None. Page 1 City of Burlingame January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a. 1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner DeMartini noted that he would recuse himself from voting on the Consent Calendar item (1209 Mills Avenue) as he has a financial interest in a property within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 6 - Recused: DeMartini 1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. Proposal to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Section 25.30 C-1 District Regulations, to remove restrictions on food establishments and health services above the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. (1121 noticed and newspaper notice - The Examiner 1/9/15 and e-newsletter notification) Contact: Catherine Barber Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: > Why is there the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses on the second floor? (Meeker - Uncertain why the requirement was imposed.) > Why is there currently a restriction upon the number of food establishments allowed in the Broadway Commercial District? (Meeker - the restriction was put in place as a means of ensuring that those uses did not take over the retail presence in the District.) > How are fast food restaurants and outdoor dining treated? (Meeker - fast food type restaurants are covered in one of the categories of food establishments defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Outdoor seating within the public right-of-way is allowed through approval of an encroachment permit granted by the Public Works Department.) > Did the survey regarding the Broadway Commercial District that preceded the October, 2014 community meeting lead to the suggestion to eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for health services? (Meeker - the request to lift this restriction arose from the small group discussions held during the event.) > Noted that during the discussions regarding the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the issue of second floor uses was addressed; there was a desire to allow uses that add to the vitality of the district.) > Is skeptical that lifting the food establishment restriction will alleviate the concern regarding vitality of the district, but is not opposed to the change. > Noted that second floor health service uses may bring more people into the district. > Noted that the City does not have the ability to impose operating hours upon uses that are permitted by right. Only uses with Conditional Use Permits have hours of operation addressed in the permit. > Suggested looking at the full range of uses allowed within the district to ensure that the proper mix is achieved to enhance vitality. (Meeker - Agreed, and noted that this will become part of a larger discussion that will occur during the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update.) Page 2 City of Burlingame January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Dave Simpson, Broadway property owner: Retail sales in Redwood City have declined due to the existence of new restaurants within the downtown area. This could happen on Broadway. His business services the restaurant industry. Understands the restaurant industry. All restaurants want to be full at the same time; can create traffic problems. (Commissioner - requested clarification that the retail uses do not do as well given the large number of restaurants.) Noted that most of them do not exist anymore; there is very little retail remaining. Betty Wolff, resident on Laguna: All for making Broadway more vibrant, but it will never be like Burlingame Avenue. Is concerned with parking if more restaurants are allowed. A lot of people who own businesses do not live in the neighborhood. Notice a lot of people parking in the adjacent neighborhood due to the inadequate parking. More restaurants may tax the existing sewer system in the area. Restaurants need to convey to their people where to park. Gunnell Bercholz, resident on Laguna: Near her property people can park all night. Parking is not monitored by the police. People have been known to sleep in their cars. More restaurants will exacerbate the rat infestation problem in the area. Restaurant people have too much garbage outside; it is overflowing and creates a rat problem. Ann Hinkle, owner of Earthbeam: Is a healthcare provider. Is delighted to see the amendment lifting the requirement for a conditional use permit for health services on the second floor. Former City Planner indicated that healthcare businesses would occupy parking for a longer period of time than other forms of businesses. Will increase exposure of other retail businesses on Broadway. The conditional use permit application fee caused another individual that wanted to open such a business to be driven away. John Kevranian, Chairperson of the Broadway Business Improvement District: Hears some of the concerns regarding parking and the potential loss of retail. There are currently retail vacancies on Broadway; more restaurants will bring more foot traffic to the area. The restaurant moratorium creates a commodity; there is no flexibility in terms of moving a restaurant to another property. Several of the parking lots in the area have long-term parking; some of these could be converted to shorter term parking. Employees could be directed to park at more remote lots within the area. If neighbors have concerns regarding parking on the residential streets, then the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission can be approached to impose restrictions that may alleviate the observed problems. Garbis Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway: Feels it is fair to contact other restaurant owners on Broadway to see if they want more restaurants in the area; the existing operators will not want more restaurants. Need different types of businesses that can create more foot traffic. With respect to the survey, noted that a survey was completed a number of years ago; noted the results of that survey. Feels the City's survey from 2014 was not accurate. Feels that the staff is running the City, should be the City Council. How would someone go to a healthcare business on the second floor if there is no elevator. Feels he has been discriminated against for the past fourteen years; that leads to potential tenants leasing elsewhere. Ross Bruce, AVR Realty: Page 3 City of Burlingame January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Have attempted to nurture retail in the district by restricting certain business types on Broadway, but it has not been successful even with current restrictions. Feels that allowing the market to flex as the culture changes may help to fill the vacancies on Broadway. Wants to see fewer vacancies. Unidentified Broadway business owner: There are four vacancies on the block where his business is located. Disagrees with staff's representation of the vacancy rate. Feels that the Broadway District has been left behind and more attention has been paid to Downtown Burlingame. The Broadway interchange construction will disrupt the area for the next few years. There is inadequate parking; with more restaurants this will be worsened and people will go elsewhere. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > How many properties are within the District; what is the vacancy rate? (Barber/Meeker - roughly 44 individual properties. There is a 1% vacancy rate which represents four tenant spaces.) > Referenced the changing retail landscape, other options for such businesses. Can't conclude necessarily that restaurants are the culprit in the downturn of retail on the street. > Noted that he is frequently asked where employers can send their employees for meals. > Is supportive of anything that can be done to invigorate the district. > Is aware that there can be parking problems in the area. > Has not perceived any preconceptions on the part of staff in the survey or the staff report. > There may be other means of addressing the parking issues. > There are also means of addressing the trash issues that have been raised. > Lifting the restriction can allow the district to reach a state of equilibrium. > There will be more people looking for places to eat as the Bayfront becomes more developed. > May not be the silver bullet, but worth a chance. There may need to be adjustments made to other uses in the area as well. > Doesn't believe the proposed amendments will solve the problem, but likely will not make it worse. > Broadway is not an easy place to get to; parking is problematic. > If you provide businesses that people want, patrons will come, if you don't they won't. > Not having parking isn't the worse thing in the world. > Doesn't feel that this is a complicated problem. Investments made in properties (e.g. restaurants) that need some work could go to help invigorate the district. > The Broadway merchants need to look at their businesses to ensure that businesses that are there are vibrant. > Hears concerns regarding the number of nail salons on Broadway. > Is imperative upon each landlord to consider the businesses that they bring in to the district. > The individuals expressing reservations cause him pause. Should more research be done? > Has seen the dramatic changes in Redwood City; it is largely a function of the vitality that the restaurants bring to the area. > Feels that the changes have been directed from the community through the elected body. > A couple of the vacancies have been present for some time. Hard to believe that restaurants would push out retail uses. > Other issues raised regarding the trash, parking problems and people sleeping in the cars are issues that will continue to exist and must be addressed. > Has noticed that amongst the restaurants on Broadway, many are not open full time. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an ordinance eliminating the limitation on the number of food establishments within the Broadway Commercial District while retaining the requirement for a conditional use permit for such uses, and eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses above the first floor within the District. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 4 City of Burlingame January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 818 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Kevin Lake, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Ex-Parte Communications: > Commissioner Loftis spoke to the property owners. > Commissioner Gum spoke to the left and right side neighbors. Site Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property. Community Development Director provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Clarified that the entire home will be restuccoed. (Gann - yes.) > Could some of the finer details be revisited, for example the a-braces. Could appear like a stucco box; perhaps corbels under the bays. > Clarified that the stoop will remain as is. (Gann - yes.) > Noted the greater amount of windows on the rear. Looks like the scale is a bit different. (Gann - are attempting to take advantage of the beautiful yard.) > Noted that the concrete driveway on the left side tiers into the neighbor's yard. Clarify this detail. > Noted an ambiguity in the drawing for the left rear roofline. (Gann - will correct.) > Understands that all of the windows will be aluminum-clad wood windows with the existing windows to be replaced to match the new. > Would have preferred to have pages showing comparisons between existing and proposed elevations. > Likes the massing. > Consider adding window grids to add to the bungalow feel. (Gann - will consider.) > Very relieved at how the design fits in with the neighborhood, especially given the size of the home. > Will there be plantings along the front to soften the appearance? (Gann - yes.) Public Comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to direct that this item be brought back on the regular action calendar when modified in response to the Commission's direction. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Page 5 City of Burlingame January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 - b. 1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Jim and Pei Lu, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: There were no ex-parte communications to report. Site Visits: All Commissioners had visited the subject site. Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Chu - not at this time. A driveway separates it from the apartment building next door.) > Feels that the left window behind the chimney on the front elevation looks misplaced; consider a different arrangement, perhaps a transom window and use that as the bed wall. > Consider looking at improving the massing of the second-story dormer on the front above the entry door. (Chu - noted that the living room has higher ceilings that restricts making a change in this area.) > The front entry feels a bit closed off; perhaps intentionally because of the proximity to El Camino Real. > The front bay on the second floor could climb up the roof a bit so that it can be centered. > With respect to landscaping; revisit the use of Laurel that is not accepted by the City Arborist, as it may carry the sudden oak death fungus that could transfer to nearby Oaks. > Assumes the planting area is owned by the City; work with the City to ensure that work that is done doesn't impact the parking lot screening. > Noted the fallen tree in the rear yard. > Likes the design. > Feels like there is a lot of hardscape; look at this. (Chu - will refer to the landscape architect. Lot is deeper than normal. Could consider putting in a Hollywood driveway.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to direct that this item be brought back on the regular action calendar when modifications have been made as requested by the Commission. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye: Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum 7 - Page 6 City of Burlingame January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Loftis noted that he will forward an electronic copy of the Community Center presentation to the Commission. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a. FYI: 114 Howard Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project Approved as submitted. b. Commission Communications Nothing to report. c. City Council regular meeting January 5, 2015 > The City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element. > The City Council considered adoption of the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance. Changes were requested to be made to the text; therefore, the ordinance will be reintroduced by the City Council at its meeting of January 20, 2015. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 12, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2015, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 7 City of Burlingame