Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.12.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1992 • ••�� A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, December'14, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan (arrived 7:40 P.M.), Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Inspector MINUTES - The minutes of the November 23, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved with a correction to Items 12 and 13 (applicant is Takuo Kanno). FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD A RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO THE EXISTING CHURCH AT 2828 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: do other churches in the city have a dwelling unit; what is a circuit overseer; how many people will live in this residential unit; will the addition of a residence change the tax status of the church property. Item set for public hearing January 11, 1993. 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR STORY 20 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 3. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME TERRACE (820 EL CAMINO REAL) Requests: are there code requirements for guest parking; how high will mechanical equipment extend on the roof; is this project compatible with height and mass of existing buildings in the area; where will storage facilities be located, there is not much storage space in the units and none in the garage; where will trash containers be located; how will retaining walls next to property line be installed; cars will Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 14, 1992 exit onto E1 Camino and there are three or four large eucalyptus trees there, it will be extremely difficult to see beyond the curb, how will safety be addressed; on Sheet A-4, basement garage, spaces 9 and 10 overlap, is this acceptable to staff, did applicant address; is there a security gate; height of the stories individually, they seem to be 8' to 9.51; type of construction materials, thickness of the roof, will construction be steel or wood frame. Items 12 and 13 set for public hearing January 11, 1993 if all responses have been received. TEMS FOR ACTION 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE THAT EXCEEDS 500 GSF AT 627 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/14/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the project and reviewed staff comments, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question staff advised height is measured from adjacent grade, the inspector will measure from existing adjacent grade to the top of the structure. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Applicant and property owner, Vernon Waligora, was present. A Commissioner complimented him on his very informative letter and his attempt to get some vehicles off the congested street. Mr. Waligora stated they are only adding 4' to the garage, existing garage is too close to the house, he has moved the new garage as far back as possible; turnaround will not be a problem, they go straight in and out now, have ample room. It was noted CE has requested driveway configuration with dimensions be shown on the plans. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham referenced the staff report and found this is a good addition to the neighborhood, taking vehicles off the street, supported by the statements in the applicant's letter. C. Graham 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 November 2, 1992 Sheet 1; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 2, 1992 memo (before a building permit is issued the plans must show the driveway configuration with dimensions to indicate maneuvering area, for both vehicles) shall be met; (3) that before a final inspection of the new construction is called for the existing garage shall be demolished; (4) that no portion of the garage shall be used for living quarters or as a home occupation; and (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 14, 1992 5. CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT FOR A BOX CULVERT ENCLOSURE TO BE LOCATED UNDER THE DRIVEWAY AT 338 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 12/14/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed staff comment$, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question CP explained the recently adopted tree protection ordinance. Chm. Mink opened the -public hearing. Bruce Bean, applicant, was present. He advised they are trying to save as many trees as possible, part of the reason for the culvert is that they are trying to place the garage so they will not have to remove trees; trees with red ribbons are the ones they want to save; they had the trees surveyed and put on a map to help in siting the construction. Shaun McCallion, 334 Pepper Avenue commented: he is on the old culvert, new culvert may not be large enough to take all the water, in last week's rainstorm the old creek couldn't take the water, there is a lot of silt and sand built up over the years, if that were removed there would be more than 4'-5" provided. CE advised there is a need to do more surveying work up and downstream, bottom of the new culvert will be at level or below the footing of the old culvert, if cleaned up by the property owners there won't be a built in obstruction there. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal found no problem with the proposal, it is good placement of the garage, culvert will have to be taken care of and the conditions address this. C. Deal moved for approval of the creek enplosure 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 October 22, 1992 Sheet 1 - Plan and Elevations, and Storm Drain Calculations - Sheets 1 and 2; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 28, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that the property owner shall be responsible for all maintenance, including regular cleaning of the transition areas at property lines and the box culvert and the open culvert on his property; 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. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 224 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 12/14/92, with attachments. CP summarized the request and reviewed staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. The House of Bagels at 260 Lorton Avenue has relinquished all its rights as a food establishment at that location which opens up an eating establishment slot in C-1 Sub Area A. Five conditions were Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 14, 1992 suggested for consideration at the public hearing. During some discussion CP advised a fixed opaque railing across the top of the stairs was required at 42" in height because that is what is frequently required for safety, this would be high enough for storage without it being visible, applicant did not want to put a solid wall in at this time. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Evanelo Dokos, applicant, and his representative were present. Responding to Commission question applicant said if his business improves he may ask to expand upstairs. If seating upstairs were approved by the Commission in the future, Fire Marshal said their concern was proper exiting, only problem now is second exit goes through the kitchen and this is not allowed; CP noted if they added seating upstairs they would need a parking variance. Applicant's representative stated Mr. Dokos does his office work at home, mezzanine is primarily for storage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this to be a routine application as presented, it is not increasing the number of eating establishments in the area, any expansion upstairs must come back to the Planning Commission for a special permit amendment. CA suggested a condition that no tables and chairs be stored on the mezzanine. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit for restaurant/food establishment use with the five conditions in the staff report and one suggested by the CA. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. In comment on the motion CA confirmed the documentation is sufficient to relinquish House of Bagels' (260 Lorton Avenue) rights as a food establishment at that location. Conditions of the motion follow: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 12, 1992 Sheet 1; (2) that no seating may be located on the mezzanine and no activities other than storage shall ever take place on the mezzanine; (3) that a chain shall be kept across the bottom of the stairs and a fixed opaque railing, a minimum of 42" in height, shall be placed across the top of the stairs to hide stored goods and to insure that the only use of the mezzanine area shall be storage; (4) that if any activities other than storage do occur on the mezzanine, the stairway shall be required to be removed within 30 days; (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that no tables and/or chairs shall be stored on the mezzanine. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 14, 1992 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AUTOMOBILE RETAIL SERVICES AT 65 STAR WAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 12/14/92, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed study meeting questions, required findings. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. There was considerable Commission discussion about businesses approved on Star Way and Whitethorn Way, both private streets, parking requirements, parking variances granted. It was noted applicant does not want to commit to the condition requiring review of the permit if the six off-site spaces are lost, he would prefer to designate these six spaces inside the building as long as he could change their location if necessary. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Michael Mercado, applicant, was present. He commented he understood not allowing repair outside the building, perhaps conditions could state "no inoperative vehicles"; some cars are stored for up to two weeks waiting for parts; he does not anticipate storing cars in any of the required parking spaces; if he had a car for two weeks he would store it inside for security; there is more space inside than he needs; he expects to be able to lease spaces inside his building for storage; he does not want customers driving around inside his shop, he will park these cars himself. Responding to Commission question applicant said there is no business in operation at 65 Star Way presently, he did not know why the stalls at this site were being used when Commission made a site visit; some shop owners take advantage of the space that is there; applicant said it was his responsibility to keep his neighbors in line. Nicholas Crisafi, property owner, commented: he discussed his ownership of Whitethorn Way and Star Way, he rebuilt Whitethorn Way 10 years ago; 65 Star Way has been vacant since July, other tenants knowing it is vacant are taking advantage of the parking spaces; he had suggested to staff that the six spaces in the adjacent right of way could be used for the required parking; there is a total of 48 stalls on this parcel, Planning staff has said 45, of those 48 stalls 10 are rented to people on Rollins Road and these leases could be cancelled at 30 days notice; the S. P. property is not needed for parking but it is a backup. Possibility of requiring all cars for this business to be parked inside at night was mentioned. Staff advised that over the years vehicles from properties on Rollins Road have parked on Star Way as a mitigation, in one case one was granted a variance with this parking as mitigation. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Based on the staff report and discussion with applicant and property owner, C. Galligan found the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 14, 1992 the use will be conducted in a manner in accord with the general plan; with respect to the variance, location of the off-site stalls is in the S.P. right of way adjacent to this property and can be easily used, therefore would be consistent with the concept of having on-site parking even though it is technically off site. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance 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 October 21, 1992 Sheets Tentative Parcel Map and Site Plan and November 10, 1992 Proposed Parking Layout in adjacent right of way; (2) that the auto retail and storage business will be open Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. with a maximum of four employees at any one time; (3) that parking off site for six, striped and marked spaces in the adjacent paved right of way (west of the building) shall be allowed for 55 and 65 Star Way, so long as the property owner retains a legal lease to use this area and loss of this lease shall result in the review of this permit; (4) that all employees and customers shall park in the nine spaces in front of 55/65 Star Way, or in the six stalls in the adjacent right of way, or inside the building; and no vehicles, operative or inoperative, on the premises for repair or maintenance work shall be stored or serviced in these or other spaces or areas on the site outside of the building; (5) that no vehicles shall be stored outside the building, and all repairs shall occur inside the building; (6) that no portion of the building designated as 55/65. Star Way shall be subleased to another business or activity without amendment to this use permit; (7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (8) that this use permit shall be reviewed in six months (July, 1993) for compliance with the conditions or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: will support the motion reluctantly, have a problem with the variance but generally parking in this area seems to work out and people manage to park, the condition regarding off-site parking is loose enough; this area is always changing, staff does a good job with the regulations, if there were no rules it would be much worse. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO PARKING VARIANCES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT AT 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 12/14/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, environmental review, study meeting questions, required findings. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 14, 1992 Staff advised a parking variance is needed for 10 spaces and for dimension of the 102 valet parking spaces, discussed valet parking on other restaurant/hotel sites in the area, advised applicant has indicated there are certain areas of the building that would need reinforcing support piles in addition to the existing; in its measurements staff took front of property line as top of curb, the front is actually behind Alamo. CA/CP discussed entertainment permits and rewording of suggested condition 14. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Randal Paul, architect representing the property owner, was present. His remarks: since the study meeting they have reworked the parking and dropped 800 SF of building area. BCDC review required public access parking and extension of the public access pathway; he noted they have complied with city request regarding the seawall, they are putting a new building on an existing foundation, new piles are for new entry ramp and entry stair, existing foundation can support the new restaurant structure; less than 10% of the foundation will be changed; the piles and pile caps are all right, it is only the beams that connect the piles which need some remedial work. Architect had no problem with the suggested conditions of approval. In response to a question about what is exceptional about the property to support the variance request, architect said there was an existing parking variance on the site 30 spaces of which were off site, they have been unsuccessful in locating and obtaining 30 off-site spaces; there was a building of the same size on this property which was damaged by f ire, this is a unique set of circumstances, a parking variance in place and valet parking had been approved. Rich Patane, one of the owners of the restaurant, advised Commission that 10 years ago they were able to obtain off-site parking, they cannot get this parking today. A Commissioner noted there is no reason the project cannot comply with present code, there is no limiting factor since there is no existing building. Mr. Patane commented there are restaurants up and down the street which probably are not meeting parking requirements today, their proposal would provide more parking than any restaurant out there; in the last 10 to 12 years they have never used the off-site parking because they had the valet parking. He was unable to address the findings of exceptional circumstances for the parking variances. Jim Brickey, valet parking operator, also was present. He said he had been in this business for 30 years, an 8' x 16' stall is sufficient to valet park one of today's large cars, in fact it is more than sufficient; with reference to the parking plan proposed, there would be no problem getting cars in and out, they would staff with more people when necessary, the aisles would stay clear; the parking lot could handle the number of people generated by a full restaurant; self parking would not work well here, valet is needed to handle this business; addressing exceptional circumstances, it is a beautiful building, will enhance this area of the city, Alamo is not adding to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 14, 1992 the beauty by storing cars out there; emergency vehicles could enter in three different ways; flow of traffic would be the same as it was before; this layout is unusual for a parking lot but valet parking works well. Mr. Brickey said he runs about 15 restaurant/hotel valet parking operations; this layout is unusual in that most new hotels/restaurants do not design for valet parking; in all his operations he allows people to self park if they want to do so; he handled parking at The Fisherman for 20 years prior to the fire; the last 10 years they did not have to use the off-site parking. Julian Hubbard, attorney for The Fisherman restaurant owners, addressed exceptional circumstances: the property is exceptional because this kind of planning makes for a safe, more efficient and convenient environment for people who come to the restaurant; there are three emergency exits; this plan will reduce the hazards of off-site parking related to the impact flow of traffic, vandalism and potential burglaries; there is more self parking than before, in this proposal there are trained professionals doing the parking; the current plans allow for more parking than comparable uses in the area, there are more spaces in this proposal; Mr. Brickey's valet parking company has had an impeccable record with The Fisherman; this proposal increases safety of adjacent businesses/hotels and their patrons; proposed plan calls for increased lighting which will provide more safety. Addressing what is exceptional about the property itself, Attorney Hubbard said the property is unusual because of the nature of the use, for 20 years there has been a restaurant on that footprint at that location operated in a manner which was less safe that what is proposed; Mr. Patane has a right to have the business put back as close as possible to what it was, he had no control over the loss. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs made findings: there is an existing foundation which needs less than 10% correction, it is located on a difficult site; the parking plan is better than 30 cars crossing Bayshore to off-site parking; many people like valet parking, it is a well designed parking plan; it might be better to have a smaller building but with the existing foundation this applicant will not want a smaller restaurant and it can't be relocated closer to Bayshore Highway. For the reasons stated C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permits and parking variances by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Graham with the following comments: if applicant is asked to reduce the.size of the restaurant this will not guarantee there will be fewer people, he made an effort to do the best he could, he has an existing foundation and it would be ridiculous not to use it, the valet parking layout will be used as they wish, that will happen no matter what. Comment on the motion: have no problem with the valet parking; the foundation is there but there is nothing that requires them to build to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 14, 1992 the full capacity of the foundation, they could have done a better job in trying to meet some of the special permit requirements. Maker of the motion commented this is a problem site, why is Commission reluctant to give them back what they had in the past, in spite of blocking views this is a restaurant which has been there for 30 years. Another Commissioner agreed with her and complimented the applicants on the project and their fine presentation. Further comment on the motion: applicant has done a good job on the restaurant proposal but am concerned action in favor of this is a major departure in terms of parking requirements; it is rare when Commission has an opportunity to help a property get back into compliance, this is such an opportunity; also am concerned that approval of the variances will indicate Commission is saying the parking standards for hotels and restaurants can now be put through a new review process as long as there is valet parking, would expect expansion requests asking for valet parking. Maker of the motion commented that not many buildings burn down, this is one of a very few, approval will not set a precedent. Seconder agreed, Commission is not setting a new standard, just putting back what was there. Comment continued: this will not set a precedent, the building burned down; it would be nice for applicant to have what he had before but this proposal goes beyond that; previously there were 47 spaces self park, 30 of these off site, and valet, valet spaces were larger, they have reduced the number of self park and size of spaces, building is the same but parking isn't; would be willing to give them the special permits but have a problem with the parking variance for 10 spaces, perhaps the building should be reduced in size to compensate for the 10 spaces. Seconder thought a 10 space parking variance in a project of this size was inconsequential, they will let people park their own cars if they wish and they will move the cars for people when these people leave. Additional comment: this is essentially a vacant lot; why can't they meet the .15 FAR, why violate the shoreline setback except that the foundation is there, because of the positioning of the lot there is view blockage but there is no view anyway except from the parking lot; Commission spent 30/40 minutes on an application for a long term airport parking lot recently which would have a five year life and talked at length about landscaping, this project will have a sea of asphalt, no landscaping is provided, and Burlingame wants to be a user friendly city, we don't want to look like San Francisco; the city went to a lot of trouble to develop guidelines particularly for landscaping, shoreline setback and FAR for this area, and now we're saying because we broke the regulations before we'll break them again - on an empty lot. Motion to approve the special permits and parking variances failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Galligan and Mink voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 December 14, 1992 9. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT GRADE AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 12/14/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, siting of the aintenna requested by BCDC staff, required findings. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Dave Wilkins, Satellite Antenna Systems, noted BCDC's required revision of the siting of the antenna approved in October, 1992. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the dish antenna shall be installed on the ground within the 33' x 17' fence enclosure as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December, 1992 Sheet A1.1, A3.2, L-7 and 8-1/2" x 11" and 11" x 17" Elevations, Photos, Plans and Sections; (2) that the condition of the City Engineer's August 31, 1992 memo (that the installation of the antenna and fence shall be clear of the existing turf block paving) shall be met; (3) that the antenna dish installed shall not have a diameter greater than 10'-0", not rise more than 13'-0" above grade, be painted a pink beige color with nonreflective paint, and be surrounded by a 7'-0" opaque solid board wooden fence which shall be continuously maintained by the hotel operator; (4) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible for an amendment to this use permit if future construction on any adjacent property requires relocation of the dish antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/or property owner; (5) that the landscaping approved with the June 16, 1986 special permit (landscape plan dated May 12, 1986) shall be installed and maintained (minimum two 10' tall trees, 12' apart located south of the existing antenna and a minimum two 12' tall trees, 24" box, planted 20' apart located to the southwest of the sidewalk adjacent to the antenna) except that one tree may be relocated to meet BCDC requirements, if that transplant does not survive the tree shall be replaced by two trees of the same species, and shrubs or bushes compatible with existing landscaping shall be planted around the fence on the sides visible to the public; (6) that the applicant shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the dish and its support structure, fence and screening landscaping or remove the facility; (7) that this use permit shall include the satellite dish installed in 1986 and all the provisions of the June 16, 1986 use permit and September 16, 1986 amendment and all the provisions of the October 20, 1992 amendment except for the revisions included here; (8) that the applicant shall receive a permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and shall submit proof of that permit and a copy of approved plans before receiving a building permit; (9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (10) that Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 December 14, 1992 any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN EXCEPTION - 65 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA D Item continued to the meeting of January 11, 1993. ACKNOWLEDGMENT FYI memo from City Engineer re: overslope driveway for single family dwelling, 1411 Benito Avenue. Item set for public hearing January 11, 1993. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its December 7, 1992 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary 9