HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.09.29CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1992 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Tuesday, September"29, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Phil Monaghan, Associate Civil Engineer; Steve Langridge, Fire Captain . MINUTES - The minutes of the September 14, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. CP noted Items 17 and 18 for a condominium project at 1209-1211 Bayswater Avenue have been withdrawn by the property owner and applicant. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. The Chair acknowledged the following: letter from Edward and Lillian Del Carlo, 1614 Escalante Way (August 19, 1992) in opposition to application at 3121 Rivera Drive; letter from Joan Lawler regarding home located at 1338 Castillo Avenue. A letter (September 16, 1992) from Mayor Pagliaro regarding Councilmember attendance at Commission meetings was read into the record. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR ALAMO RENT -A -CAR AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD/1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Requests: is this a code enforcement item, work is in progress and nearly completed, cars are parking in this area, why have they proceeded; how will visitors know where to park; is handicapped accessible parking in a legal location; there is a notation that 80 employee parking spaces were needed, they are providing 72, why not add eight more spaces; have applicants considered entry/exit off Burlway Road for this parking area, concern about impact of that many cars using Bayshore Highway; explanation of CE's comment regarding traffic flow (September 15, 1992 memo) and peak flow not presenting a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 29, 1992 difficulty to Bayshore Highway traffic, is he referring to through traffic on Bayshore or cars going in and out of the site; if this is not a code enforcement why is applicant using the site now; are 72 employee parking spaces acceptable to staff; applicant proposes three on -street handicapped spaces and two at curb, will city accept these as meeting handicapped accessible spaces for employees;' impact of this plan on the landscape screening; inform applicant proper signage is needed so that the public is not parking in the employee parking lot. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1992. 2. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT AT 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Requests: why difference in structure square footages between staff numbers and architect's numbers on plans; is view corridor obstruction the same as the previous structure; distinction between our nonconforming parking policy and a parking variance, which applies here; construction details of the existing foundation to determine if it would meet seismic standards and review by Building Department, concern that the foundation will not be found adequate and would have to be replaced which could have bearing on the review; why are only 49 spaces striped now and what was and now is the number designated for customers to park their own cars; does the additional 800 SF require a notice for a parking variance; how was the apparent width measured; do they need a variance for landscaping; explain difference in replacement requirements in the event of a catastrophe between R-1 and C-4 districts; is the architectural feature which raises the building above 35' necessary; what is the use of the second floor area at the north end of the building; under the 1977 parking variance do they need 100 spaces to code dimensions; variance included additional parking on Burlway and 30 spaces behind the gas station, where do they propose to provide these spaces, information is important to decision; request applicant present reasons to justify use permits since this is essentially a new project, variance should be included if required. Item set for public hearing when documentation and answers are completed. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT GRADE AT THE MARRIOTT HOTEL, 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Requests: what is different in the programming available with this dish and that available with the existing dish; why not the same color as the existing dish; the existing dish was to be screened with trees, what happened to those trees, can screening be provided now. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1992. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AUTOMOBILE RETAIL SERVICES AT 1291 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1 Requests: clarify where customers will park; what are the parking requirements for the other business in this building; request applicant Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 29, 1992 address the finding of exceptional circumstances to support the variance request; survey of available parking in this area at several times during the day; plans applicant is using are plans drawn three years ago by the firm of one of the Planning Commissioners for a different project, how did applicant get these plans and why are they being used. Item set for public hearing October 13, 1992. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICES AND PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 1, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUB AREA B-1 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 1992) Reference staff report, 9/14/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the request, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings. A letter in opposition was noted from Laura Feder, 1435 Bellevue Avenue. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Henry Kalebjian, applicant, was present. He discussed his store in San Francisco, House of Coffee, which he has operated since 1956; they roast coffee and have good quality teas, are well known and reputable, have received many awards for the service provided; they would like to bring the same service to Burlingame, majority of their business is from 6:00-10:00 A.M.; after 5:00 P.M. most customers have phoned or faxed their orders and just stop in to pick them up; although he will have nine tables and chairs his business will not concentrate on lunch, most of the food would be take out, he plans on offering Arab sandwiches which would be prepared ahead and could be picked up or eaten on site. In San Francisco 80% of his business is coffee beans or ground coffee, 20% is liquid coffee, they have no tables or chairs in San Francisco; he didn't know which way the sales would go in Burlingame; they also do catering out of their San Francisco store for groups of 20 to 150 people and they would like to do catering out of this Burlingame location; they would need an on-site parking space for the catering van. Commissioners had difficulty making a finding of exceptional circumstances which apply to this property to support the variance request, other properties in the area do not have parking either. Commission/applicant/property owner discussion: the more successful this business becomes the more people will visit the site, the business will impact the area more and more (applicant stated he did not want customers to stay on site more than 10 minutes) ; the reason for the variance is that the use proposed has a greater parking requirement than the previous office use, Commission must find a reason to approve a further burden on this property. Steve Cohn, property owner, commented: this space has been for lease for about 14 months, they were aware a deli operation would have too Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 29, 1992 much impact; after seeing this applicant's.operation in San Francisco it appeared to be a possibility because the business is primarily roasting coffee, selling coffee beans and tea to go with the greatest demand from 6:00-10:00 A.M.; they felt the operation is unique, primarily retail sales of coffee beans and tea. The upstairs therapist tenants are not on site during most of the day, there is parking available at the rear of the building with two designated to other tenants and three open spaces during the day, with applicant using one of them there would be two left for customers; they hope to increase foot traffic to Chapin Avenue making it more retail oriented; regarding the tables and chairs, if someone wants to stop for a few minutes, he can; in good weather people can have a cup of coffee outside which will give this business a competitive edge. Property owner stated the thrust of the business would be from 6:00-10:00 A.M. and there are plenty of parking spaces available at that time. It was pointed out varianc variance for the therapis that they would be there maximum demand from 6:00-1 problem. Property owner been trying to stay away suggested the possibility how retail only would work business would be success would increase and impac advised he needs a table a Jose and San Ramon to buy need a place to sit down. problem even with the numb about lunch service, at t hes run with the land, argument in favor of a is on the second floor of this building was at night, argument for this application is 0:00 A.M., if tenants change there will be a was aware of Commission's concerns, he has from any problem businesses. Commission of eliminating the tables and chairs to see out; it appeared all Commissioners felt this ful and, if so, the restaurant part of it t the area during lunch time. Applicant id chair, people come from as far away as San coffee, some with their families, and they One of the Commissioners did not have a er of tables and chairs but was concerned at time of day the street is most impacted. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: share the concerns about parking,, if this were just a retail coffee/tea operation would not have a problem, if it is a restaurant do have a problem and applicant now staters people come from as far away as San Jose; the area is changing, this will not be a destination type restaurant but rather where one would stop in for a cup of coffee while downtown shopping, would like to support but have a problem finding exceptional circumstances; perhaps lunch time business would be walk in and not affect parking, but there would be a lot of people who would drive there; there are lines of people in front of Stacks on California Drive crowding the sidewalk, this is not on the same scale but there is a correlation; the only exceptional circumstances are the nature of the other businesses within the building itself, the therapists only come in at night:, but what happens when they are gone and there is a new tenant. C. Jacobs commented that she voted for the application of the therapists on the second floor of this building, she was sure this Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 29, 1992 applicant would be very successful but could not find exceptional circumstances to support a three space parking variance, applicant would not consider not serving lunch from 11:00-2:30. For the reasons stated C. Jacobs moved to deny the special permit and parking variance. Motion was seconded by C. Graham with the suggestion to deny without prejudice. C. Jacobs amended her motion to deny without prejudice. Comment on the motion: it is difficult to consider this request favorably when condition #2 states he will be open from 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., subsequently the restaurant could be a problem, buildings can change and tenants can change, have a concern about the variance, up until 10:00 A.M. there is no parking problem but from 11:30 to 2:00 there is a real problem; this man will be successful with this business, that's the problem, do not think as an owner of a business I would want to close down from 11:00 to 2:00. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SATELLITE ANTENNA AT 26.0 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 9/29/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the application, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Mike Pool , SEG Communications, applicant was present. He was not aware of when this antenna was installed, it is more reliable than land lines by about 10-15%; he did not know how many times a week it failed but stated it is more reliable, transmission is faster, it is more cost efficient. It was determined the antenna could be relocated to the canopy but there might be a problem with line of sight. C. Jacobs found this is not a noticeable dish, it could be relocated on the roof, the color is the same color as the station. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the antenna shall be located on the roof of the kiosk as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 27, 1992 Sheet 1, Site Plan; (2) 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; (3) that the dish antenna shall be painted a nonreflective color that matches the primary color for the building.and that this nonreflective surface shall be maintained by the property owner; (4) that should this tenant leave the building the antenna shall be removed from the roof and the city notified of its removal; 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. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 29, 1992 Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCES AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A TWO STORY, 11 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AT 1209-1211 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 8. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION, LOTS 11 AND 12 AND PORTION OF LOTS 15 AND 161 BLOCK 86 POLO FIELD SUBDIVISION, 1209-1211 BAYSWATER AVENUE These items have been withdrawn by the applicant and property owner. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions and discussion at its September 21, 1992 regular meeting and September 23, 1992 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary