Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.09.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, September 27, 1993 at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: Commissioner Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES The minutes of the September 13, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA: - Item 16, Special Permit - 1350 Bayshore Highway, was moved to follow Item 12 as the first action item. Order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAI, CONDOMINIUM AT 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION - RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS K, L, M AND N, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME TERRACE - 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL Requests: are there other properties on E1 Camino Real with egress across another property; how would project be affected if the ramp off E1 Camino were increased to handle two way traffic in case the proposed egress easement is lost; where are guest parking spaces located; if approved with the easement would that easement be retained if the property were sold; how will exit only be assured to Palm Drive and not to E1 Camino; other than Sunday how many times a week is the church parking lot used 50% or more; plans for storage for the units; with respect to egress over the church parking lot, will. there be any loss Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 27, 1993 of parking in the church lot caused by grade changes for exiting from the project's garage; intention of this egress is permanent which will require the easement be recorded, would like City Attorney to review and approve document creating easement; if there is a recorded easement church should be aware they will be giving up future development rights; where is egress shown on the plans; location of balconies on the 2nd and 3rd floors and impact to the rear of the project; cannot find storage or linen cupboards in the units, indicate where they will be; some water heaters and furnaces open into the bathrooms, this is not legal, would like to see floor plans; does parking space 136 meet code regulations; how will the dual trunk tree be protected during construction and maintained; since automatic gate is on property line and code allows 7' maximum fence height will a variance be required; do parking spaces 11, 130 and 114 meet code; on D units is the long, narrow section of deck included in private open space deck area computation; along south side of the property applicant shows a row of landscaping but it is on the adjoining property, how will this be tied legally into this application, i.e., for irrigation; clarify figures for total living space in the application reviewed at study in May, 1992, is there a substantial reduction in this project from previous projects; request applicant address all questions in the CE's memo of September 22;before this project comes to Commission for action. Item was set for public hearing October 12, 1993 if all information is .received in time. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SERVICES AND SALES (CONSULTING, SALON AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FOR NON-SURGICAL HAIR REPLACEMENT) AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, SUITE 30, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 9/27/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Kathy Absher, General Manager, R&B Commercial Management Company, was present representing the applicant, Peter Meyer, InVisions. She noted one: of the suggested conditions was that the project be built as shown on the plans submitted and said there might be some slight variations in these plans. CP advised this would be no problem as long as there will not be more square footage. Responding to Commission questions Ms. Absher said the main part of this business would be retail service, other than the sale of hair pieces she did not know what products might be sold. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found in reviewing the list of tenants in this building that the applicant would not infringe on any other tenant's rights nor create traffic problems, she found the use was suitable for the area. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 27, 1993 the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department: and date stamped August 26, 1993 Sheet A -P Lower Level Plan (Before), Sheet A -P Lower Level Plan (After) and InVisions proposed floor plan (8-1/2" x 1111); (2) that the hair replacement business will be open 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday, and Friday and Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., with a maximum of eight (8) employees and 30 visitors growing to 50 in five years; and (3) 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 unanimously on voice vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RESTAURANT(S) DEVELOPMENT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 4. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, VISUAL ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE AND LANDSCAPING IN THE PARKING AND CIRCULATION AREAS FOR NEW DESTINATION RESTAURANTS AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD. ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 9/27/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and discussed traffic allocation granted by City Council, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing with minor revisions to Conditions 112 and 114. Commission/ staff discussion: location of parking; building will be floated on a cement pad on piles a little above curb level; landscaping in the parking and circulation areas; measurement of apparent width; space between the two columns on the side and the building; State lands which border the site and are landscaped; Condition 19 which refers to timing of construction work, it was suggested the wording be changed to say 'site preparation'. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Steve Douglas, representing BIC Development Inc., was present: they are proposing to develop two destination restaurants, one Asian and one Japanese, with a bar lounge; top quality food and service in a memorable environment is necessary to draw people to the area. Mr. Douglas commented with the use of slides: the site is 3.7 acres, shaded area on two sides is landscaped State lands, it is a mitigation since that land appears to be a part of the site, an actual setting for the project of almost five acres. He pointed out design elements of the project, water features, ponds and falls, skylights and exterior deck area, first floor entry with courtyard, the left side with Asian restaurant and private dining rooms, middle is kitchen area, right side a Japanese restaurant; second floor has additional dining area for the two restaurants and circular banquet room with outside deck area; third floor is bar lounge which has a balcony on the front overlooking the water features of the first level; stainless steel columns at the side of the building; view to the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 27, 1993 rear facing the lagoon; interior views of some of the other restaurants this applicant operates with Japanese and Asian decor. Applicant's representative discussed photomontage to illustrate comparison with neighboring buildings and properties; with true scale of the proposed project in relation to these build.ings. Applicants maintain the building should be measured from wall to wall, not from the middle of the two exterior columns, because there is 11' between the columns and the building which allows for views between toward the bay. Projected revenues to the city were noted, total annual revenue should be $120,000 per year; this company is listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, currently owns about 12 restaurants„ two hotels and is involved in several trading companies and retail income properties. Mitigation for the special permits for FAR and landscaping is the setting of the project, 3.7 acres within a total. surrounding area including the site of five acres; there is 10$ landscaping beyond the footprint of the building, they have exceeded all other landscape requirements. Apparent width is consistent with the city's requirements, because of the 11' space between the building and the columns applicants believe apparent width should be measured wall to wall. Mr. Douglas distributed photomontage exhibits. commission/ applicant discussion: if there is a problem with people being sprayed with water during windy conditions in the area they could control the volume of water or flow the water over the rocks; the courtyard is an integral part of the overall concept:, that is why they have asked for additional FAR; dome area in the back is part of the bar lounge; building will be designed to meet seismic requirements; they wanted to have views of the lagoon, the bay and airplanes landing; columns on the two sides are structural wrapped stainless steel and a part of the structural design. Storage tank for the water will be located underground, large enough to provide 2-5,000 gallons, they need 2,000 gallons a week because of evaporation; there will be pumps to bring the water up which will also be underground and will not create noise. Columns are 6' wide. State Lands Commission has a leasehold agreement with the current operator of the Crown Sterling hotel for the adjacent State lands, applicant prefers to consider these State lands as a mitigation rather than trying to lease them; Crown Sterling maintains these lands; State requires a leaseholder to maintain public access areas. Applicant said if maintenance became a problem they would prefer to address it on their own, would not want this matter as a condition of approval of the project since they have no legal right to do it. The banquet room on the second floor will be used by either restaurant, employees will be common to both restaurants; first and second floor have patrons' restrooms, employees restrooms are in the kitchen area and are separate. BIC Development has restaurants in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia, no local restaurants; Asian food is served, Thai food mainly. Water feature at the front faces Airport Boulevard, it isn't visible from inside the restaurants, just to people driving by or approaching Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 27, 1993 the restaurants; water features of the project have no cultural significance. Concept is two restaurants sharing one kitchen with one owner/operator, it has not been designed for partition of the kitchen to accommodate two separate owners/operators. Structural engineer discussed structural design of the project and expected performance in an earthquake; ductility requirement will be met; regarding the dome, glass fits in between steel members, they will check stress and determine flex and seismic response by simulated earthquake on a model; there will be some damage in a major quake. Proposed structure is a space frame based on a curved shape. The structure is based on 1991 Uniform Building Code which is the most strict with regard to earthquake. Hyatt which was severely damaged in the 1989 earthquake was a reinforced concrete structure, less flexible than this proposed structure. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis found the negative declaration covers all the issues which should be covered, on the basis of the initial study and comments received there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (,negative) effect on the environment, and moved to approve Negative Declaration ND -464P, seconded by C. Galligan and approved unanimously on voice vote. C. Galligan commented this is a unique concept for Burlingame and for this area, it is interesting and will make a statement in the City of Burlingame. He made findings with respect to the special permits and found 42% view obstruction could be used when measuring middle of column to middle of column; without taking into consideration the space between the columns and measuring exterior column to exterior column would put view obstruction up to 44%; subtracting from the 44% the 22' in between the two columns and building would bring view obstruction down to 38-39% (40% allowed); he found that the project creates views for people who are off the site looking toward the bay and meets the spirit if not the exact definition of apparent width. With respect to 7% landscaping in the parking and circulation areas, since in this case no plant materials can be grown under the building it is appropriate to subtract that area from the 10% requirement. Based on the presentation this evening, reports included in the packet and the photographs depicting this building in relation to the other structures in the area, it is not too high, too loud or too obnoxious; it is relatively small in size, appropriate and an exciting addition to the area. C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permits 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 August 16, 1993 Sheet A-2 Tentative. Map and Sheets A-3 through A-11, and August 25, 1993 Sheet A- 5; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 2, 1993 memo Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 -) September 27, 1993 and the Parks Director's September 17, 1993 memo shall be met; (3) that the restaurants shall be open 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. midnight, Monday through Sunday, with a maximum of 110 employees and a total of 810 employees and customers on site at any one time; (4) that the restaurants shall provide and maintain trash receptacles at the door, and at the borders of the property adjacent to the lagoon, or at adjacent locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (5) that the mitigation measures numbered one (1) through thirteen (13) as listed on pages 7, 8 and 9 in the 'Suishaya Restaurant - Geotechnical Issues Memorandum' date stamped August 9, 1993 shall be met; (6) that the project shall meet the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the applicant shall submit proof of that permit and a copy of approved plans before receiving a building permit; (7) that the applicant shall prepare and implement a Traffic Systems Management program for all employees at the restaurants; (8) that the property owners shall agree to assume all responsibility for flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the city harmless from any claims arising from such problems; (9) that all site development and grading shall occur only between May and September, with areas subject to grading to be sprinkled continuously using reclaimed water and sprinkled in sufficient amounts to control dust during Construction; landscaping sufficient to control erosion shall be in'stalled before the rainy season; stockpiled debris, construction materials, soil and trucks hauling materials shall be covered; trucks shall have their wheels washed before entering onto a public street and the driveway and the street shall be swept of debris at regular intervals as required by the city; (10) that all pile driving, grading, paving and other construction shall be done during the hours set by the Uniform Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame; (11) that lighting of the lot shall be provided at intensities required for safety of people and property and shall be installed so light is focused on the site, shielded for glare and does not extend onto adjacent properties; (12) that the property owner shall prepare a landscape and irrigation plan for the entire site to be approved by the city Parks Director, and the property owner shall install landscaping according to the approved plan within 90 days of final inspection and prior to issuing an occupancy permit; (13) that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain the landscape design; (14) 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 BCDC approved plans before receiving a building permit; (15) that the applicant shall receive a permit from the County of San Mateo for the on-site well(s) and submit proof of that permit and a copy of approved plans before receiving a building permit; (16) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (17) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 27, 1993 its conditions, including public access and landscape maintenance, in two years (September, 1995) or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: agree with some portion of the findings, apparent width and landscaping in the parking and circulation areas, but have a problem granting a special permit for an increase in FAR, since it's a new building, why can't they make it a bit smaller and meet code; agree with the statements about adjacent State owned lands being a mitigation, although these lands are not owned by the applicant they will be there in perpetuity; can support granting a higher FAR but have a problem with the other requests. Responding to a question staff advised there was very little Council discussion at the time the traffic allocation was approved. CP/CA discussed status of State lands in this area and the fact the whole adjacent area between this site and the water in the lagoon is within BCDC jurisdiction. Further comment: the .17 FAR is based on this property, because of State lands the apparent FAR is less. Agree with the motion to approve, can make a finding that the special permit for FAR will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the area. i Motion to approve the special permits passed on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs voting no, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE FIVE LOTS INTO ONE PARCEL - LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, BLOCK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 - 6Z0 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Reference staff memo, 9/27/93. Public hearing for this item was held with hearing for the negative declaration and special permits. C. Galligan moved to recommend this tentative parcel map to combine lots to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) that all damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; (2) that this development provide a four foot (41) pedestrian walk area behind each driveway approach and grant the city a pedestrian roadway easement over this walk area; (3) that this development pay an assessment for its proportionate share of the water system improvements made since July 1, 1980 to meet the requirements of the city and to join any assessment district established to make any local or systemwide improvements which benefit this site; and install any fire hydrants needed near this site to meet city requirements; and (4) that this development pay an assessment for its proportionate share of the sewer system improvements made since July 1, 1980 to meet the requirements of the city and to join any assessment district established to make any local or systemwide improvements which benefit this site. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 27, 1993 Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs dissenting, C. Mink absent. Staff will forward to City Council. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its September 20, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary