HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.04.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 1993
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, Cityyof Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, April 12, 1993 at 7:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink
Absent: Commissioner Graham
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly,
Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 22, 1993 meeting were
unanimously approved.
AGENDA - Agenda was revised to hear action items in the following
order: 16, 17, 15 and 18.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO STORY 11
UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AT 1209-1211 BAYSWATER AVENUE ZONED R-4
2. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, LOTS
11 AND 12 AND PORTION OF LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 8, POLO FIELD
SUBDIVISION 1209-1211 BAYSWATER AVENUE
Requests: item 17 of the Initial Study indicates "maybe" there will be
"extreme" increases in light and glare but there are no mitigation
responses, address this item; garbage cans are located far from the
security gate, how will they be accessed, is that distance too far;
will security gate with intercom be addressed in the conditions; will
there be decks; if there is an exemption from current federal
disability access requirements, what are applicant's plans for
addressing people who are or might be disabled; two fireplaces intrude
into the side setback, why, how far into the setback; with respect to
units near property lines on the sides, what type of protection will be
taken for neighbors' privacy; there is a portion of the driveway where
slope is 20%, is this within the standard.
Items 11 and 12 set for public hearing April 26, 1993.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 1993 '1
Page 2
3. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR ROUND TABLE PIZZA AT 1302 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY,
ZONED C-4
Requests: status of. Ms. Lou's and future of the portion of the pole
sign advertising Ms. Lou's; what is considered a sign•, is the vehicle
parked on the site with business logo of this business a sign; does
this vehicle move; is there a master signage program for this property;
ask applicant to provide information on other signage on the site,
particularly size; would it be more acceptable for applicant to be part
of the main sign as opposed to a separate pole sign, there appears to
be an unused space there; why not request a master signage program;
provide minutes of the 1981 meeting at which a sign exception was
granted; property owner's answer as to why there is no master sign
program; is applicant aware there is no such thing as a standard
corporate sign, standard corporate signs fit whatever the local
community wants them to be so that is not an acceptable answer as to
why signage won't fit the space. Item set for public hearing April 26,
1993.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT
1675 ROLLINS ROAD ZONED M-1
Requests: where will the handicap ramp be located; rationale behind the
850 SF minimum for a food establishment in the M-1 zone; applicant does
not propose to serve hot food, what will he do if people ask for hot
food; applicant evaluate number of customers per day, are 20 per day
enough to make a profit; is applicant aware of signage limitations,
this is not a restaurant and is incidental to employees in the area.
Item set for public hearing April 26, 1993.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
6. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A TWO STORY MASTER BATH AND GARAGE
ADDITION AT 2231 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed
details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
CP confirmed this is a side setback variance for both floors. A
Commissioner noted setback will be less than 3' if approved per the
plans submitted, would it be a problem if a lesser setback was
approved? CA advised the public notice was adequate. CP stated if
wall is 3' from property line no windows are allowed and one hour
construction is required.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Chuck Pietro, applicant and
resident, was present. He said their intent was to line up the new
wall with the existing wall, they thought 2.91' was close enough to 31,
offsetting the wall to match 3' would look like a mistake; there are no
windows in the addition on that side. He submitted a letter in support
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 3
from the neighbor adjacent to the wall with the exception. There were
no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: have no problem with this request, it is a minor
addition, but suggested conditions 11 and 13 are inconsistent, would
like to reword condition 13 and make clear it is a straight extension
of the wall; if the wall is offset construction costs will increase,
think Fire Department can get through with slightly under 31.
C. Ellis moved for approval of this side setback variance with the
following conditions (suggested condition 12 amended and suggested
condition 13 deleted): (1) that the addition as built shall conform to
the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March
17, •19.93 Sheet T-1 Topographic Map and Boundary Survey, Sheet 1 -
Proposed Floor Plan, Sheet 2 - Existing Elevations, Sheet 3 - Existing
Floor Plan and Sheet 4 - Proposed Elevations; (2) that the wall can
extend within 3' as shown on the plans date stamped March 17, 1993; 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. Kelly.
During further discussion Fire Marshal said he had no concerns. A
Commissioner commented there was justification for the variance because
of property lines angling in on both sides, not certain 2" one way or
the other would make a difference but a minimum of 3' is visually
important, otherwise the house could look overbuilt.
Motion was approved 4-2 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Jacobs
voting no, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR NO COVERED PARKING STALL AT 9 WINCHESTER
PLACE ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Four
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission/staff discussion: condition #2 would ensure that no
structure could extend or encroach into the 9' x 34' driveway area, the
uncovered driveway will remain available for off-street parking and
vehicle storage; Winchester Place is an older street built to a
narrower street width standard, Fire Marshal advised fire trucks can
maneuver on this street, typically they back in; existing garage is 10'
wide.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. John Reed, applicant and property
owner, was present. He advised his driveway is longer than others on
the street, garage is too small and probably has never been used for
parking, it contains his water heater, washer and dryer; the kitchen is
very small, hardly room for two people; only one person on this cul-de-
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 4
sac uses his garage for parking; applicant has talked to his neighbors,
they do not object to his proposal; he',parks his own car in his
driveway; on -street parking is not a problem, this is a substandard
area. Applicant did not know why the 7' x 20' landlocked strip at the
rear was created, he bought the property with it and.he has title to
this area.
The possibility of putting in a carport to provide the one required
covered parking space was discussed; applicant said he has never parked
in the garage, he could put in a carport but thought it would be
ridiculous. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission/staff discussion: it is an unusual lot located on an unusual
street but have never voted for no required parking in the R-1 zone,
would like to see alternatives and be able to allow applicant's request
while providing covered parking. CP advised the 7' x 20' area in the
rear was included in lot coverage calculations, a Commissioner noted if
applicant added a carport it would increase lot coverage by
approximately that amount.
Further Commission comment: have lived in this area and it has real on -
street parking problems, am concerned when a property owner says he
doesn't and won't use a garage, this takes away what on-site parking
there is; can understand applicant's proposal, the only other
alternative would be to add more structure and more lot coverage; this
is an unusual property, a rare situation where Commission needs to be
flexible, this Planning Commission is not responsible for the existing
condition, possible alternatives might be extending the 17' garage
forward and adding a pantry to the kitchen or he could extend the
kitchen to the decked area in back, would be more comfortable with
either of these as opposed to taking out the only covered parking.
Would echo those thoughts, it is a small lot but do not want to give up
the one covered parking space, kitchen could be redesigned, perhaps
allow more lot coverage.
C. Jacobs stated she would like to deny the application and ask for a
redesign, perhaps deny without prejudice. After discussion on
procedure, she moved to deny the parking variance with a waiver of
additional fees should the applicant come back to the Commission with
a revised request within 90 days. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan.
The Chair determined it was the intention of the maker of the motion
and seconder that the garage be made a usable parking space, removing
the water heater, washer and dryer from that space, and applicant be
allowed to come back for a lot coverage variance.
Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 5
5. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A BILLIARD CLUB AT
321-333 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA B
Reference staff report, 4/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe
summarized the request and changes to the project since the March 22
study meeting. She discussed staff comments, entertainment permit
required from City Council, study meeting questions, required findings.
A letter (April 5, 1993) from applicant's architect received after
preparation of staff report was noted. Eight conditions were suggested
for consideration at the public hearing.
C. Kelly advised he would abstain from discussion and voting.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: when are peak hours of operation
for this business; applicant's estimate of people on site at any one
time seems high if this estimate is for the entire day, not just 6:00
P.M. to 2:00 A.M.; CE's requirement that the four parcels be merged is
included in the suggested conditions. CA advised Commission can
address/make recommendation to City Council regarding impact,
particularly on parking, if tournaments are held; security concerns can
be addressed by Commission and/or in the entertainment permit. CP
discussed parking required for auto related uses on this site, a two
space parking variance might be required, not a large one.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Shawn Newman, architect for the -
project, addressed Commission and illustrated his remarks with
drawings: the four properties will be merged; he described layout of
the interior of the buildings, existing paved vacant parcel in the back
will be striped and used for parking and disabled person parking with
rear access to the building; existing roll -up door to Lorton will be
eliminated and all existing curb cuts abandoned, as a result they will
add a loading zone or one more on -street parking space on Lorton; there
will be 14 conforming self park spaces on site.
The project will be an elegant billiard club with a comfortable and
relaxing atmosphere, there will only be smoking in the bar area. They
will use a part of the existing building area to add parking spaces.
Regarding parking calculations, city used two parking spaces per table,
applicant's figure of 1.5 per table is .based on a national study by the
billiard association; maximum use of the site will be from 6:00 P.M. to
2:00 A.M. with 28% occupancy at other times. They are offering valet
parking to improve the parking situation, will have self parking from
11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and change to valet at 6:00 P.M. After 6:00
P.M. the meters no longer operate and public lots are not as occupied.
They hope to add to improvements being made in this redeveloped area,
the property owner wants to contribute to the growth of this district,
if a parking variance is not granted future improvement of the site
will not be possible since all uses require additional parking.
Architect closed his remarks with more drawings of the interior design
and noted the existing URM building is the original city hall.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 6
Stanley Travers, applicant and developer, distributed visuals of
similar upscale billiard clubs and noted 33% of all participants are
female, photos taken last Friday and Saturday night of adjacent parking
lots at approximately 9:00-10:00 P.M., visual of what the private rooms
will look like, reception area, grand staircase; one member of the
staff will cater to the people in the private suites. There are
approximately 4,000 upscale billiard clubs across the country; managers
of this club will be owners and on-site managers; valets, doorman and
the maitre d' will screen customers and be able to deal with any
problems; there will be a dress code as well as a conduct code, house
rules will include no gambling, smoking only in a 300 SF area at the
bar. The club will have an English gentlemen's motif with a Ralph
Laurenish decor, large windows on the street will provide a good view
into the club. This project will increase the city's tax base, add
jobs in the community and upgrade the area.
Mr. Travers showed slides of two similar clubs in San Ramon and
Emeryville and stated superb maintenance will attract the right
clientele. He noted his background included eight years experience in
the food and beverage industry, he worked at Cheers in Boston, was in
charge of security and later assistant general manager when he left;
this establishment had 4,000 to 15,000 people visiting every day so he
is familiar with people and problems that might arise. He has met with
Burlingame's police chief about security issues.
During Commission/ applicant discussion Mr. Travers said he was told
parking was his main problem so parking inside and valet parking was
proposed; 15% of their business will be during the day, they will
provide valet parking from 11:00 A.M. to closing or from 6:00 P.M. to
closing whichever Commission wishes; video games are not planned; foos-
ball and shuffle board tables are planned, these would give people who
are waiting something to do other than drink; gambling is not something
they will condone or allow.
A Commissioner expressed concern about this business being open until
2:00 A.M. with an R-3 residential district so close, noise and people
going to their cars in the parking lot. Applicant commented they
wanted to be open the same hours as hotels or other businesses; no
minors under 21 will be allowed; the billiard club in Emeryville has 37
tables, it is located in a professional office area, there are 20-25
parking spaces visible at the curb; the San Ramon club is somewhat
smaller located in a small shopping plaza where businesses would be
closed during peak operating hours of the club.
The following member of the audience spoke. Joe Karp, 1209 Burlingame
Avenue: in his day he spent some time in pool halls, his only area of
concern is restaurant and food, has talked to the applicant and seen
applicant's March 26 letter, Commission asked if there would be
takeout, the answer should be no, applicant states they have no
intention of providing full food service on the premise, they will not
have normal restaurant type food, but they do talk about warming food;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 7
in today's world one can buy restaurant type food, put it in a
microwave and serve a full meal. Mr. Karp was concerned about
competition with existing restaurants in the area and urged a condition
be put on approval that only appetizer type foods be sold.
There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission/staff discussion/ comment: this site is in Sub Area B and not
subject to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area restaurant limitation,
a restaurant would be required to provide parking to code and need a
parking variance; if this request or any other similar proposal were
approved with a parking variance, when the business leaves the site
only another billiard business could come in and it would be required
to operate according to the approved conditions, the parking variance
is linked to the use and goes away with the use. Have a concern with
the parking variance, probably this will be a very successful business,
had the same concern with a proposed comedy theater at 247 California
Drive, this variance is much too large for the downtown area, 2:00 A.M.
is too late, will vote no.
Don't think auto repair is a proper use for that building, would like
to see something more upscale which will bring more people to the
Burlingame Avenue area; the parking variance seems too stringent, doubt
there will be 200-300 customers at one time; with applicant's estimates
71% usage after 6:00 P.M. plus employees would require a 22 space
parking variance after 9:00 P.M., taking these same f igures it would be
roughly a nine space variance before 6:00 P.M.; given the size of the
building and the fact that applicant is putting 1/4 of it into parking
it will be an excellent use, since it's on the fringe of the downtown
area can support this project, if it were in the middle might have a
concern.
Continued comment: voted against the comedy theater because of parking
and access concerns, this is a different situation, the theater group
would have arrived and departed all at onetime, this business will be
more spread out during the day and evening; if the site were limited to
auto use what kind of auto use would fit into the area; in this case
the variance doesn't go with the land, it goes with this use on that
land; can support the project with some changes to the conditions.
Have no problem with the concept of the application, the area is
changing, it is time to plan what should be done with it, this is an
upscale use, some upscale coffee shops have come in, this will be a
complement to the uses already in the area; the success of Stack's was
a surprise, this corner will have Stack's open during the day and next
door this project at night, time wise a very good mix.
Have mixed feelings about this proposal, like the concept but there are
residential areas nearby, with cars parked.afl over and the resultant
noise these neighbors will be upset, it's not the fault of the project
but the fault of its location; the other clubs mentioned by the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 8
applicant were located in a shopping mall and an office area, not in
residential, would feel more comfortable if this were located in
Burlingame Plaza which has a well lighted parking lot which is not used
at night. Do not know how many parking spaces will be on site or
number of pool tables, plans and statements made this evening are at
variance, do not have a true representation on paper as to what
applicant wants to do; everyone has his best case/worst case, the
city's best is more -parking.
The Chair advised the applicant and audience that it takes four
affirmative votes to pass a motion, he noted there is one Commissioner
absent and another who will abstain on this item. A Commissioner
discussed his suggested revisions/additions to some of the conditions:
tighten up condition 14, stating exact times of peak hours; do not
allow video games, foos-ball or shuffle board, if going to have an
upscale billiard operation it should be upscale billiards. Another
Commissioner thought foos-ball (a soccer table) and table top shuffle
board would be harmless and should be allowed. Regarding the food
issue, food would be an attractive nuisance to the high school
students, allow only appetizer/snack type food.
C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permit and parking
variance for a billiard club 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 26, 1993 Sheet 1 and Sheet
6, and March 11, 1993 Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 (note that the interior
clear dimension required for the parking shown on Sheet 6 stalls
numbered 1 through 7 shall be 64'-0" for the seven stalls, with a 16'
access door); (2) that there shall be 14 parking stalls on site to code
dimension, 7 interior stalls and 7 exterior stalls; (3) that the
conditions of the City Engineer's April 1, 1993 memo shall be met; (4)
that the billiard club shall be open no earlier than 11:00 A.M. and no
later than 2:00 A.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of fourteen
(14) employees on site at any one time; (5) that the valet parking
shall be available for use during peak times, 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
and 6:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M (closing), and that there shall be no fee
charged for valet parking; parking shall not be leased separately to
any off-site use and no portion of the parking lot or interior parking
garage shall be converted to any other use than parking; (6) that the
applicant shall obtain an entertainment permit from the City Council;
(7) that the proposed valet parking loading area along California Drive
shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission with City Council concurrence; (8) that the property owner
shall be responsible to purchase, and maintain, and regularly empty
standard city trash receptacles as needed at the front door on
California Drive and along Lorton Avenue at the exit from the site, or
at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (9)
that there shall be 25 pool tables on site and no video or arcade type
games shall be allowed; food service shall be limited to appetizers;
and (10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 9
Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of
Burlingame.
Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Maker of the motion noted Commission
recommends that in its action on the entertainment- permit Council
require an additional permit for tournaments/demonstrations and if
there is a need for more security people that this be allowed.
Motion was approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C.
Kelly abstaining, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:50 P.M., reconvene 10:00 P.M.
8. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AT 2760 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/12/93, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed
details of the request, required findings. Five conditions were
suggested 'for consideration at the public hearing. Two letters
received after preparation of the staff report were noted: from Kay Yew
Koh, 2755 Summit Drive (March 29, 1993) discussing -his concerns and
from Li-Hsien Mao, property owner (April 2, 11993).
Commission had questions about fruit trees and lot coverage figures
which staff suggested be referred to the architect at the public
hearing; there was a concern about the slope of the driveway.
Responding to a question, CA advised the view ordinance does not apply
to fences, however, if Commission can find some connection to view
fence height could be conditioned.
Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. James Chu, architect and
applicant, was present. He said they are not going to remove the fruit
trees, they will submit a driveway profile drawn by a licensed
surveyor, will work with the neighbor to put the fence back to its
existing height; the grades marked on the drawing were determined by a
licensed surveyor; finished roof ridge elevation will be 510.3' for the
new house, existing house is 5091, existing ridge -is 2'-3' lower than
proposed if one removes the parapet wall which screens the flat portion
of the roof. Architect said they would remove the 2.5' parapet if that
is an issue and. change the roof slope from 5:12 to 4:12. The story
poles indicate the height of the flat roof, not height of the screening
parapet proposed.
A Commissioner had a concern about view of the people who live to the
side on Summit, the seating area off the master bedroom of the proposed
house was a particular view obstruction for them, could it be pulled
back; architect said it was possible but it was not for him to decide,
the reason it was put in that location was it has the best view for the
people in the new house; there is no way one can design a house that
would not partially block a neighbor's view, he felt the property owner
had his rights also and pointed out they have not gone to a second
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 10
floor; they are willing to make minor changes to the roof but it won't
be the exact height of the existing roof, they are willing to reduce
the highest point of the roof to 524.9' which is 2.5' less by removing
the screening parapet wall.
There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in
opposition. Kay -Yew Koh, 2755 Summit Drive (neighbor to the left): he
did not think anyone who builds a new home should do so at the expense
of his neighbors, property owner of this lot will not occupy this home;
he was concerned about the northwest section to the rear, seating area
at the rear of the master bedroom will reduce and obstruct his bay
view; applicant can still enjoy a bay view with big windows from the
master bedroom without extending to the sitting room area. Mr. Koh's
other concern was the new 6' high fence proposed around the property,
current fence is 6' to the middle of the lot, then drops to 4' from the
middle to the end, this makes all the difference, the additional 2'
will block his view; existing fence is covered with ivy, it will take
two years to replace that. Mr. Koh asked Commission to modify the
design of the new building with elimination of the seating area at the
rear of the master bedroom and retention of the existing fence.
Catherine Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive (neighbor on the southwest
side): she supported Mr. Koh's statement that his view would be
obstructed with this new home; a new house on the site will be an
improvement but not at the expense of neighbors' views; she requested
Commission uphold the view ordinance and not allow obstruction of any
view. Terry McAloon, 2759 Burlingview Drive (across the street): they
cannot determine what the roof line will be and are at the point where
there is no margin of error, another foot or two would take the view
they now have; he asked for better markings to indicate the effect on
his view.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion/ comment: understand from the CA that if height of
the fence is made a condition of approval of the hillside area
construction permit Commission needs to link the two, Mr. Koh is right,
if the fence were raised it would obstruct his view; if, the seating
area off the master bedroom is cut off it will increase Mr. Koh's view;
concerned about the view from across the street, Mrs. McAloon doesn't
want to lose her view of the lights of the city, it is a narrow band
but she will lose that view, she needs some story poles put up
correctly to actually tell how -she will be affected. Cannot vote on
this application when the poles do not tell the story, would like to
continue the item, get story poles in place accurately and have an
accurate reference for the elevation of the existing ridge of the
house.
C. Deal moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of April
26, 1993 with erection of new story poles giving an accurate
10
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993
Page 11
representation of the ridge of the new house and its impact on the
views of Mr. Koh and Mrs. McAloon, elevation of the proposed roofs to
be better delineated and the outline of the rear extension including
the sitting area off the master bedroom to be clearly defined with
poles and ribbon or other visible materials. Motion was seconded by C.
Galligan.
Commissioner comment: applicant has said they are willing to reduce the
height, would rather they demonstrate and come back with the elevation
they are proposing.
Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Graham absent.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- March 29, 1993 -letter from Mark Stuberg, 522 Almer Road #l,
expressing specific concern about a condominium project at 518
Almer Road and overbuilding in general.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 7, 1993 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael F. Galligan
Secretary