Loading...
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