Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1995.08.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 August 14, 1995 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 14, 1995 by Chairman Jacobs. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Chairman Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner; Margaret Monroe, City Attorney; Jerry Coleman, Associate Engineer; Philip Monaghan, and Assistant Fire Chief; Ken Musso MINUTES - The minutes of the July 24, 1995 Planning Commission meeting p. 4, para. 1, was amended to read: "The applicant war -s advised that 5 of 7 Commission members would be present for the presentation and vote on this application. " The minutes were then approved as corrected. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AT 2609 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 (DEAN NICHOLSON, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report 8.11.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Two letters, one from Carmen & Gerald Huddleston, 1330 Benita Avenue, and the second from Timothy Regan, 1351 Montero Avenue were noted for the record. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. Nicholson, the applicant, was present. The commission asked when the project design began and why, when the preliminary plan was complete, they did not check with the city to see if the design met the current codes. Mr. Geurse, the architect/designer, was -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 not present. Mr. Nicholson stated he was inexperienced and did not know why the architect had not checked. The actual project design began in February, 1993 and has been ongoing with several small modifications since that time. At the time he was not sure whether he should start at the city or federal level. He noted if the plans changed then he would have to go back through the SBA approval process. Mr. Regan, 1351 Montero Avenue and Norma O'Connor, 2615 Hillside Drive spoke in opposition to the project. They found the project to be overwhelming totally, their lot is 10' below and house is at max 30' and too big (140 % increase over structures on lot before the earthquake) and felt that it would be detrimental to their property since it would affect both the elements of light and privacy. If the plans do not meet code, the variance should be denied. Concern was expressed about the stability of the hill; Fed did not require them to review soils stability, side setbacks were met since he followed the lines of the original one story house. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that it is unfortunate the design got so far along without city review but since financial problems do not constitute a finding there are no findings for a 432 SF variance and then made a motion to deny this application for a FAR variance. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Commission discussed the application and the motion, noting the date of the application falls under the old ordinance which requires only a single car garage, for new construction so size could be reduced by 200 SF. It was noted that it takes a very long time to deal with FEMA but the problems with the design which concern the neighbors could have been worked out in the 6 years if they had been contacted; now you need to get together and discuss the project's effects; feel project should address redesign to reduce FAR to required incorporating neighbors concerns, and should be able to retain ability to have a one car garage with a new 4 bedroom house, suggest a denial without prejudice to allow applicant to work with his neighbors and FEMA. The maker of the motion and his second agreed to amend the motion to deny this application, without prejudice, asking that the applicant come back to the commission within a 90 day period and reduce FAR to code limits, and retain the right to a one car garage for this project. The motion to deny without prejudice passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTRACTOR'S OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD IN THE FRONT OF 1348 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 (LOUIS LaFLAMME, APPLICANT AND ASTRID WIK, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report 8.11.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. LaFlamme, 849 N. Humboldt Street, San Mateo, the applicant was present and discussed the arrangement of the gates. The purpose of the gates to screen -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 storage from public view was discussed along with placement of required parking. The need to place some landscaping in the 4.5' of city right-of-way between the sidewalk and property line was also noted. It was noted that a semi -trailer on site was being used for storage. It was noted that such use of a semi -trailer is illegal. CA indicated the illegal storage use will not remain on site. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan made a motion to deny without prejudice, and instructed the applicant to return to planning commission with an alternate application within 60 days. The application should show legal on site parking arranged with clear backup areas on-site so cars can exit on to Rollins Road in the forward direction, removal of the storage semi -trailer and some landscaping in front of the fence. Motion was seconded by C. Deal and passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. USE DETERMINATION FOR FOOD PROCESSING, PACKAGING AND SELLING AT RETAIL AND/OR WHOLESALE IN THE AREA ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. Reference staff report, 8.11.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, and Planning Department comments. Chm. Jacobs opened the discussion. Commissioners noted: manufacturing would include distribution to other points of sale of product made on site; in this case buy beer on-site to take home, no resale; would not find consistent with a bakery that made goods for distribution to whole chain even if it sold same goods from site; proposed do-it-yourself beer similar to a frame shop or stained glass shop which are retail uses; clearly the sale of home brew supplies is a retail use. Commission invited representatives of do-it-yourself brewing, Scott Schadlich, President, Brew City, 2198 Filbert Street, San Francisco and Gary Cohn, representing Mr. Hack were present to explain the project to the commission and answer questions. They noted people bring in their own food to snack on while waiting, service is generally by appointment, especially bottling. The activity is geared more toward entertainment and so they are busiest in the evenings and on week -ends. Some customers drink some of the beer they have made on site before they leave, but since they don't have much space they encourage them to move on; they have one to two deliveries a week by an 18 wheeler semi -truck and grains and hops are delivered more frequently but in a pickup truck; all delivery schedules are flexible and come at off hours. Palo Alto called the use a retail personal service and allowed it as a permitted use on University Avenue. At their site in San Francisco odor has not been a problem, they produce 1/20 to 1/50 of the amount of beer as the micro brewery on Lorton. They would have a vent from the fermentation vats to the roof. The applicant noted that at capacity there would be 4 employees, 24 people making beer, 8 people bottling beer, and 6 people waiting for a total of 42 people on-site. Customers generally stay on-site for 1-1/2 to 2 hours. They need a total of 2,600 SF to 3,500 SF of space. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 The commissioners asked on what items the customers paid sales tax; only the ingredients they purchased and the bottles. An average batch costs about $160. including $35 for bottles. They are not serving or selling alcohol, cannot serve beer or sell beer. Must be 21 to brew beer. Customer becomes brewer when they add the yeast to the mix. This is not a social club. They do not want people to hang out, they do not have space. Concern was expressed about the intensity of this use, the number of people on site. Commissioners discussed whether this use could be made a conditional use in C-1 and Subareas A and B, since the city would have no control over the intensity of the use. The CA noted that to make it a conditional use would require a code amendment since no similar conditional use exists. The hours would be 11:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. six days a week. They felt this business would be seen as retail vs. manufacturing activity, i.e., a frame shop or copy center. The first step of the process (brewing) takes 2 hours and the second step (bottling), which is done two weeks later, takes 1.5 hours, done preferably on an appointment basis. There is no space in the store that is now in operation for retail sale of home brewing kits, however, they would like to consider this possibility. Commission discussed the personal service aspect of this activity, i.e., beauty or barber shop. There have been no complaints about odor from neighbors in their current locations. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink noted the use, as described in planner's memo is appropriate as a suitable retail or personal service use in Zone C-1 (anywhere) with no subarea restrictions; he then moved approval of this determination. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and failed on a 3-4 (Cmrs. Deal, Galligan, Wellford and Jacobs dissenting) roll call vote. Some commissioners noted that their concern was over the potential intensity of such a use, 42 people on-site for up to 2 hours, which in terms of numbers is more like a food establishment. C. Galligan then moved to determine that the do-it-yourself microbrewery be considered as a suitable conditional use in the Cl, and Subarea A and B areas and that it be recommended to City council that they adopt the appropriate ordinances to make this possible. Motion was seconded by C. Key and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS Review of M-1 Committee proposal for revision to the M-1 regulations. Planning Commission identified those items of the proposed revision to the M-1 regulations they wished to discuss with the committee. The commission will begin their review of the proposed changes to the M-1 district regulations with the M-1 district review Committee, at the September 11, commission meeting. The In Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 Commission invited the committee to join with them in conference room A at the end of their regularly scheduled meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. I INM&14 -5- Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary