Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.08.23MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 23, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the August 23, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Vistica and Coffey Absent: Commissioner Luzuriaga Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry .Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Planner, Ruben Hurin MINUTES The minutes of the August 4, 1999 special meeting and August 9, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The minutes of the July 12 and 26, 1999 meetings were corrected to show staff present. riPPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. It was noted for the record that Item #11, is a revision to Title 25, the Zoning Code of the City of Burlingame. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 17 VALDIVIA COURT, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT S. & JENNIFER K. MORSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and asked the Commissioners for questions: there is a note on the site plan which indicates that the rain water leader from the roof terminates through the creek at the direction of the Public Works Department, does this water flow through a channel or just over the landscaping. There were no further questions and this item was set for public hearing on the consent calendar at the September 13,1999, meeting. 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 APPLICATION FOR SECOND -STORY SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1451 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN 3RMANNSSON. APPLICANT AND PHILIP KAHN AND MARILYN ELPERIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and asked the Commissioners for questions: agree with the design reviewer that there are a variety of windows on this house, why do they need to be different; there would be more privacy on the deck if the open railing were changed to a solid wall; there are several different plates in the second story but the height is called out for only one at 31.29 feet, all the plate heights should be demensioned; the roof plan appears to have an awkward connection between the gable end at the front and the place it connects, to the second floor roof where the skylight is, this should be addressed; also plate heights on first floor should be corrected, they should be 8'-1" not 8'-0"; the proposed deck is 7' x 12', how many people does the applicant think will be using it at one time, because it could affect the neighbor's privacy since people on the deck will be able to see into the neighbor's yards. There were no further questions. The item was set for public hearing on the consent calendar at the September 13, 1999 meeting. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 12-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 1237-1241 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND LAP -KIT AND CHO-RAE CHEUNG, PROPERTY OWNERS) A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP P Monroe briefly reviewed the staff report and asked the Commissioners for questions: this project proposes a merger of two lots which will provide for a large building, how will the: project fit the character of the neighborhood, please identify other merged lots on the block and in the area; why is merging these lots good for the neighborhood; there appears to be an 84 foot clear span in the garage, will the applicant find that they need to add columns in the future, this could affect the parking layout; provide only one guest parking space in an area where there is a very high demand for parking on the street, can more guest parking be provided; the plans do not provide for a trash area, there is no landscape plan so cannot see if the common open space is useable and a benefit to the project; will a security gate be provided at the entrance to the garage, and if so how will the guest parking be accessed; add landscape plan; very concerned about the siting of the structure on the merged lots; concerned about the size of the structure; could the commission be provided with information on the height of the adjacent buildings; where is the disabled accessible parking space located; there is not much space for storage in this building, will there be bicycle racks in the garage; not as concerned about the lot merger as about the bulk of the building, can it be made to look smaller; building seems to be designed to the maximum of height, lot coverage, mass, no other three story building on the block, would it substantially degrade the neighborhood, must be answered for the environmental document; could more guest parking be added if project were designed to a uni-stall standard; would like to see a storage area for each unit. The item was set for public; hearing on September 13, 1999, providing all the information is available in time for preparation of the staff report. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO, BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON VtMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR ACTIONIS REQUESTED BYTHE APPLICANT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ' A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY rIOUSE AT 1353 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, PPLICANT AND OTTO MILLER. PROPERTY OWNER) APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR REAL ESTATE USE (TITLE COMPANY) AT 1129 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, APPLICANT AND LAMANET FAMILY TRUST. PROPERTY OWNER) and APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR TWO NEW SECONDARY FRONTAGE SIGNS LOCATED ABOVE THE FOURTH FLOOR AT 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (STEVE PETERSON, AD ART SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND DESIGN _EVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1624 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1. (KRZYSZTOF KUJAT & JOSEPH FILMUS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 8.23.99, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the staff report and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commission. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. The project applicant, Robert Grewer, architect for the property owner, spoke noting that he had articulated the second floor over the attached garage to soften the impact on the adjacent neighbor; the master bedroom and bathroom were centered over the existing house with the stairwell set back 17' from the westerly side property line and the master bedroom set back 22' from the easterly side property line; in previous plans client asked him to look at the least expensive way to build the second story addition, architect is doing what the client asked him to do; now needs to put additional posts through the building which will increase construction costs. Commission Comment: much better project; concerned with two sloped roofs joined together with a flat roof; stairs coming up does not warrant a sloped roof since this area only contains a stairway:, Commissioner asked if a flat roof is required, no; Commissioner suggested that a condition be added that a hip roof shall be added over the stairway on the second floor, this will help reduce costs and problems caused by potential roof drainage problems, applicant agreed to the suggestion. -,msztof Kujat, property owner, lives in San Francisco, working as a plumber in Burlingame and family fell in love with the city; tried to buy a house in Burlingame, found this house one year ago; paid $50,000 over the asking price; since finances are tied to business, the business partner co -signed and became a co-owner; had architect draw plans City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 which would conform to other houses on the block; followed all city guidelines including design review; other houses neighborhood have had second story additions, second story addition across the street in progress; 15 of 32 uses on both sides of the street have second stories visible from the street; views are not an issue since the house sits on a flat property; having accepted all of the suggestions from the design reviewer and being placed on the consent calendar, thought that he did all he could to comply with the rules; neighbor's attorney objected to the project at the first meeting, stunned since neighbors had not spoken or written to them; project was denied without prejudice with direction to redesign the plans to lessen the impact on the neighbor; asked the realtor to contact neighbors and arrange a meeting to get direction from neighbors; neighbor said he no longerhad an objection to the project and that there was no need for a meeting, only asked that the shed be removed; property owner still asked architect to make changes suggested by Commission which would lessen any impact on that neighbor; same neighbor appeared again, and objected to the project at the second meeting on the basis that his view was being blocked; project was denied with the suggestion that the bedroom be relocated to the middle of the house; how can view be an issue on a flat lot; only windows he has are blocked by the existing ground floor; relocation of bedroom will triple the construction cost; added delay costs thousands of dollars per month in mortgage payments; the third revision attempts to please the neighbor; request for approval of project, asking for permission to convert one of the worst houses on the block to a better one. Leonard Beatie, 1628 Coronado Way, spoke in opposition to project; prior owner would be upset because of comment current owner made regarding the property being run down; former owner maintained the property very well, now run down after renters moved in; house across the street is being remodeled, new shingles being added to the roof, there is no second story being added; 1624 Coronado was added on to 21/2years ago; not in agreement with this addition; would reconsider if applicant wants to only build over garage like all the other additions in the ^eighborhood; feel that this is a speculation project and house will be sold after addition; nice house until it was nted; wants to keep neighborhood as nice as it is. Herman Fitzgerald, attorney, 345 Lorton Avenue, suite 302, spoke in apposition representing Mr. Beatie and several neighbors; noted that he was impressed with the manner the Commission has handled this project; concern with granting a variance; there is still a legal problem with making findings in regards to exceptional circumstances on the property and granting a variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unreasonable hardship; no legal way to make those findings; can't view in an abstract manner; should view request in conjunction with others in the neighborhood; originally built as two bedroom single family dwelling, can be used that way; ask that the Commission consider the law and use common sense. Krzsztof Kujat, property owner, spoke in rebuttal to comments made by adjacent neighbor and attorney; acknowledged that currently the house is not maintained, is low on finances while planning for the addition; friend rents the house now to help make the financing work, doesn't see anything wrong with this, can cut grass to improve appearance, but feels this is not a reason to deny request; may not understand legalities stated by the attorney; does not understand why variance cannot be granted now when variances were granted in the 1950's. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: project would have been processed quickly if the addition did not impact the neighbor; original application slowed things down; there are still inaccuracies on the plans, still have problems with the roof •-td how it relates to the building elevations; design review is a recommendation only, doesn't always cover some _sues the Commission might have; this has been a long process, want to make sure house will fit in the neighborhood; most concerns have been addressed with the exception of the flat roof over the stairway; has reduced the bulk of the vertical wall along the side property line, improved the roof plans and articulated the second floor 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Augur 23, 1999 wall; illustrates that the design review process can be successful; compromise between the applicant and the adjacent neighbor; this is a more friendly project to the left of the house; regarding the hardship on the site, the respect given the views from adjacent houses limits the area where a second story addition can be placed. C. Vistica moved approval of the project amending a condition concerning the roof slope, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 11, 1999, sheets 1-3, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that a hip roof shall be added over the stairway on the second floor; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the requirements of the City Engineer's March 24, 1999 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Coffey called for a voice call vote on the motion, by resolution, with amended conditions. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2847 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JERRY LANG KAMMERER APPLICANT AND MARY AND NEIL COTTER, PROPERTY OWNERS) .-ference staff report, 8.23.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted that some of the items identified in the design reviewer's conditions have been addressed on the plans which were distributed with the staff report. Commission should discuss these changes with the applicant or his architect. Commission asked if this item had been scheduled for study, no normally would have considered this directly for consent calendar except for the nature of the conditions recommended by the design reviewer which require commission discretion. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Jerry Langkammerer, the architect represented the project. He discussed how the design review process had worked noting that the reviewer had notified him of the changes and he had modified the plans to address them and submitted them for the Commission to review for this action tonight. He thought that the design reviewer's memo and his plan revisions had crossed one another, the plans reflect the requested changes, a communication problem. He noted regarding the plans That he made the bathroom window wider, he made the skylights flat and extended the roof to screen them from the neighbor so that they could not be seen from across the street, on the trim issue, there is no trim on the current windows, he proposed to add trim on the new windows, now he will add trim on all windows like The trim shown on the front windows; they are trying to keep the impact on the neighborhood to a minimum, the owners have four children and need five bedrooms, their house in San Francisco burned and they have been in a hurry to relocate, they do not want any conflict with their neighbors, They believe That the neighbors are in favor. Commissioners asked: see fire place on one elevation but no chimney on the second floor, That fire place will be abandoned and a new one installed in the family room; looking at the roof, why carry The second story continuing with the first story, changed the roof in response to The 'sign reviewer's suggestion. Tony Saba, 2901 Arguello, neighbor wanted to know if there would be a window placed in the flat wall on the second story on the west side next to his house; architect responded that this wall was placed there to make the hip 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 at the bedroom work, the bed will be placed against this wall and no window will be placed there, wall is 6 feet tall; pan the commission guarantee that there will never be a window placed there, applicant said he would not put a ,ndow there. There were no further questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Dreiling moved for approval of this design review, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report noting that this is a low slung ranch house, very hard to put a second story on, am entirely satisfied with this approach, very considerate of neighbor; applicant followed the process, did their homework and that reason to action so quickly, did a good job for the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. :- Comment on the motion: regarding compliance with the requirements of the Hillside Area construction permit, made a site visit and neighbors talked to had no problem, the height of the building will only increase 4.5 feet, but key is if the neighbors were concerned about view loss, they were noticed and did not respond. C. Vistica moved to amend the motion to delete condition 2 in the conditions included in the staff report: since the items referred to were already included in the plans which would be approved with the plans. C. Dreiling maker of the motion and C. Keighran, the second, agreed. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review and hillside area construction permits for a first and second story addition, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 16, 1999, sheets 1 through 6, except that the window trim as shown on the front. elevation shall be add to all the windows on all elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height ^r pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 19, 1999, memo shall .; met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 409 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JD & ASSOCIATES APPLICANT AND JACK & EILEEN EASTERBROOK, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant which had exceeded $250 in the past year and therefore would abstain from the discussion and vote on this item. C. Deal stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report, 8.23.99, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff by the commission. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. John Easterbrook, the property owner, came forward. He noted that he would be glad to answer any questions. There were no questions and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues moved approval of the proposed project, by resolution, noting that it was consistent with the design guidelines, with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the "tanning Department and date stamped August 18, 1999, Sheets 1 through 5; 2) that any changes to the size or -,ivelope of the second floor which would include adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, or changing the size and location of the windows, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 Engineer's June 21, 1999, memo shall be met; and 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. ie motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review for this first and second story addition. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent, C. Deal abstaining) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Deal returned to the dais. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1300 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B.. (CONDON'S RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND KARP COMPANIES. PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 8.23.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that the days of the week in which this business operates were unclear in from the staff report, good to follow up with applicant; how would the proposed new regulations affect this business, they are located in Subarea B and the use would require a conditional use permit. There were no more questions from the Commission. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Teresita Condon, business owner at 1300 Howard, noted that the business was open Tuesday through Sunday, she also clarified the hours for dining. Tuesday and Wednesday they -re open 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. Commissioner asked if it would be easier have the hours of operation be more general reflecting the earliest and latest times any day of the week when the business is open, yes; seems to be a problem with the number of customers shown on the Commercial Application form, problem is that do not have a consistent number of customers now, wish to add take out to improve these numbers, goal over all is at least a 30 % increase in business and make the number of meals served more consistent. Feel that this new concept of customers ordering food by the Internet for pick up will be good for business. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved approval of the conditional use permit for take out food service by resolution amending the hours of operation to be 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Tuesday through Sunday in order to help energize this business; along with the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. This area is not as parking sensitive as some areas in the downtown, and should support a family run business. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. On the motion: can we amend the motion to allow this business more flexibility in order to encourage growth by amending the days of business activity to be 7 days a week. The maker of the motion and second agreed to amend the conditions to allow the business to be open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. Further comment: will we be protected from this site being used by a "fast food" restaurant in the future; CA Anderson commented that under current regulations there is no protection, any place where a take out service permit is granted could become a fast food type of food establishment; would the new ordinance apply here when adopted, under the new ordinance a conditional use permit would be required but because the site is in Subarea B, the regulation by classification does not apply; the projected number of meals suggested by the commercial application -could make a "fast food" restaurant infeasible at this location, can that be included in the conditions; CA Anderson _ated that a condition must be effective, could use ceramic plates and metal flatware as condition, these are requirements of full service food establishments and not items seen in "fast food" type businesses; can we reopen the public hearing to ask the applicant. Can the duration of this permit be limited to a given number of years; CA C:.y of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 Anderson noted yes, but that can be difficult administratively and also decreases the value of the business; would like to amend the permit so that the business would have to continue as a full service restaurant which is what it is now. The purpose of limiting the number of food establishments by type in Subarea A was to encourage them with -is restriction to go to Subarea B, now if add the classification requirements you are not consistent with that concept; goal is not to promote Howard Avenue as a "fast food" center; not see the reason to further limit this site, not useful for the business or property owner; all full service restaurants provide some take-out and because this is the case, a take-out permit is no longer required under the new regulations; it is possible that a subsequent tenant at this location might cause a problem to the city so it is reasonable to more tightly control the hours of operation as his requested. CA Anderson noted that there was a motion on the floor to reopen the hearing, if commission wants can amend the motion as well. Additional comment: if do not add criteria for full service restaurant then there is no limitation on applicant but also no limit on future fast food, would like to hear from applicant. Chairman Coffey reopened the public hearing. Ms. Condon commented that the current business had a commercial dishwasher, and served customers who ate on the site on ceramic plates with metal flatware; take out food would be served in paper or plastic containers with plastic flatware; she had no problem so long as the limitation did not affect that. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Coffey moved to amend the motion to approve to include a condition stating that the business shall be required to provide on site service on ceramic plates, with metal flatware and have a commercial dishwasher. C. Vistica the maker of the motion and C. Keighran, the second, agreed to the amendment. The following conditions were included in the motion to approve: 1) that the restaurant may not be open as a full food service business except airing the hours of 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week with no more than 6 employees on site at one time; 2) ...at the restaurant shall provide take out food service only during the hours in which full food service is allowed and shall provide such take out food service only from a counter no closer than 10 feet from any door or public right-of-way; 3) that this business shall not engage in any direct delivery of food prepared on this site to customers; and 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Coffey called for voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for take-out food service as amended. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 ZONING CODE REGULATION OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUBAREA A AND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA CP Monroe presented a summary of the history of the regulation of food establishments in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the Broadway Commercial Area, including the work of the Food Establishment subcommittee of the Planning Commission, the survey of existing businesses, and the property owner and merchant survey participation. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to establish a mechanism for keeping both the number and "mix" of food serving businesses constant in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area and in the Broadway commercial area. The changes to the code include: creation of four classifications for the existing food establishments and revised definitions necessary to enact these classifications; changes to the current limitation on food establishments which eliminate the take-out food service permit, make all food establishments conditional uses in both commercial areas as well as in Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area; encourage the relocation f "fast food" businesses out of the two parking congested business districts; change the base number of food ,stablishments in each commercial area to fit the new definitions for such businesses; and require all food establishments to provide trash cans and litter control along the business streets. Any food establishment located within these 2 districts which would like to provide a food delivery service would still need a conditional use permit for such a service. She 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 pointed out that tonight the public hearing was on the proposed changes to Title 25, the zoning code. If the Commission chose to find that the revisions were appropriate, they would not be forwarded to the City Council for action until the commission had held a hearing on the assignment of a classification to each existing food establishment in each of the :as. The commission pointed out that in the staff report there was an error and that the refined definition of food establishment included all seating, indoor and out door, that was on the premise of the business. There were no other questions or comments from the Commissioners. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Robert McGonical, owner of The Cakery, a bakery on Burlingame Avenue, spoke. He noted that the passage of this revision to the code was a matter of survival to him, he is crow a take out food service business and cannot have tables and chairs on site for his customers, he does not want to have another summer of turning away people; under this new ordinance he could have a few tables and chairs, does not intend to grow into a huge operation; feels that restaurants regulate themselves between the choice of the customers and the price of rents; feels that the ordinance is well planned, urged the Commission to move it forward to the City Council, feels that even though they are not here at the hearing, the people are behind this regulation. Bruce Kirkbride, 1229 Burlingame Avenue, also commented that he was concerned that the regulations on food establishments not be loosened up, as a property owner he would not like to see every store on Burlingame Avenue become a restaurant. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues moved to approve the proposed revisions to Title 25, the zoning ordinance, to enact revisions to the food establishment regulations in Subarea A and the Broadway commercial areas and recommend the ordinance revisions to the City Council for action. C. Deal seconded the motion. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion passed on ,a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent) vote. It was noted that the public hearing on the classification assignments to each affected business would be set for the mmission's next meeting on September 13, 1999. The action would not go forward to the City Council for action until the commission had completed both public hearings. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of August 16, 1999. CP Monroe reported on the Council Meeting of August 16,1999. She noted that the council had directed the commission to rehear the proposed regulations, with a full commission present, for extending design review to new single story houses and some first floor additions. Procedures and requirements for public noticing and council action were reviewed. Commissioners agreed that if staff found that all the commissioner's could participate at the meeting of September 13, the hearing should be noticed for that date. CA Anderson noted that if a commissioner were unable to attend an alternative might be to submit written comments which could be included in the record of the hearing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Secretary MINUTES8.23