Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.09.13MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 13, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the September 13, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Planner, Ruben Hurin MINUTES August 23, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved as mailed. Commissioner Bojuds corrected the minutes of the Commission's Special Meeting on August 25, 1999, noting that he had commented under commissioner discussion that the applicant should prepare a phasing plan and that the conditions of approval should be tied as appropriate to the various phases of the project. The Commission acknowledged the amendment and the minutes of the Special Meeting on August 25, 1999, were approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted for the record that all materials were not received in time for study for Item #1, 2208 Hale Drive and Item #2, 1351 Montero Avenue, both will be rescheduled. The order of the agenda was them approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF A DETACHED ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 2208 HALE DRIVE ZONED R-1 (CARLOS & ROSEMARY RIVAS. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Staff did not receive the necessary materials in time for study session the item is rescheduled for study September 27, 1999, pending timely receipt of materials. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REORIENTATION OF TWO LOTS CREATED BY DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO NEW TWO- "TORY HOUSES ON THE RECONFIGURED LOTS, SPECIAL PERMIT :FOR HEIGHT FOR THE NEW -)USE ON LOT A AND HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THE NEW HOUSE ON LOT B AT 1351 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DENISE LAUGENSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND HEIGHT VARIANCE B. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR RECONFIGURATION OF TWO PARCELS Staff did not receive the necessary information in time for study session, the item is, rescheduled for study September 27, 1999, pending timely receipt of materials. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (NIMESH AMIN. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and took questions from the commission: how is this project compatible with the neighborhood, did not see any houses with the first floor 3 feet above grade in immediate area; also none of the houses in the area had 9 foot plate lines or as much second floor as this house has on second floor setback this far, the applicant should address these issues for compatibility; are the windows in the basement bedrooms large enough to meet the safety egress requirements, if not how will egress be addressed; is the city sewer line placed deep enough, will waste from the basement have to be pumped up to the sewer line; concerned about me problems on the plans which if not corrected will cause the applicant to have to return to the commission for second design review, these items include: fire place on the first floor but no chimney on the second, put note on plans; not sure about the type of windows (casement or sliders) show a typical notation on the plans; windows shown are all painted aluminum, neighboring houses all have painted wood, the proposed windows are very thin and will not look compatible with the neighboring ones; the southwest comer of bedroom number 2 extends beyond the living room, can it be supported as the drawing shows, the same applies to the northeast corner of bedroom number 1, how will it be held up and is there room for the beam; have you considered that there is no access to the rear yard from the first floor of the house (there is access from the basement); this house will be higher than any in the neighborhood because the lot slopes up to the rear and there are 9 foot plate lines, the 9 foot plate is not a problem except for the slope on the site; would be nice to show the floor line on the elevations so would not have to assume the plate heights; the exterior stairs are wider at the basement level than at the first floor level, if built this way some one will hit their head, need to correct; at the right side, rear elevation using a hip roof solution is awkward; projection at bath on second floor at the front does not fit, a gable end should be used; the roof and elevations over the garage do not agree on the east and north sides. Commissioner noted he would like to see information on the type of aluminum window, e.g. a window detail on the plans; the front of the house looks bare in terms of windows, appears to be more like the side of a structure, add windows to the front. There were no more comments from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing at the meeting of September 27, 1999, providing all the information can be given to staff in time. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1505 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (RICK PEDLEY, PEDLEY AND JOY ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ROGER :TERS JR.. PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: when look at the front of this house it has one poor trait, the existing extension on the second floor at the front, the addition mimics that problem on the 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 other side, a poor choice and places a lot of mass at the front of the house, do not care for the design; project shows stucco coated columns, could use some other material like poly -stone which looks like wood; agree about the front -'evation, most of the mass is at the front, the other elevations are more gentle; the two story bay windows atribute to the sense of mass, can they be re -dimensioned; bay windows not work too well need to reduce mass and connect visually first and second floor using something which will tie them together and unify them as a design feature; need a graphic detail of window and eave. There were no other questions from the Planning Commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on September 27, 1999, providing all the information can be given to the staff in time. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY ADDITION AT 1412 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. MARK AND JODI CAMPION, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)_ CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: addition looks as if it belongs to the house, feel that the solution applicant suggested for centering the window is fine; looked at the decks do not feel that they infringe on the neighbor; FAR number is so close to the maximum would like staff to double check the calculation; an attached garage is appropriate here; would like to know what the new windows will be, should note on the plans; house has a big FAR but also a lot of charm and nice design, windows in the office look odd since they are not centered over the garage, might add three windows and it would look better; is the shed dormer at the rear new, if it is new am concerned about using a shed roof at this location because there is a different roof shape at the front and rear of the structure, please address why chose not to have them match; small addition, hard to work out roof; big house visible from the street below and Hillside, couple of other big houses in the area, they have big trees to block view from street, could add a couple of trees to block the view at the rear where structure is exposed, please provide landscape information and variety of tree suggested. There were no other questions from the commission and the item was set "'r the consent calendar on September 27, 1999, providing all the information was submitted in time. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 782 SF ADDITION TO THE LOBBY OF AN EXISTING 90-ROOM HOTEL AT 1640 I3AYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (RICK BIZAR, APPLICANT AND VAGABOND INNS. PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: does the site meet the parking requirement for number on site, could they increase compact to 20% and provide some landscaping within the paved parking area to break up the asphalt as other hotels in the area do. There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing on the consent calendar on September 27, 1999. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - rTEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATEDISCUSSIONAND/OR ACI70NIS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MO770N TO ADOPT. Chairman Coffey introduced the consent calendar and asked if anyone in the audience would like to call any item off the calendar. There were no requests from the audience. He then asked if any commissioner would like to call an item off. C. Deal asked that 1451 Capuchin be removed so that the commission could look at the effect that the compliance with the declining height envelope had on the rear elevation. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from the vote on the project at 17 Valdivia Court because he had a business relationship with the applicant. Chairman Afey removed 1451 Capuchin from the consent calendar and called for a motion on the remaining item. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 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, "PPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS,) (26 NOTICED) and (Called up to Regular Calendar) 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 HERMANNSSON, APPLICANT AND PHILIP KAHN AND MARILYN ELPER1N, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED) C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff' report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR 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 HERMANNSSON, APPLICANT AND PHILIP KAHN AND MARILYN ELPERIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED) .:ommissioner Deal took this item off the consent calendar in order to discuss how the declining height envelope regulation affects the rear, elevation of the house particularly the window and ceiling height in the second floor bathroom. Reference staff report, 9.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department continents. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. John Hermannsson, architect, 1204 Middlefield Road, Suite E, stated he was unclear about the commissioner's comment about changing the plate height at the rear of the building; noted that the ceiling height slopes down towards a garden window adjacent to a tub in the bathroom. Commission Comment: it appears that the top of the window in the second floor bathroom is only 5'-8" from the floor; ceiling height in the bathroom might be as low as 6-4" from floor to ceiling, uncomfortable, suggested that the applicant apply for a declining height envelope variance so that the ceiling height in the second floor bathroom can be increased to 8 feet, felt that it would be an improvement to the project, the low ceiling height makes the addition look like an attached porch; would support the declining height variance request because of effect on architecture; would like to give the applicant the option to revise the plans, apply for a declining height envelope variance, and return to the Commission for review. Philip Kahn, property owner, 1451 Capuchino Avenue, appreciates the option the commission has provided; zmmented that designed the interior of the bathroom with consideration at lower plate, there is a counter in the low ceiling area; natural light into the bathroom is brought in from three sides; if the plate height is revised, roof pitch change which would affect the mass of the project. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Commission Comments: not clear on what the applicant would like to do; applicant would like to proceed with the prol-osed project and not apply for the declining height envelope variance. . Keighran moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 28, 1999, Sheets 1-5 and G-1 with a maximum roof ridge height of 20'-3" as measured from average top of curb (elevation 100.56' ); 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 2, 1999 memo shall be met; and 3) that this 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. Luzuriaga. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY, 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) (82 NOTICED) A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP ,tference staff report, 9.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed ,:iteria and Planning Department comments. Twenty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted for the record that Condition #30 be added stating: that the CC & Rs shall be submitted to the City Attorney and found to address his concerns before issuance of a Building Permit; Commissioner noted that he met with the applicant to discuss the project, reviewed concern in regards to the bulk of the building and why the lot merger was appropriate instead of two separate developments. There were no questions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Amir Shahmirza, applicant, Rollins Road, Millbrae, spoke noting that there are three 24" box size trees at the rear of the building as shown on the site plan; after the study meeting the exterior of the building was completely redesigned, the front elevation was broken up and segmented, the roof was revised in order to reduce the size; studied developing 2 lots with rental apartments, could build seven dwelling units on each lot, using 1245 Oak Grove Avenue as an example, for a total of 14 units on two lots; would prefer fewer units and individual ownership instead of rental apartments of each unit so that the property will be better maintained; all setbacks exceed the minimum zoning code requirements; building height was reduced by 1' and building depth reduced by 1' from 82' to 81'. Commission asked: site plan shows that the dimension from the front property line to the face of the building is 16-2", but staff report indicates that it is 16'-8" is it a problem from how it is measured; difference does not impact request since the minimum required front setback is 15' ; how does the reforestation ordinance apply to the project, trees would probably be planted in planters if the underground garage extends to the front property line; mass and bulk on front facade broken up well; large mature trees soften the facade, mature trees are shown on the front elevation but not on the site plan, ;asked because of garage where can they be placed, 24" Japanese Maple will not get very big, suggested planting large mature trees in front setback area to soften the front facade of the building; applicant agreed to add mature trees; requested comparison between the -oposed project on a merged lot and one on two lots, the applicant provided a comparison between a condominium Froject on a merged lot and two apartment buildings on two lots, not a fair comparison since no common open space is provided and a shared driveway joins the apartment buildings; example in applicants letter compares two apartment buildings without a common driveway, it is possible to build two apartment buildings on these two lots City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 with two separate driveways and laundry rooms removed on the first floor; more parking can be provided with no common open space, cannot make findings based on the comparison provided; concerned about front setback I-ndscaping, would like to see more mature vegetation to screen mass of building; how would deliveries to the site irk, applicant noted that during the day there is plenty of street parking available, parking becomes more congested in the evening; have a difficult time seeing landscaping over a concrete: slab, building height is based on slab at same elevation as finished floor, there is no room for dirt to be mounded, will you have retaining walls for the landscaping; applicant noted that the slab is one foot lower than finished floor, applicant noted have a landscape consultant for the project, have seen other projects with landscaping over slab, these are not construction drawings, final construction documents will be approved at time of building permit submittal; the garage has a 10' height clearance, would that be lost to accommodate the landscaping above the slab, applicant noted that the 10' clearance will not be lost, need to have the 10' clearance to provide room for plumbing and. ducts, does not want the floor to ceiling height in garage to be tight; what is the slope of the ramp to the garage; slope is 19.8 % at the steepest location, driveway slope complies with code requirements, civil engineer provided a profile of the driveway slope in the plans submitted. There were no further questions of the applicant. Davina Drabkin, 1224 Capuchino Avenue; Sean Doherty, 1251 Capuchino Avenue; John Taylor, 1233 Capuchin Avenue; Mr. Kaufmann, 1249 Capuchin Avenue, and Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue spoke noting that the parking is very tight, encouraged by the 24 on -site parking spaces and 3 addition guest parking spaces; concerned with campers and boats stored in the garage and second vehicle being parked on the street; request that language be added to the conditions to prohibit parking recreational vehicles in the garage; asked for the estimated listing price for the proposed units; has the last single family house on this side of the street, this is a very narrow street, replacing two single family houses and adding 12 families and 24 cars to a one-way street which is already full; have two small children; would like to request the Commission to not allow this number of units on a merged lot or two -)arate lots; asked for estimated time of construction, applicant responded 9 months to a year; there are large trucks ., ith people moving every other weekend; people drive the wrong way on this block; asked if there is an average number of residences per block in Burlingame, can staff provide estimate, feels this block would break the city record; own apartment building at 1233 Capuchin Avenue, is not opposed to the: project but is concerned with the sewer system along this street, his property sits at the low spot on the street, would like the city to fix the sewer problem along this street, calls the city 3 to 4 times a year to come out and unplug the sewer pipes, has not been fixed in 30 years; project will be adding 24 toilets to 250 toilets there now; concerned with Broadway shoppers and employees parking their cars along Capuchin all day long; the congestion will be increased by adding 12 additional units; street is narrow and not enough parking spaces; no 3-story buildings on this block, all 2-story now, 3-story is inappropriate; agree would like to see an evaluation based on condominiums if lots are not merged, difference in open space and size of building; if standard stalls are provided, how many units would be allowed since parking drives the number of dwelling units; traffic and parking study should be done; this would be the first 3-story building on the block which would stimulate more building exceeding 2 stories. Chairman Coffey asked applicant if he wished to respond. Amir Shahmirza, applicant, noted that he is a local builder; feels that this project would improve and enhance the neighborhood; built the project at 1404 El Camino Real, showed audience and Commission picture of the completed project. Commissioners asked: at what point is it economical to dig and have below grade parking, applicant noted that it is not feasible on a 50' wide single lot, would rather build two stories above at grade parking; is two stories above at grade possible, applicant noted that it would not be economical. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. City Attorney noted that prohibiting the storage of boats and campers in the garage can be addressed by condition and the CC&Rs, but cannot prohibit a truck with a camper shell on it from parking in the garage. Commission Comments: parking is congested, employees park there, this is a narrow street; will see more UPS delivery trucks; large trees will not grow in pots; building facade looks attractive, but the 1' lumps and segments 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 are superficial will not create enough shadow and it will still look'like a 3-story box; project will drastically change the character of the street, but this is the place for higher density residential uses a walk to Broadway; needs to be more compatible; merging lots is a good idea, provides more of a relief for the neighborhood; don't see a .pportable project; will have a negative change in the quality of life; concerned with parking, Capuchino Avenue during the day is busy; also concerned with deliveries to the site; would like to see more parking on site; there are no other buildings on the block with 3 stories above underground parking; can't compare 3-story buildings behind on El Camino Real to buildings on Capuchino Avenue; prefer to have a condominium built rather than apartments; agree with merging the lots; need to reduce the mass and bulk of the building; would like to see mature trees planted in the front setback area, need to document how it can be done; this is a big building for the neighborhood; planning of the building has some problems; architecture is better than previously proposed; concerned with how the landscaping will work; how will residents use the common area; problems with. garage layout and storage, access to storage areas in garage will be difficult when cars are parked in the corners adjacent to the storage areas; agrees with the use of unistalls; lot merger is a good idea; need to reduce the bulk; property zoned R-3, anticipate multi- family residential, prefer condominiums to apartments; concerned with articulation on the building, would like to see more articulation on the building facade to soften the appearance; some trees will grow to large mature trees in the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk; suggest tall shrubs along the sides and rear of the property and mature trees at the front to provide screening to lessen the impact on the neighbors; in favor of merging lots; Senior Engineer commented on sewer issue, Contribution to sewer system was worked out on Oak Grove Avenue, same used here in conditions, also last year the California Drive sewer intercepter project was completed, past problems should be resolved this winter; what is the possibility of neighborhood parking permits, CA noted that it becomes a burden on the property owners, enforcement problem for the police department, not enough parking provided when the original buildings in the neighborhood were built. 'ommission discussion continued: not ready to approve, suggests continuance; too much mass, prefer to see a two .,cory building or two stories above at grade parking; this lot is entitled to three stories; need to reduce the bulk of the building; providing unistall parking spaces is an advantage to the property since it increases the number of on - site parking spaces; would like to see the square footage of each dwelling unit:; minimum required setback is 15' for this side of the street, merging two lots, inappropriate to put all the bulk at the front minimum setback, suggest increasing the front setback. Commission discussion: should we continue this item. CA advised a denial without prejudice would be more appropriate since commission is not asking for slight modifications to the project. Would like to give the applicant direction; would like to see the applicant reduce the number of units or reconfigure the space within the building to reduce its size can look at atrium for example; living rooms are in the center of the units with no window and no wall to the exterior of the building, should add; underground garage should be pulled back from the front property line so that tall landscaping (trees) can be added at the front of the lot; could see partial 3rd story, so 2nd story line is dominant, suggest reducing the bulk; concerned with deliveries to the site, should provide area on -site to accommodate for delivery vehicles. . C. Deal then amended his motion to continue to a motion to deny without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPROVE CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNMENTS FOR FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BURLINGAMF AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUBAREA A AND BROADWAY COM'.MERCIAL AREA. 'ublic Hearing on Food Establishment Classifications in Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A ane Broadway Commercial Area r7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that in order to simplify the action on the revisions to the legislation on limitation to food establishments in Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial area, and on the Broadway commercial area the action was divided. The first hearing, held on August 27, 1999, was on the ordinance. .inning Commission's action was to recommend it to the City Council. The hearing this evening is on the Food Establishments by Type Tables for each regulated area (Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area and the Broadway commercial area). These tables are the implementing basis for the new regulations; they establish the number of food establishments in each area, the location of the food establishments, the seating area of each recognized establishment, and the classification of each. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to give the property owners and/or merchants of each business the opportunity to revise their classification and/or the existing attributes of their business. The commission will need to make a determination on each request and finalize the Food Establishment by Type Tables and then recommend them to the City Council for their consideration as a part of the new legislation. The Commissioners had no questions of staff. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. John Chimino, 7305 El Camino Real, representing the operators of the Tower Deli at 1184 Broadway presented their revised floor plan which showed 287 SF of seating area. He noted that this was different than the amount shown in the city survey because the owners had removed a deli case and replaced it with seating since the city's follow up survey was done this Spring. The change in the amount of seating area qualifies this business to be classified as a Specialty Food Shop, and they would like to apply for this designation. Commissioners asked if the plan provided showed the new tables and currently existing seating area, the applicant responded yes; CP Monroe noted that under the current code an operator can expand seating area within the premise but not the business premise without a conditional use permit. ..pike O'Leary of the Burlingame Smoke Shop at 1400 Burlingame Avenue, spoke. He noted that he is presently classified on the list as an incidental food sales business, which is not a food establishment. He would like to be classified as a limited food sales business which is a food establishment because with the change in national smoking habits, increase in discount magazine subscriptions, and accessibility of newspapers on the Internet, he needs to be able to be flexible in adjusting his product mix. When Bon Appetite left the Avenue the demand for snack food sales increased a lot, become a bigger proportion of his business. His shop is a landmark downtown, want to preserve it so not want to be placed in a category which might become a limitation in the future. Commissioners asked: what type of food specifically would you like to sell, he: noted; considered microwaveable sandwiches, ice cream, snack food you can get quickly along with your paper or magazine, whatever customers are asking for; what proportion of your total sales are food sales now, he noted he is thinking of potential, want to keep current product mix but want freedom to have whatever product mix I need to survive, it would not be 100 percent food. Mike Galligan, 724B Linden, issue here is classification, have no issue with Tower Deli request; history of Smoke Shop is important here, the history is the store had no food sales, came to the city and got take-out permit to have minor sales, coffee and prepackaged, pre -prepared foods; that is the concept of incidental food sales, prepackaged, pre -prepared food; specifically the Smoke Shop should not increase to a restaurant, if change request to limited food service will be changing this site to a restaurant; proprietor's request fits the current category, even if he sells 100 percent candy bars he is still incidental food sales. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. .,ommissioner discussion: can support change requested by Tower Deli, seating shown here is less than they had before the present owner added the extra deli case which has now been removed; agree that the Smoke Shop is incidental sales, understand what proprietor is requesting but he can increase the; sales of prepackaged items; could 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 he sell hot dogs; CA responded if it was a minor part of the business and had no seating; believe that the Smoke Shop has a lot of alternatives within the classification (incidental food sales) given, lots of prepackaged foods; if *Wade a Limited Food Service food establishment the criteria would limit the intensity of the food sales and could t become a food mall, we only contacted property owners and tenants selling food to give them a voice in the classification, he was contacted and he does not want to be limited to prepackaged food; his desire is to modify his business in the long term and he has the right to request and it should be granted, his business use is restricted by the definition, he needs flexibility, he's been a good member of the community and it will not hurt other businesses by granting this opportunity. C. Vistica moved that Tower Deli be shown on the Food Establishments by Type Table to have 287 square feet of seating area and a classification of Specialty Shop food establishment. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: This does not represent an operational or area change in this business; it has always been a specialty shop food establishment, and for that reason can support this motion. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to change the seating area size and classification of this business located at 1184 Broadway. The motion passed on a voice vote 7- 0. C. Luzuriaga noted that there was no seating in the Smoke Shop (1400 Burlingame Avenue) and that the provision of seating was what would trigger it becoming a restaurant, adding seating in the future would require a conditional use permit amendment, and for that reason would move to classify the Smoke Shop as a Limited Food Service with no seating. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. "-)mment on the motion: will support the change in classification so long as there is the stipulation that there will c no seating on site; this is a tobacco shop, a place to buy cigars, concerned that we not hand out restaurant permits tonight; now we are restricting to no seating, if it becomes a Jamba Juice the Planning Commission will have to see it. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to change the classification of the Smoke Shop at 1400 Burlingame Avenue from incidental food sales to limited food service with the provision that there be no seating. The motion passed by voice vote 7-0. The commission then reviewed item by item those food establishment locations where the property owner or merchants responses in terms of seating area and/or classification had differed from the one assigned by staff based on the data collected in the field in the summer of 1998. The disputed sites were listed in the memo titled Food Establishment Clarification dated July 21, 1999, which had been sent to each property owner and merchant with a food establishment in either Subarea A or the Broadway commercial area. A. number of the sites were listed as disputed in the memo because the property owner or merchant had misunderstood and thought that the entire site was being measured rather than just the seating area. On these sites the seating areas have been remeasured and confirmed by a second site visit and commission accepted the conformed seating area number. These sites were: 1108 Burlingame Ave. (2620 SF seating); 1419 Burlingame Ave (775 SF seating including 500 SF patio), 234 Primrose Rd. (652 SF seating), 290 Primrose Rd. (354 SF seating including 329 SF on roof deck), 1130 Broadway (540 SF seating), 1136 Broadway (750 SF seating), 1236 Broadway (no seating), 1316 Broadway (1140 SF seating), 1150 Paloma (1950 SF seating). 11 -)ntinued commission review: the commissioners then reviewed each of the sites in which the classification .ssigned was an issue and acted by motion and vote. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 C. Bojues moved that the business at 1308 Burlingame Avenue (The Cakery) be classified as a Limited Food Service with no seating. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the —otion. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Vistica moved that the business at 269 Primrose Road (Moon McShane's Pub) be classified as a bar based on the proportion of sales of alcohol vs. food. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. C. Bojuds moved that the business at 1160 Broadway (Stanaway's Market and Deli) be classified as a limited food service, noting that if the merchant wanted to have up to 250 square feet of out door seating he could by including it in his conditional use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Luzuriaga moved that the business at 1201 Broadway (Village Host Pizza) be classified similarly to Round Table Pizza on Burlingame Avenue as a specialty shop because of the similar operating characteristics of the two. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Boju6s moved that the business at 1399 Broadway (Earthbeam) be classified as incidental food sales noting that seating in the public right-of-way with an encroachment permit did not qualify as on -site seating for classification purposes. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Boju&s thanked the staff and subcommittee for their work on the revisions to the ordinance, noting particularly past commissioners Galligan and Key who continued their work by attending this hearing, he then moved, by resolution to recommend to City Council the amended Food Establishment by Type Tables for Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial area and Broadway Commercial area, these tables to be adopted along with the food establishment regulation revisions as the basis for ordinance implementation. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amended Food Establishment by Type Table for each commercial area and recommend them to City Council for action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Chairman Coffey called for a ten minute break at 10:03 p.m. The Commissioners reconvened at 10:13 p.m. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO FIRST FLOOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SOME FIRST FLOOR ADDITIONS AND OTHER REVISIONS FOR CONSISTENCY. Second Hearing on the Amendment to title 25 zoning Regulations to Extend Design Review to First Floor new Construction and Some First Floor Additions. CP Monroe reviewed the staff report noting that this item had been referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for a hearing by the fall commission. The proposed revision to the design review zoning requirements would extend the design review process to include all new single family houses and additions to single roily houses which would have a plate line higher than that in the existing house or where the addition has a plate Higher than 9 feet, or any addition which includes an attached garage. The proposed changes would also shift the declining height envelop requirements from a variance to a special permit, require a special permit if the addition or construction would reduce the number of parking spaces provided on the site, and adds three definitions to the 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 chapter: addition, plate height, substantial construction. The current design review process using outside design reviewers would be extended to include these additional cases. This hearing, as was the pervious one, was noticed ;-i a newspaper of general circulation as required by law. Any findings made tonight regarding the ordinance will , forwarded to Council along with the minutes from the previous hearing. There were no questions of staff by the Planning Commissioners. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: Although it was a partial commission when this item was heard before, there was consensus in the recommendation, perhaps the two Commissioners not present at that meeting would like to comment or add to the findings. Have no questions. C. Luzuriaga moved to recommend to city council for action the amendment of the design review requirements to extend the review process to first floor new construction and some first floor additions, change declining height envelope exceptions from variances to special permits, require a special permit for garages attached to single family houses and to add three definitions to the code. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Comment on the action: do the findings put in the record at the last hearing stand, yes; are there enough findings; CA noted that this ordinance would apply to a project submitted after the effective date of the ordinance which would be 30 days after its adoption; this is the same process used when design review was initiated for second story additions. jETERMINATION ON SIGN CODE: REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR AT 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (THE HERTZ CORPORATION, LEASEHOLDER AND BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Determination on the Sign Code: Replacement or Repair and Nonconformity CP Monroe summarized the staff report and noted the letter (September 13, 1.999) submitted by George Carey, representing the tenant at 1650 Bayshore Highway, where this issue now exists. Commissioner discussion: was there a sign on Burlingame Avenue which was similar, yes a nonconforming roof sign which was required to be refaced in place, if it had been removed it would not have been able to be replaced; CP noted that they are not reconstructing the frame and poles, they are putting a new face on it, the supports and structural elements have not been removed; a new sign with letters would be added, yes and they would need to add wiring and possibly reinforce the structure to carry the new sign, the nonconforming sign code now says you cannot remove or relocate such a sign but you can reface it; is the issue here partial reconstruction as opposed to total reconstruction; CA noted they are not reconstructing the whole sign, they are putting a new sign face on it, the supports and structural elements are still present; he also noted that if they are reconstructing the sign you cannot do that if the sign is not permitted under the title, but nonconforming signs are, permitted under the title so we have a written code section which has a circular answer to it; you could look at reconstruction as putting a face on the sign so it is partial reconstruction; CA yes the difficulty is the first amendment which prohibits us from dealing with the: facing on the sign, that may be why the city removed the provision of changing face from the nonconforming requirements, we can control color but we -annot tell people what to write. Commissioner discussion continued: I am nostalgic about the AVIS sign, when you fly in and see it you know you are home, it is only visible from landing airplanes, it is reminiscent of old signs you used to see on top of the Southern 11 City of Burlingame Planni►ig Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Pacific building, it was a landmark which makes me want to say put it back; I realize that it would not be the same sign but the concept of using it to recognize Burlingame would be the same; can we keep it without getting into to much +*ouble on Burlingame Avenue; cars are not rented from this site so the sign just becomes a billboard to me, and bill yards are not attractive, it is just directing people who to give their business to at the airport; I don't feel like granting them an exception for a sign that brings no value to us, I think its kind of an eyesore and I'd rather see landscape when I'm flying; CA noted that we are not dealing with a specific application here, what your decision would do is determine if the sign face removed could be replaced by another of the same size. Do we know the size of the sign; CP responded Mr. Cory noted that the letters are gone and he is researching the size, the building permit issued for installation did not indicate the size; CA noted that this is not an application by any specific corporate entity, this would be applicable to any tenant on the site, under our code it could not provide identification for a business not located on the site; what are our current code requirements for size at this location; 75 square feet on secondary frontages, the previous sign was certainly larger than that, but that is not the issue if it is determined to be a nonconforming sign the tenant can replace it with whatever the previous amount was; thought the sign had been removed; the structure is there the letters are gone; the structure is limited - it is missing cross bracing, its pretty fragmented from a structural point of view, anything being done here is clearly reconstruction, nobody is putting a sign on those little sticks. Agree with nostalgia, everything in the city does not have to conform to the new standards, think should allow some reconstruction of aspects of town which keep it from being mundane, looking like every place else, the Broadway Arch probably does not conform to the sign code so we should take it down, no you rebuild it and make it look nicer and add it to one of your cherished community elements, its your connection to things that have been before; prefer to go route of saying its OK to reconstruct the sign some way so that it does not look like the Goodyear blimp, my only point is that the commission should get to take a look at it just to make sure. In the advertising business they really promote signs, feel there are too many signs out there, more than are justified, lots of clutter and it detracts from the city and other elements visitors should be looking at, if there was a really good justification for the sign OK, but there isn't. arther discussion: will we be able to see this sign; CA what is before you tonight is not a specific sign it is a determination on this set of circumstances which will be applied to all similar cases; if they can reconstruct the sign will it come before the planning commission; CA your determination could direct the City Planner that they could reconstruct a sign that is basically the same square footage and shape as was there before, but it can't be enlarged and its shape cannot be changed, they could then get a sign permit and building permit but would not be subject to commission review. The sign code tries to keep the commission from looking at content, you may only look at size and shape. Confused the Polo sign was refaced/repaired/resurfaced and what we are looking at tonight is the same thing what do we need to determine; City Planner noted that all that was done on the Polo sign was to take the face off and put on a new one the same size, at the same location on the same structure, this case is different because a structure is in place an area of which will be used for a sign including providing new electrical service to code for the sign and repair to structure to support a new sign face (the size to be determined based on the size of the old one, currently not known), the outline of the structure will not change and probably the number of poles won't change, how the sign is attached may change, did not see electrical service on the present frame; how much would the poles have to be beefed up to hold the new sign; don't know, whatever the building code would require for wind loading; commission can't touch content so this could say "eat at Joe's" in the future; CA noted that off premise signage is not allowed so limited to tenant on site. This might become a problem if this is a precedent, lot of people out there with bad nonconforming signs that might get a ticket to reconstruct; what about the exterminator sign; CP noted that the mouse has been stolen several times and the city has allowed it to be replaced. Continued: why not suggest that if it is reconstruction and requires the nonconforming sign to comply with the standards of the current code then the applicant must obtain a sign exception and a sign permit before proceeding with any other proposed sign; that way commission gets to look at it if the nonconforming situation has to be brought up to irrent code standards; CP noted that is what the staff report says about reconstruction, need help defining reconstruction; how should we determine what is " constructed and maintained in compliance with this title"; CA in this case this title is the sign code not the CBC, commission could just say this one is reconstruction; it probably is 12 City of Burlingame Planting Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 reconstruction but not sure I want to see this sign go away, applicant should be encouraged to come back for an exception; CP noted that they would have the option of a sign exception based on the: findings in the sign code; key here is that this is an existing sign that they are changing copy on, they are not saying me to or asking for a new sign; if we int of this type at this location and to be there it needs to be reconstructed why does the planning commission need to review it; CA this is the fork in the road, if you say the sign is nonconforming and it can always be reconstructed with just a sign permit (no commission review) regardless of its impact; however if you say that this nonconforming sign is going to be reconstructed it has to be in conformance with all current the sign code standards or get a sign exception. C. Dreiling moved that when a non -conforming sign is reconstructed it has to either be replaced with a conforming sign or come in for a sign exception; if the sign is refaced it must be the same square footage as the previous sign face or must apply for a sign exception. C. Bojues seconded the motion. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item can be appealed because it is an interpretation of the zoning code or sign code which are appealable to the City Council. Appeal procedures were advised. Determination on Removal of a Remodeled Structure after Design Review Action when Zoning Code Exceptions have been required. CP Monroe presented the issue as described in the staff report: what subsequent :review should be required if, after design review for an addition, a structure which was also granted variances and other exceptions to the code is demolished. In addition, how should applicants be informed about what they should do if they discover later that a structure must be demolished. immissioner discussion: could this determination be made narrowly so that, for example, only left side, side setbacks would require re -design review, yes; a side setback requested for an existing wall is a hardship because may have to remove the whole house to comply, should be able to put back as approved because that is a vested condition, would prefer commission get tougher on granting variances; concerned about the bad guys who know that there is a lot of termite and dry rot damage but not tell that have to demo because they want to get a setback exception based on the existing hardship, then demo; when look at a set of plans can tell the amount of structure left, if it is all gone should not grant the variance based on the existing condition; if almost demolition should not give variance, but prefer to see all variances if house demolished; depends upon hardship some variances are OK for example, if hardship is presence of a large oak it is going to be there even if house demolished; problem with definition of demolition being removal of 10% more of the foundation walls, think that too small an increase to trigger review. It was noted that when a house that is intended to be a remodel is found to be a demolition it costs a lot of time, money and hardship to the contractor and homeowner and requiring that they revise the plans and come back to the planning commission is a big additional expense. L CA noted that a property with a variances is not nonconforming, if there is a disaster and structure demolished will not need to come back to the Planning Commission. CP noted that requirements for a remodel do not include a requirement to survey property line, new construction does and sometimes the survey can show that a variance is needed to replace an existing condition when it was not asked for before. Sounds like a loop hole or the builder; in bidding public buildings list work to be done and leave to contractor to decide if it is more reasonable to demolish, or not, is it possible to talk about variances for example the side setbacks seem to be key; if project has gone through design review, been granted a side setback and then demolished and revised plans meet side setback it will affect design and would want to see it; maybe if applicants know that they will have to comply if properties are demolished commission will get better prepared -'ans; once the design is approved will it matter if it is all new or just an addition; don't want to burn an innocent 1.:rson, commission needs a level of comfort with variances granted they need to be based on hardship which needs to continue if structure demolished. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 In summary, the proposed wording for how to handle the demolition of a structure with design review and no exceptions to the code should be as suggested by the city attorney. Demolition should be defined as removal of 10% more of the exterior walls than was proposed in the approved plans. Regarding the demolition of structure with sign review and variances the re -review could apply only to "variances for pre-existing conditions" as set out in a condition of approval. This standard condition about re -review if the structure is demolished can be put in all staff reports with variances and commission can remove it from those projects where they think the condition is unnecessary. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 8, 1999. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. M[NUTES9.13 14