Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.01.26MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION January 26, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on January 26, 1998 at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioners Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Assistant Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - Page 4, line 16, 1236 Cabrillo Avenue, "The applicant addressed how this structure could be adjusted, staff would note it would probably need to be removed to meet a two covered parking space requirement;. " Commissioner Deal moved approval of the minutes of the January 12, 1998 Planning Commission; C. Mink seconded. Motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1424-26 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (G'LUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the project and the Commissioners made the following requests: clarify how the access to the storage areas works, appears doors open into flower beds; it appears in Unit A the powder room is on the first level at the entry landing, is this what is intended, what impact would this have on parking and storage; are there other areas in the units where storage can be added; explain the usefulness of balconies to provide private open space off the master bathroom; delineate the area of the common open space at the rear, shade in; City Engineer asks water drain to El Camino but looks as if drainage is being taken by a easement to Capuchin, explain; driveway is 20 feet wide at the sidewalk but narrows to 12 feet, could width at sidewalk be reduced and more landscaping be added; one guest parking space is not enough on El Camino, how will deliveries be made, is there sufficient turning space for UPS. The item was set for public hearing on February 9, 1998, providing all the questions can be responded to by then. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Mimaes January 26, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT 1424-26 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (G'LUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS). There were no questions on the tentative map. The item was set for public hearing on February 9, 1998. ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1701 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1, (JEFF AND SUSAN KOCKOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 01.26.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Jeff Kockos, 1701 Quesada, spoke. Commissioners asked with this review when the sun screen attached to the fence would be required to be removed; CA responded 20 days after the end of the appeal period or Council action if the item is appealed. Applicant noted that he bought the house about 11 years ago, did not know the structure in. the side yard was illegal, he enters the house from the side yard and it is nice to have the cover in bad weather; was there no disclosure of the problems with the purchase of the property, do not know wife did the negotiations on the purchase; were these things illegal then, yes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: prior owner in 1981 asked for the same thing that current owner is asking for; disclosure requirements for sale of residential property were not required 11 years ago; pass by this house daily, for a small residential street this is a busy intersection because of Burlingame Intermediate School; this is not a standard lot, 4670 SF, they are not applying for a second story, but are going to keep the character of the house, addition would not affect view from the street or sight lines; its OK to compromise to allow some increase in lot coverage in exchange for no increase in height. C. Galligan for these reasons moved approval of the side setback variance request for enclosure of an existing covered patio, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. On the motion Commissioners noted: concerned about the condition referring to the plans since there is a lot of incorrect information on the plans regarding the main structure, staff noted this was one of the reasons for the requirement for a survey of property line; back to 1981, there was excessive lot coverage then, the proposed structure impinged on the adjacent neighbor, it placed potentially flammable material too close to the neighbor, is a potential hazard in a fire or earthquake, do not want to create that hazard for neighbor who expects city code to protect him; violates planning ideals in Burlingame, should have removed the illegal covering between eave and fence years ago, its still there; would like an amendment to the motion to include a requirement that the exterior wall of the new addition would be one hour fire rated and have no openings. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1998 C. Galligan maker of the motion agreed to amending the motion with a condition that the new construction for the addition have one hour fire rated wails and no openings. C. Coffey, the seconder, agreed. Chair Key called for the vote on the motion to approve the request for a 3'-2" side set back variance by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plan submitted to the Planing Department date stamped December 5, 1997 (sheets 1-9) with the wall of the proposed addition no closer than 3'-2" to the property line, and that all exterior walls of the addition shall be built of one -hour fire -rated construction with no openings; 2) that, if required by the Building Department based on the construction plans submitted, the applicant shall complete a property line survey by a licensed surveyor; 3) that there shall be one unobstructed parking space in the garage which measures 10'-0"W x 20'-0"L; 4) that the sunscreen presently attached to the eave and property line fence shall be removed within 20 days; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C. Mink dissenting, C. Wellford absent) on a roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TWO VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND FOR DWELLING UNITS IN FOUR BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT AND A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NINE (9) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (ALEX MORTAZAVI, HABITAT ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ALEX & NATASHA NOVOSYOLOV AND MICHAEL AYLWARD & DEBRA MCCULLOUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 01.26.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twenty-two conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked if all cars were to exit on to El Camino Real could they be required to put in a right turn only sign, staff commented yes but the city does not enforce such signs on private property; is the maple tree included in the tree protection reports, yes; who will enforce protecting the church parking lot from abuse by the residents of the condominium, CA noted that the church is entitled to post the property and to tow cars. Chair Key opened the pubic hearing which includes the negative declaration, condominium permit with the zoning exceptions and the tentative map. Alex Mortizavi, architect, 851 Burlway Road, represented the project. He agreed that they should put a right turn only sign at the El Camino exit and that this would be covered in the CC and R's, they would also like to put an arrow on the driveway indicating a right turn only. On the project Lynnette Waterson, 819 Fairfield, spoke, she lives behind the redwood tree; she reviewed briefly the history of the previous development on the site which was a single, bigger (more units) building with more traffic and noise impact which was approved but not built. Feels that this project is a tremendous improvement and endorses it. The project reduces the number of structures, -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26 1998 divides the units into a number of units which has much less impact on her property and preserves the redwood tree; she noted that the sparse number of people at the meeting indicates that there is no opposition to this project; she asked that the commission insure that the plans be executed exactly as they are shown with divided windows and other building features as depicted on the plans; she complemented the architect on his good work with the neighborhood. Ellen Freed -Wickman, 815 Fairfield, spoke she asked for the addition of a condition that the maple tree on her property be protected; she noted that the property line fence was adjusted around the tree which would protect the roots; could this be made a condition of approval; she also expressed concern about the noise impact of a gate between the Baptist Church parking lot and the project, feared that its regular use would generate a lot of noise for her immediately adjacent property. She submitted two letters from other neighbors in support of the project. Alex Mortizavi, architect, spoke about the gate, noting that they would prefer to have a gate because they were afraid that church members parking in the adjacent lot would figure out that it was a short cut to exit through the project to El Camino, especially since the parking spaces in the lot are angled toward 808 El Camino and it is difficult now to turn around and exit onto Palm. They felt that they would leave the issue of a gate up to the commission and are willing to go either way. Commissioner noted that these units have three bedrooms and some owners will have three cars, where will they park the third car, the CC and R's are going to need to include that there be no parking in the church lot; it was noted that if the church allowed resident parking it was between the church and homeowners. If there are guest parking spaces behind a gate, how will they be accessed; could a gate be used on Sunday only; who will open and close the gate on Sunday; if you have a gate at all, you will need a call box so people in the units can open the gate for guests; could have a gate with an arm that raises, that is quieter than the kind that rolls in a rail; gate could work on a timer like a furnace, so that it is closed only on Sunday, then no resident would have to operate it. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that this project was a pleasure to look at and the architect and owner should be complemented for their ultimate design decision. He then moved approval of the negative declaration with the mitigations as shown in the staff report finding that the disclosure studies and project evaluation in the staff report and comments at the public hearing demonstrate that with the suggested mitigations including protection of the maple tree by relocating the fence, there are no significant effects on the environment from this proposed project. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. On the motion it was noted that this applicant had worked hard to devise a solution which was neat, sensitive to the neighborhood and appropriate on El Camino Real. Chair Key called for the vote. The motion to approve the Negative Declaration with mitigations was approved by voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). C. Deal moved approval of the project by resolution noting that there were two variances required for the project: on the front setback he noted that for this project three properties were combined which had greater than required setbacks from El Camino because they were developed as single family homes, to resolve an access problem the developer had to place a driveway through the middle of the property which forced the buildings forward however the facade of the front structure angles away from El Camino so visually the setback will look greater; on the multiple structures in the R-3 zone -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1998 the proposed layout greatly benefits the transition between the multiple family and adjacent single family uses and zoning by creating a compatible interface which serves the neighbors to the rear much better than a single structure; his motion included the conditions in the staff report with four additional conditions: that a right turn only sign be placed at the El Camino Real exit; that the architectural elements shown on the submitted plans and drawings be incorporated into the drawings for building permit and into the actual construction; that the maple tree be protected as recommended in the two tree studies and by the Senior Landscape Inspector; and that an access gate using a rising arm, on a timer, be installed along with an intercom to each unit so each owner could operate the gate when it is closed on Sunday during church services and, if the residents wish, at night from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. for on -site security. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. On the motion: this project is a good example of the use of open space and streetscape as conceived in the general plan which the city closely adheres to, it is visually a nice development; complimented the property owners/developer on their support for this solution; some times try to maximize the number of units, in this case responded to the neighbors; concerned about gate being down all the time, no way to make deliveries if not home; could a condition be added to provide for an unlocked pedestrian access, this amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion and the seconder; this is the first good example to deal with the transition between multiple family and single family zones that the commission has seen. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the negative declaration with mitigations, the condominium permit and two variances (front setback and more than one building on a site); with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 4, 1997, sheets A-1, A-5 through A-11, and date stamped January 16, 1998, sheets A-2 through A-4, and Landscape Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Condominium Purposes, Sheets 1 and 2, date stamped December 4, 1997; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 71.6' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (36.60') for a maximum height of 35'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's December 15, 1997 memo, the Chief Building Official's October 20, 1997 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 22, October 20, and December 15, 1997 memos, and the Senior Landscape Inspector's October 29 and December 10, 1997 memos shall be met; 4) that `guest parking stall' shall be marked on the five uncovered parking stalls and designated on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall be always accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 5) that the on grade uncovered parking spaces shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 6) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the 5 guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 7) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1998 occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 8) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 9) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 10) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; 11) that in the case of emergency the City shall have the right to remove cars from the ingress easement area on the church property for fire access and the driveway shall be marked as a fire lane; no cars shall park in the ingress driveway; 12) that the CC&R's shall specify that residents and guests of the condominium project shall not park in the church parking lot; 13) that if a gate system is installed at the property line between the condominiums and the church or at the egress onto El Camino Real, there shall be an intercom system from the gate connected to each dwelling which allows residents to provide guests access to their site by pushing a button inside their units; 14) that a right turn only sign shall be placed on the property at the El Camino Real exit driveway to be maintained and enforced by the condominium association through the CC and R's; 15) that all the architectural elements and construction materials shown on the plans and drawings submitted to the Planning Commission shall be incorporated into the plans submitted for a building permit and included in the construction of the project; 16) that the maple tree adjacent to the rear property line shall be protected as shown by the placement of the property line fence as shown on the landscape plan and by the procedures outlined in the S.P. McClenahan Co. letter dated June 10, 1992 and Mayne Tree Expert Company report dated December 16, 1997 and any changes to these recommendations shall be made by an ISA certified Arborist and shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector before they are implemented; 17) that an electronic security gate of the type with a rising arm shall be placed at the entrance to the project at the end of the church parking lot, this gate shall be designed to be operated by an automatic timer which will close the gate on Sunday morning before, during and immediately after church services and, if the project residents wish for security, daily from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. the gate and timer shall be maintained by the homeowners association as set out in the CC and R's for the condominium association; 18) that an unlocked person gate shall be provided on the south side of the site to provide pedestrian access to the site when the automobile security gate is closed; 19) that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with complete landscape and irrigation plans at time of building permit application; 20) that this proposal shall meet all requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1992 and amended in 1993; 21) that all construction work in the vicinity of the approximately 68" diameter coast redwood tree shall comply with the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance Section 11.06.050, the recommendations of the S.P. McClenahan Co. dated June 10, 1992 and the report from the Mayne Tree Expert Company dated December 16, 1997; and that all required fencing around the redwood and maple trees shall be approved by the City before the start of construction; 22) that all recommendations concerning irrigation, fertilization, pruning, and inspection of the coast redwood tree as outlined in the S.P. McClenahan Co. letter dated June 10, 1992 shall be followed; than any changes to these recommendations shall be made by an ISA Certified In City of Burlingame P!<uw g Commission Minutes January 26, 1998 Arborist and shall be submitted to and approved by the City before they are implemented; and that all work and inspections relating to this tree shall be under the immediate direction and supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist; 23) that piers and grade beams shall be used for construction of the foundation within the dripline of the tree, and the piers shall be on 4 - 6 feet centers and cross beams shall be at or near grade level; 24) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 25) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code; 26) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary, and abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; and 27) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until the findings can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified professionals acceptable to the City, can be implemented. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NINE (9) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (ALEX MORTAZAVI, HABITAT ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ALEX & NATASHA NOVOSYOLOV AND MICHAEL AYLWARD & DEBRA MCCULLOUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 01.26.98, with attachments. CE Erbacher and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works comments, and study meeting questions. One condition was suggested. There were no questions from the commissioners. C. Deal moved to recommend approval of the tentative map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion to approve which was passed on a 6-0-1 vote (C. Wellford absent). It was noted that this item would be forwarded to the City Council. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL BEER FOR OFF - SITE CONSUMPTION, ALLOW TAKE-OUT FOOD SERVICES AND REVISE THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND DELIVERY SCHEDULE AT 333 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, (GOLDEN STATE BREWING CO., DBA STEELHEAD BREWING CO., APPLICANT AND DONALD SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 01.26.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eight conditions were recommended for consideration. Commission asked if any of the 10 nearby restaurants and bars shown on the table in the staff report had take-out food service, staff responded two; can there be a last call before 1:20 a.m., yes depends upon when bar closes; is this request for take-out service food and drink, yes; can customers wanting to take-out beer do so at any time in this request, yes except after last call. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Domingo Garcia, General Manager of the Steelhead Brewing Co., spoke noting a farmer picks up the spent grain to use as fodder for his cows; take-out food and drink service is less than I % of the business' gross sales, they would not even consider a delivery -7- City of D-Ungame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1998 service; most people who take-out food are local employees who want to pick up food and take it back to their work place to eat; it is their policy that there is no keg pick up after 6 p.m. because they cannot off-load during the dinner hour; customers will make arrangements to pickup ahead of time so it can happen quickly; could keg pickup be limited to 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., yes; they sell a maximum 3 to 4 kegs a week, stopped doing it when they realized they were not permitted to do it under their use permit; most of their off -site sales are to customers in the restaurant; last call is to notify customers it is time to order one last drink before the bar closes, when close at 1 a.m. last call is usually at 12:15 a.m. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: the last call at 1:20 a.m. is just for Friday and Saturday the bar closes at 1:00 a.m. on other nights; have a problem with keg pick up on the Lorton side, city granted 39 space parking variance to this business, they provide 6 parking space on the Lorton side which are always full, don't see how there will be space available for people to pick up kegs unless they reduce patron parking; only selling 3 to 4 kegs a week why need to do at all; other micro -breweries sell kegs through a local liquor store, why not use that outlet; sale of beer from site will cause an impact on traffic on Lorton, opposed to any take-out of liquor; not have a problem with the sale of the smaller half and gallon containers because customers can carry them out themselves to their off -site parking spaces; there is no parking on this site at 11:30 a.m.; people play pool at this establishment all day so the parking is needed for the patrons; need to look at the effect of take-out food on the traffic in the area, want to serve the local person but if it is convenient people will double park to do it, not park two blocks away; will need to provide short term parking and it will impact other businesses in the area; no problem with selling food since it will be principally to local employees and the amount sold is low; pick up is a problem and the Lorton side is the only solution, going to have to reduce time for pick ups; agree take-out food incidental as with other high end restaurants in the area; if cannot park will park in back up aisle on Lorton side and leave quickly; no kegs should be sold between 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., other times traffic and business demand in area is low; if can sell kegs and increase advertising, then volume of keg sales will increase; if use Lorton parking area back up aisle for pick up then have to back onto Lorton, this would create a traffic hazard; picking up a keg is not a 5 minute process, lots of paper work generally takes closer to 30 minutes; real issue is the increased traffic density caused by the take-out activity. C. Galligan moved to approve the amendment to the special permit subject to the findings in support in the discussion and staff report and the conditions in the staff report with two additional conditions: that the sale of kegs of beer shall not be allowed from the site, but smaller half gallon and gallon containers may be sold; and that this use permit as amended shall be reviewed in one year for compliance with the conditions of approval and review of their impacts and effects, particularly on parking, given the variance previously granted to the site, appropriate changes to the conditions of operation may be made at that time. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Commission asked for a summary of what was included in the motion. C. Galligan noted that the motion included approval of the amended hours of operation, the take-out food service permit; the take-out permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages in smaller one-half and one gallon containers, no sale of beer in kegs; review and possible modification in one year; the change in the delivery schedule M City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1998 and last call at 1:20 a.m. on Friday and Saturday only. C. Deal the seconder agreed that that was an accurate summary of the motion. Comment on the motion: can permits be reviewed and changed in one year, yes. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the conditions in the staff report amended, the motion failed on a 3-3-1 (Cers. Coffey, Deal and Mink voting dissenting, C. Wellford absent) vote. The CA noted that this vote represented a denial of all of the requests made by the applicant in the permit amendment. C. Coffey moved approval by resolution of the revised hours of operations and delivery schedules with appropriate amendments to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: if vote yes then no take-out food or beverage service would be allowed, correct; would leave choices open to applicant on appeal. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion; commission voted 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) to approve. C. Galligan moved by resolution approval of take-out food service with the condition that there be a one year review of the entire use permit. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Key called for a roll call vote, the motion passed 4-2-1 (Cers Coffey and Mink dissented, C. Wellford absent). The motions passed by resolution included the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Commission and date stamped November 26, 1997, (site plan and floor plan, dining room floor plan, mezzanine plan); 2) that the micro brewery restaurant with billiards shall not be open for business except between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, with last call for alcoholic beverages at 1:20 a.m. and with a maximum of 20 employees on site at one time; 3) that no alcohol shall be sold from the site for off -site consumption in kegs or any other container; 4) that take- out food service, except alcoholic beverages, shall be allowed from this site during normal business hours; 5) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, trash receptacles of the streetscape design on the sidewalk outside the building, one on the California side and one on the Lorton side, the location to be approved by the City Engineer, a trash receptacle shall also be placed inside the door to the restaurant; 6) that all deliveries shall be made by vendors between 6:00 a.m. and 9 a.m. daily and after 2:00 a.m. twice a week at the loading dock off of California Drive and daily between 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. on the Lorton side of the building; 7) that the loading and unloading of take-out food shall occur only in the Lorton Avenue side parking lot; 8) that no on - site parking shall be leased separately to any off -site use, and no portion of the parking lot shall be converted to any other use than parking ( except for the outdoor patio area as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission in 1993); 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that this permit shall be reviewed in one year's time (February 1999) for compliance with the conditions of approval and for impacts caused by the take-out food service and that any of these conditions of approval may be modified or changed at that time to address identified effects on the area. WE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Appeal procedures were advised. January 26, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISION OF THE DEFINITION FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION Reference staff report, 01.26.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. CA pointed out that the definition as now framed would provide that if one sole proprietor shared an office with another sole proprietor (possibly both in a financial type business or one financial and the other not) the sole proprietor considered to be financial would be required to comply with all the code requirements of a financial institution including obtaining use permits where necessary. Chair Key opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey moved recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the change in the definition of financial institution which updates the definition and exempts independent business operators who have no employees from the designation. C. Mink seconded the motion which was approved on a 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) voice vote. In comment on this change the Commissioners noted that there were other standards in the code which could also use review among them the universal use of average front setback and guest parking for multiple family developments. PLANNERS REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken at the regular City Council meeting on January 5, 1998. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key asked for a motion to adjourn. C. Galligan moved adjournment. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. MINUTES1.26 -10- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary