Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.02.09MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 9, 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 February 9, 1998 at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioner Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes for the meeting of the January 26, 1998 Planning Commission were approved as submitted, moved by C. Deal, seconded by C. Galligan, on a voice vote 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 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT FOOD ASSOCIATED WITH A PERMITTED RESTAURANT USE AT 1215 DONNELLY AVENUE (IN REAR OF BUILDING AT 1218 & 1230 BURLINGAME AVENUE), ST. CLAIR'S, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (ST. CLAIR'S, APPLICANT AND HAMMER I LLC, PROPERTY OWNER). Staff reviewed the request and the Commissioners asked: will the hours of operation ever be later than 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; what will the menu be including take-out; what will be the maximum number of tables and chairs (inside and out) and the maximum capacity at the counter for stools; was this storage area included in either the application for Banana Republic or Pottery Barn; where will the catering vehicles park and how will they be loaded from the restaurant area; what is the maximum occupancy of the restaurant as figured by the fire department; staff explain when does a food establishment use expire; if the area was employed in some other use, has the opportunity for food establishment expired; substantial time has lapsed since this site was rebuilt, is this food service use now appropriate; staff should analyze how the intensity of this use compares to the double rainbow ice cream store which was on the site previously, consider the length of time a customer is on the site; does the food establishment right entitle the use to extend beyond its walls into outdoor seating; the private sidewalk is narrow here and the tables shown are 24 inches wide, can people walk b, ; cars hang over the curb when they park there now, further narrowing the sidewalk, the dimensions should be provided. There City of Bwfingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on February 23, 1998, providing all the information can be provided in time. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1190 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONING UNCLASSIFIED, (UMBERTO GIBIN, NEXT CENTURY RESTAURANTS, APPLICANT AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the proposal including the conclusions of the Broadway Streetscape study and Commissioners asked for the following additional information: site plan shows one disabled accessible parking stall, is the access adequate for the required turn; committee worked hard on the streetscape plan, the proposed palms appear to be like signage, they should provide more information to justify their use and placement; how do they explain moving the building closer to the intersection and city streetscape entry; the existing ticket building is Mission Revival, need to work on addition, not accept architectural jargon about the proposed addition; appears that valet drop off is in the middle of the access aisle, how will other people parking in the lot be able to get in and out, will people in the valet line be inclined to back out onto the street; sight lines appear to have been reduced substantially, address; why does the building need to extend so much further toward the right-of-way; traffic study implies that this proposed use is not that much more intensive than the previous restaurant use, but none of the previous restaurants had nearly the number of seats or employees proposed here, there is an increase in intensity that is not reflected, address; have a potential of 100 customers but show only peak of 31 cars, not often three people per car even at lunch, explain; resolve the difference of opinion between staff and architect regarding the two exits required from the mezzanine, city can require exiting beyond the minimum of the code for public safety; how will food and beverages be moved from the ground floor to the mezzanine. Commission questions continue: how will the valet parking be managed, will it be offered at no charge; Streetscape established criteria, difficult for the Planning Commission to just over rule, need to rethink project or obtain support of streetscape committee members for change; traffic engineer indicates that Broadway intersection operates at LOS C, my experience is LOS F, what about the interrupt for the train; there are cumulative impacts that are going to happen to this intersection as well, BART, possible overpass, if these occur you may not be able to get compensation for your investment; how many seats were there in the previous restaurant; are they planning any outdoor seating; will the reuse of the Encore site affect the parking demand in the lot adjacent to the restaurant; need better information on the intersection, the busiest in the city; what do you feel the maximum occupancy of the building will be for the business compared to what the city has determined the maximum occupancy to be; parking requirements seem low for the proposed use if maximum on site is 133, 26 does not seem like enough parking spaces, staff thoughts and applicant response too; check interior dimensions for wheel chair access; would like to see lease for term of off -site parking and for site with adjacent parking, how do they work together; will there be any landscaping on the site beside the palm tree; concern about the hours of operation, difficult to change later, staff provide a list of hours for other such establishments in the area; does the streetscape manager have any suggestions on how the architecture could be made to fit better; are there ways to increase the number of cars that -2- City of B-frog- Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 can be accommodated in the parking areas; streetscape report calls out the use of columnar trees at comer of Broadway and California, could streetscape manager explain; confused about traffic study and the maximum number of people at the restaurant, one place its says 125 another 180 on weekends, why the variation in numbers; traffic study indicates 180 people maximum demand with 40 parking spaces, that means 4.5 people per car when the majority of tables in the restaurant have fewer than 4 seats, please clarify; traffic study refers to trip generation tables and land use codes, please include and explain assumptions used, seems this is a quality restaurant and a more intensive use than some. Commissioner questions continued: could there be a restaurant on the Encore site; how will you keep the commuters out of your parking since the restaurant does not open until 11 a.m.; will the parking areas be barricaded in some way; what will happen when the valet parking on the north side of Broadway blocks the access to the city's commuter parking; what information is available about the impact on this site of a grade separation at Broadway; provide a glossary of terms for the technical words on pages 6 and 7 of the traffic report; correct spelling of the restaurant name in staff report; please discuss how and when deliveries will be made to restaurant. There were no further questions and the public hearing was set for February 23, 1998, providing the information could be provided otherwise the item will be set for the next possible meeting. ACTION 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). and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP 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). Reference staff report, 02.09.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twelve conditions were recommended for consideration. Two letters were placed at the commissioners' desks regarding this application. Commissioners asked, how does the drainage from this site affect the problem at Hillside and El Camino; the stormwater problem here is separate from Hillside, this one has to do with the age of the sewer collection system; also problem with sewer line which serves this development, need to review and include in city's next improvement program. Can Commission make conditions about fencing, yes. Egress from unit A requires turf block for turning movement, yes; letter refers to two trees on this site, the driveway issue is an owner to owner issue, yes; can commission address the trees, yes; can Capuchino handle storm water run off from this site with the greater lot coverage and impervious surface, stormwater will go through easement to curb on Capuchin, down Capuchino to Mills at grade and Mills to California where it enters the new interceptor, Capuchino is a flat street and any lump in pavement can cause ponding. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Chair Key opened the public hearing on the condominium permit and the tentative map. G'lush Dada, the designer, noted they had read the report and had no problems. Commissioner asked designer to explain section A/A through the garage behind the entrance, the stairs are not to scale so whether the minimum 7' ceiling height in the garage is met is a question, will there be enough head room on the stair, designer said would redo to scale for the construction drawings, felt the 7' clearance could be met; a number of cantilevered buildings have been approved but not built because of cost, can you build this without changing the project; will there be room for the pipes in the bathroom on the landing and retain the 7' clear in the garage below; they discussed the other locations for the bathroom on the first floor and the disabled access issues related to having it on the landing from the garage; felt that the run of pipes from the landing bathroom was short enough that it would not affect the ceiling height in the garage below. Charles Kavanaugh, Engineer, 470 Chatham Road, who prepared the tentative map asked if there were any questions on the map. Annette DeMartini, 127 Lowell Street, San Francisco, owner of the property at 1428 El Camino Real spoke noting that she favored improvement of this site, it has been neglected for over 35 years; would like the two trees, acacias, at the front removed because they block views of the sidewalk, especially pedestrians going to the bus shelter in front of her property and roots have damaged the paving in her driveway; she would also like a 3 foot fence along the front setback and a 6 foot fence along the rest of the side property line for privacy and to keep residents on this site from crossing over and using her driveway. She felt that a fence would also protect the privacy of the new residents in their rear yard. She felt that the location shown for the new tree in the front yard would also affect the views exiting her driveway, could it be relocated. Designer noted that new tree would not block view, neighbor noted that she did not want any trees, designer noted that is could be worked out with neighbor. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the project satisfies a lot of the code requirements but he had a real problem with the fact that the stairs were not to scale, did not know if required head room would/could be provided, would prefer resubmittal with drawings to scale so he would know that what was approved could be built, therefore he moved to deny the application without prejudice directing the applicant to be sure that the head room in the garage was adequate, as well as in the bathroom and in the access stairs. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. On the motion it was noted: can't require this to be built according to the plans, since we do not know if the plans will work; in addition tree placement should be addressed and need information on the capacity of sewage; because of tree placement a 3 foot fence would block view of pedestrians on the sidewalk, need to think through type of fencing, maybe one you can see through. Following the discussion C. Deal, maker of the motion, withdrew it, C. Galligan, second, agreed to the withdrawal. C. Deal then moved to continue the condominium permit and tentative map application to the meeting of March 9, 1998. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. -4- Cary of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 On the motion: concerned about only one guest parking space on this site because there are few locations off the site close enough for guests to park and these areas are already impacted by multiple family development on El Camino, revision should address this; how can the common area be used, long narrow shape behind the guest parking space, should be addressed in resubmittal; like to see the response from CalTrans regarding the access for drainage on to El Camino Real, if there is no agreement then need to see easement to Capuchino; feel site is over built based on size of units, maneuvering problems, location and other items mentioned including storm water run off; tree and fence issues need to be resolved with neighbor; waste water issue needs to be addressed; project can't be built according to these plans submitted, need an accurate set. Chair Key called for a voice vote, the motion to continue the time to the meeting of March 9, 1998, passed 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). Since this continuance was set to a time certain there will be no further public notice for this item. There is no appeal until the Commission acts. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A PARKING VARIANCE TO ADD TWO (2) PARKING SPACES (3 REQUIRED) AND TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP AT AN EXISTING GASOLINE GAS STATION AT 1101 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2, (RHL DESIGN GROUP INC., APPLICANT AND CHEVRON USA, INC., PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 02.09.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions; Nine conditions were recommended for consideration. Is the parking arrangement the same as it was in the previous submittal, will an employee park in front of the air/water pumps, yes. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Craig Sheiffer, RHL Design, represented the project. He noted that Chevron was willing to encourage the employees to use alternate transportation by paying for their commute or parking. He noted that they provided an alternate in the packet showing space number 2 pushed it back closer to the rear property line fence and further out of the way of the tanker truck delivery path, prefer project because want to retain landscaping along rear property line. The traffic report supports the fact that only two employee parking spaces are needed, Chevron agrees with the conditions proposed. Commissioner noted three spaces are required, asking for a variance for one. Discussed prohibiting employee parking on site, the CA noted that such an action would create a precedent for other uses with required employee parking. Problem with access to air/water pumps and truck remain, could move air/water to islands; pumps at island location would slow down people getting gas and make lines longer; if head into air/water pumps causes problem for restroom access; tanker does not enter site until it is sure it is able to park and off-load; would cost at least $5,000 to relocate air/water pumps. Bill Sautter, Property Management Specialist for Chevron, spoke. He said that Chevron tried to buy a portion of the property next door, but the owner would not sell, the project next door would not pencil without the area because it was needed for parking; allowing a 17 foot wide driveway caused Mr. Lo, owner next door, to get one more parking space; sign says lot next door is for sale, Mr. Lo indicated to him that he is looking for tenants. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. -5- CUY of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Comments on the project: feel that condition two regarding restrooms being open 24 hours a day should be changed to have them open during business hours; condition one should be changed to prohibit employees from parking in space one so that the restrooms are not regularly blocked and there is access to the air/water pumps; live near Broadway, saw tanker come onto site, parking space number 2 at location shown in project is not a problem, problem is with parking space 1, saw driver head into air/water pump which blocks other access; do not feel that snacks sold here will make station a destination for snack items. Discussed a motion to deny snack shop, staff pointed out that there was no need for such motion because without the snack shop the applicant did not need a conditional use permit or parking variance. Commissioner noted that none of the existing landscaping should be removed. C. Deal moved approval of the special permit amendment to add a snack shop and a parking variance for one space less than required, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report amended so that the restrooms would be open the same hours as the gas station, and that parking space one would be available for customers only. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. On the motion: concerned that there will be no landscaping on this site next to the new building to the south; Chevron has over built this site by building incrementally; objective of the Broadway streetscape program is to keep the area visually open and beautiful, this site is a mess at the only entrance to the city from 101, they do not need a snack shop, removing it would reduce the impact on this corner; Chevron could make a real try at this by making some changes to the structures and services on the site and adding landscaping. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. Commissioners voted 3-3-1 (Cers. Galligan, Mink, Key dissenting, C. Wellford absent). Because of the tie the motion failed, and the application stood denied unless another motion was passed. C. Mink moved approval of the plans as submitted without a snack shop. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. City Attorney Anderson pointed out that such a motion was superfluous since without the snack shop no parking variance was required. The maker and second withdrew the motion. Commission comment: the traffic report notes 33 people on the site between 7 and 9 a.m. use snack shop/restrooms, that is one every 4 minutes, that is not insignificant; because the station lost access to the easement and parking on the adjacent property, the site seems smaller and looks very tight and over built; Chevron is not able to give the help needed now to do this right, if they had known the problem before reconstruction could fix, but they did not, and city cannot expect them to fix it now; agree that there is an impact from the snack shop, have a concern about circulation, cars will be on the site longer, could reorient air/water but need to provide that service; tanker truck access is not a problem but would be if someone was headed into the air/water pump area; Planning Commission should not make an existing problem worse. C. Mink moved to deny the application. C. Galligan seconded the motion. ME City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Comment on the motion: air/water pumps could be put into the islands and people would take longer, causing a circulation problem; not see snack shop that big a problem, the 33 people there between 7-9 a.m. may use service but are not there as a destination for snack food. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny; the commission voted 3-3-1 (Cers. Luzuriaga, Coffey and Deal dissenting, C. Wellford absent). As with the first motion made, the motion failed to get a majority vote, so the application stands denied as failing approval. [Commission Rule IV (c)]. Appeal procedures were advised noting that the next council meeting would be on Wednesday, February 18, 1998. PLANNERS REPORTS - CP Monroe reported briefly on the February 2, 1998, City Council meeting. - Discussion of Food Establishment Issues and Policy The Commissioner discussed the three broad issues affecting the parameters of regulating food establishments set out in the staff report by the subcommittee. The consensus was that it would be best to leave the total number of food establishments in Subarea A and in the Broadway Commercial area the same. Did not want to see the non-food retail uses overwhelmed by the food establishments. Type of food business seems to change dramatically over time, so need to be flexible in definitions. There was a consensus that the limitation to existing size (square footage) was effective and should be retained. Food establishments seem to vary in intensity; revised regulation should address this. There was agreement that the impact on parking by the various types of food establishments should be considered and those with the greatest impacts should be encouraged to areas on the side streets. Should discuss a common denominator for incidental food sales where no permit is required such a one coffee machine. 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 10:35 p.m. MINUTES2.09 -7- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary