Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.02.23MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 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 23, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes for the meeting of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission ....... were corrected: page 3, line 1 to read; of" columnar, the minutes were then approved as corrected, moved by C. Galligan, seconded by C. Deal, on a voice vote 7-0. AGENDA - CP Monroe noted that the applicants of two action items have requested to be continued from tonight's agenda. Since these items have been noticed for hearing tonight, the CA has suggested the commission open the public hearings on these items tonight and then continue the hearing to a date certain. In this way any testimony received tonight becomes a part of the record for each item, in the event that the interested party is unable to attend a future meeting where the item is considered. Based on this CP Monroe! asked that items 5, 1190 California Drive, and 6, 970 David Road, on the action calendar be moved to the top of the action calendar and renumbered items 4 and 5, respectively. FROM THE FLOOR Bud Harrison, 376 Lexington Way, approached the commission noting he was not an old Planning Commissioner but a former one. He went on to note that he would like each Planning Commissioner to take the opportunity to visit the site at 1545 Bernal, and make the decision based on what the commissioners see in the field. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW INTERIOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE (WET BAR, SHOWER, SINK AND TOILET) TO REMAIN; AND ALLOW A WINDOW WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1545 BERNAL AVENUE, :ZONED R-1 (PAUL R. & V. M. MALONE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). After a brief presentation of the project from the staff the Commissioners asked that the following questions be addressed: explain where the hot water heater would be relocated; want an explanation and documentation of what it will mean for the existing structure to meet the requirements of the Chief City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1998 Building Inspector; would like information on where the sewer ties in to the existing sewer; can a condition be placed on a use permit so that it is revoked in a stated period of time; what is the future of the 10 foot easement at the rear of the property, who owns it now; what steps are needed for the city to acquire it, and if city does not need it, what then; submit site plan showing all structures on the site and identifying what each is used for and if lot coverage is exceeded when all are included; what appliances or fixtures are included in the "wet bar"; house floor plan shows a bathroom at the rear, has applicant considered putting a door into the backyard from this bathroom for access by those exercising in the accessory structure. There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing on March 9, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING NON -CONFORMING RESIDENCE AT 824 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1, (NEIL MURPHY AND JULIANA FUERBRINGER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff made a brief presentation of the project and the commissioners asked that the following information be included in the action packet: staff report implies that there are several exceptions to the code on the property what are they; is the basement area legal non -conforming and therefore the variance not required; applicant should add an elevation showing floor to ceiling height for each floor in the house; applicant needs to redo special circumstances since they should relate to the property; if basement is a story then need to show declining height on the plans, as it affects the present first floor will it become the new second floor even if the structure is not changed; has the applicant considered adding additional off-street parking, this neighborhood is justified in asking for more since on -street parking is such a problem; this is a three story building, is real issue expansion of a nonconforming structure. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 9, 1998. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD A RENTAL CAR USE AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONING C-4, (DON DRISCOLL, GENERAL MANAGER PARK PLAZA HOTEL, APPLICANT AND SHINSEKAI CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER). Staff briefly reviewed the proposed project and its relationship to the existing hotel use on the site and Commissioner's asked the following questions: hotel meets minimum requirements but does it have enough parking without application; does Fox Rent-A-Car have any other operations in the area; do any other hotels have an independent car rental operation; why can't the applicant restripe the parking lot to provide more parking now, how much more would be provided; applicant should estimate the number of cars rented from this site now and over the next five years as well as the number of cars stored on -site now and over the next five years; where will the contracts be written, will any of them be written off -site; comment on growth plan, application implies that there will be little growth over the next 5 years, is that the intention; applicant is meeting the minimum parking requirement for the use but has in addition to hotel rooms, meeting space, one restaurant and another business on -site, what does staff feel is the actual parking need on this site along with the minimum code requirements; staff should look at current parking need and additional use in five years; conditions should include that car rental contracts are written on -site; how will cars be transported to and from this site, including replacing vehicles in the fleet; when will they resurface the hotel parking lot; the hotel should provide valet parking as well as employee TSM programs and provide an off -site location for employee parking, what are the specific proposals the hotel is making to address these items. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on March 19, 1998 provided that the questions can be addressed in time for report preparation. pla City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1998 ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1190 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED 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). (77 NOTICED) CONTINUED TO THE MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chair Key noted that the applicant has requested a continuance of this item to the meeting of March 9, 1998, however since this item was noticed the commission would open the public hearing tonight to allow anyone who might be here and unable to attend the meeting on March 9, to comment. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was continued to the meeting of March 9, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR TRUCK STORAGE AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1 (JOEL BECK, PROPERTY OWNER). (14 NOTICED) Chair Key noted that the property owner/business operator in this permit revocation has requested a continuance of this matter to the meeting on March 23, 1998, since this item was noticed for a public hearing the commission will open the public hearing tonight to allow anyone who might be here and unable to attend the meeting on March 23, 1998, an opportunity to comment. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was continued to the meeting of March 23, 1998. 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). (79 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 02.23.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. There are 24 parking spaces at the rear of this building on the site, can they be designated to particular tenants, yes; when the plans were submitted for Banana Republic and Pottery Barn this area was shown as storage, does that affect the restaurant designation on this site, no; the area inside designated for seating is sized for an occupancy of only 17 people, yes. There were no further questions from the commissioners. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Billy Harris, 267 Edgewood, Pacifica, Martin Drelling, 1103 Juanita, and Alex Podell, 1201 Howard spoke representing the project. This is a relocation of an existing use, it had a low impact at the previous location and was fairly successful; this is an excellent situation at the back of this building, on Donnelly which is becoming a stronger pedestrian location; can designated parking within parking lot be shifted and two spaces dedicated to this use, yes if needed; the only storage on this site was some personal goods for a year or two; project show 60-70 customers increase to 150 in five years, a doubling; impact low because of specific use, customers are -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1998 local merchants, pedestrians; previous use was smaller in a smaller site; numbers in five years are ambitious, nature of business will adjust to location and see many of these as being people who will stop by to carry out a cup of coffee; what is important is the number of customers who will come to this site as a destination, maybe 20 %, more than half users are pedestrians; Donnelly focuses on a user friendly scale; do not propose to change catering part of business, just need to refocus retail sales because of location. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the intensity of this 1500 SF request with four employees was substantially less than the 4800 SF food establishment with closer to 20 employees approved as a part of a previous development proposed for this site; this is a relocation of an existing food establishment in the area, it has its own parking and does not front on Burlingame Avenue; the food establishment would not be open after 5 p.m. so it would not impact the evening parking demandwhere there are a lot of problems; he would move approval of the request with an amendment to staff condition 4 to require that the applicant provide a trash can of the streetscape design at a location selected by the City Engineer adjacent to the outdoor seating area; the action should be taken by resolution. C. Mink seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: know property owner and his father and this business has proved its metal, but this is the most impacted parking area in the entire city, when did site inspection was asked to move car from a merchant's parking area; this location across the street from Donnelly Square, will be attractive to those patrons who will stay in their parking spaces longer to have a cup of coffee, so it will increase the parking problem, we do not want to invite people attending Donnelly Square to stay longer; concerned about the outside seating because it too will encourage people to stay longer; would vote for a restaurant, the issue is the take-out permit; agree issue is take-out permit, liked this use at other location, here good idea in the wrong place because of the traffic congestion; Copenhagen has a door on to Donnelly which allows people on this side access for take-out, don't see this as the same; people from Donnelly Square sit outside at Il Fomaio and Stacks, they are doing it already; because this is an upscale catering business not think it will have a greater impact on. parking; impact the issue, providing less than Fire Department requirement with inside seating, could serve more people; this building provides 24 on -site parking spaces and is next to a public lot which is always full, now add another heavy parking use along with Banana Republic and Pottery Barn which compounds the parking problem; concerned about real potential for success which could cause a big impact; storage is need for retail uses and this is an appropriate use of this area; do not see this food establishment as a destination; if parked in area around noon stay because can't park, rest of the day parking is not so much of a problem; this business adds a convenience to people who don't want to cook but want to eat at home; good use of space, will bring people to the rear of this building, closes at 5 p.m. and caters to local people; would like to amend condition 1 to add in references made on revised sheet A2, February 13, 1998 and to require that two parking spaces be reserved on --site for this business. C. Deal maker of motion and C. Mink seconder, agreed to the amendment of condition number 1. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve by resolution with staff recommended conditions and amendments to conditions 1 and 4 as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department Site Plan, Floor Plan, Mezzanine Plan and Elevations, date stamped January 2, 1998 and revised sheet A2, date stamped February 13, 1998, with a maximum of 1400 SF inside and 175 SF outside; for a total food establishment area of 1575 GSF; 2) that two parking spaces on -site be designated for this retail space; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 12, 1998 memo and the Fire Marshal's January 12, 1998 memo shall be met; 4) that the store may not be open for business except during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1998 p.m., Monday through Saturday; 5) that the applicant shall purchase, within 30 days of commencing operation, and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, two trash receptacles, one inside the door to the store and one of the type recommended by the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Study, on the private sidewalk outside the store, placed at locations as approved by the City Engineer; 6) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all take-out debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters in front of the store along Donnelly Avenue, and within 50' of the store in each direction; and 7) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was approved 5-2 (Cers. Galligan and Wellford dissenting). Applicants were notified of the appeal rights to the close of the Council meeting on March 2, 1998. PLANNERS REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed the Council actions at their February 18, 1998 meeting. Neighborhood Consistency Discussion The members of the Commission's Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee presented a number of topics for commission discussion in an effort to glean some parameters for their work. In the discussion commissioners noted that when trying to get a "fit" in an existing neighborhood one needs to look at the pattern of development in area; need a blend with the existing neighborhood; many different neighborhoods, need guidelines which are adaptable to each, perhaps we need to divide the city into districts. Committee is suggesting a user friendly design review of second story addictions; they need to develop guidelines stating and showing in diagrams what the city is trying to accomplish and be clear about what the city is not trying to accomplish; suggesting a committee of three people, including one planning commissioner, who will meet regularly and review all second story additions so be sure have something that fits in. All guidelines would be recommendations only, designer should meet as many as possible. There was some discussion about how such a committee would fit into the. current process and what review responsibilities the Commission would have, staff noted that the City Attorney who was not present is the best resource for processing so the subcommittee should discuss this with him; FAR is not working since rarely can you see the reduction in floor area from the front of the lot; seems that the "new construction" classification affects the homeowner remodeling but not the developer who removes a house and puts in a new structure to the maximum of all our code requirements; impact of FAR needs to be leveled out; garages are a problem most people do not mind a one car garage at the rear but feel a detached two car garage takes too much of the rear yard; feel that the additions in the Mills Estates area are not so big any more because of the hillside area permit review. One commissioner noted that the city's charm rooted in narrow streets and small lots is the very problem, need to accommodate cars off the street because we cannot make the streets wider, on street parking is becoming a public safety issue because emergency vehicles cannot get through. People come to the city for charm but they want more house than they bought and destroy the very charm that attracted them to Burlingame. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1998 Problem is that there are so many holes in the dike, where do we begin. Second story additions are a problem, parking a problem (not too concerned about location of garage so long as 30 or 40 feet back from the street); could consider making design review a voluntary process by structuring it so that there is more flexibility in the regulations if you choose to go that route. Some Commissioners noted that they were concerned about adding another level of bureaucracy with design review, the DRB would review and the project could still be reviewed by the Planning Commission; better to find a way to clean up code and not have so many minor modifications and exceptions caused by new construction; leave compatibility and consistency with the neighborhood determinations to the Planning Commission. Subcommittee member noted that he did not want to add another level of review, but wants a committee to review all second story additions, if there are no problems or problems can be resolved, project goes right to building permit; committee allowed to give incentives in terms of development envelope to encourage compatibility compliance; appeal to Planning Commission will always be there. We need to find a way to catch legal homes, which are ugly, that are being built; DRB would end the negotiation that the Planning Commission feels compelled to do, PC has no time to negotiate; DRB should be able to negotiate by allowing exceptions to code requirements where they are appropriate incentives to neighborhood fit; why not empower staff, so that there is not another committee; problem is that everyone who improves a house wants to go to the limit; should we consider charging for appeal hearings, could charge for DRB review and refund money if complies with agreed to changes. We are not discussing a loss of freedom, can still do whatever you want inside a house, the only way to stop the spec. developer is to institute some level of design review, its unfortunate; people who want to fix up old houses are forced out of market by better financed developers who bid up the price so they can demo existing and replace with a new house because there is a bigger profit margin for them that remodel and resell. There was no further discussion. The Subcommittee members will meet and discuss the input and come back to the commission with a more specific proposal. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key asked to close the meeting in memory of Merrill Lionel Warne, a long time Burlingame resident who died recently after 101.5 years lived to the fullest, Mr. Warne was the uncle of CP Margaret Warne Monroe and father of Howard Warne, also a Burlingame resident. Chair Key then called for adjournment. C. Galligan moved adjournment, C. Mink seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. MINUTES2.23 Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary 541