Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.03.09MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 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 March 9, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan (in at 7:05), Luzuriaga, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioner Wellford Staff Present: Planner, Kristin Johnson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall; Assistant Fire Chief, Ken Musso; City Attorney, Larry Anderson MINUTES - Page 3, para. 2, line 4; of the minutes for the meeting of the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission, were corrected to read; "There were not comments from the floor and the public hearing was continued to the meeting of March 9, 1998, and p. 6, para. 2, line 6; "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;" C Deal then moved approval of the minutes. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey, and passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Galligan and Wellford absent). AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT' AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2930 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (JOYCE FORD, APPLICANT AND KATHY HUTCHINSON AND LUIS ROSARIO, PROPERTY OWNERS) Staff made a brief presentation of the project and the Commissioners asked that the following items be addressed: requested story poles be erected which define the height and depth of the proposed addition; a soils report (referenced in the Senior Engineer's 2/2/98 memo) is not required to be submitted at this time, it will be required as part of the application for the building permit; indicate the city boundary line on the aerial. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING SIDE SETBACK AND FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH; AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND FOR A WINDOW WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE AT 1446 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (STEVEN AND JULIE DeVINCENZI APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). After a brief presentation of the project from the staff the Commissioners asked the applicant to explain the reason for the double doors in the workshop area in the accessory structure. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR TWO SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FOR A NEW SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH QUALIFIES AS NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1228 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONING R-1, (STEPHEN JOHNSON APPLICANT AND STEPHEN AND ALISA RUIZ-JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff reviewed the application and the Commission had no comments or questions at this time. This item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS A HOME OFFICE AND FOR RECREATION AND TO ALLOW WINDOWS WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE LOCATED AT 539 FRANCISCO DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (ALICIA FAUGIER APPLICANT AND ALICIA FAUGIER AND VINCENT BONES, PROPERTY OWNERS). Staff made a brief presentation of the project and the Commissioners requested the following information be included in the action packet: does the applicant have a home occupation ]permit; staff to review vapor barrier requirements, will the structure be required to be demolished if a vapor barrier is required; what are the applicant's alternate plans should the accessory structure be required to be demolished; please indicate scale of plans on drawing and dimension side setbacks; provide a floor plan of the rear of the residence; is it possible to create an addition at the rear of the home to use for a home office; explain why windows are required to be located 6'-6" from the property line; do the new windows installed require a building permit and was one obtained for the new window installation. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (K:ENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS). and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A T14REE STORY, THREE (3) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 51 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (KENDALL G. PETERSON, APPLICANT AND MANSSUR, MONICA, BEHZAD AND COLEEN AFLAK, PROPERTY OWNERS). After a brief presentation of the project from the staff the Commissioners asked that the following questions be addressed: need to consider guest parking on site; where is garbage located; document amount of storage space in the building; how is access obtained to the open space from "Unit C"; -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 delineate common open area and indicate the SF; indicate why the large expanses of concrete are needed; verify the length of the guest parking space, it appears to be substandard; address how this project meets the purpose of the zoning plan, specifically how the project promotes wholesome, sightly, harmonious and economic results in the use of the property; provide explanation of why concrete driveway is required to be so expansive; guest parking is hidden from view, reorient guest parking; to make it more visible and accessible; provide a perspective drawing of the project from the street view. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES (PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY OFFICE) AT 1450 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 6, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, (DR. RENATE TRITTELVITZ AND PAMELA KRELL, PH.D., APPLICANTS AND DORENE ROEPKE, PROPERTY OWNER). Staff briefly reviewed the application and the Commission requested the following information: clarify the proposed and existing floor areas (pg 2 staff report); what was the previous use of this space; if it turns out there is another medical use in this building, will the parking still be de minimis. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 23, 1998. CONSENT ITEMS APPLICABILITY OF ZONING CODE TO THE PROPOSED REMODEL AT 824 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1, (NEIL MURPHY AND JULIANA FUERBRINGER APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 03.09.98, with attachments. C. Deal recommended commission accept the project and moved approval of the application. The recommendation was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) voice vote. ACTION 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). Reference staff report, 03.09.98, with attachments. Planner Johnson and. Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Planner Johnson noted a special permit was approved for recreational use of the existing accessory structure and for transom windows and skylights within 10'-0" of the property line in 1994. In the 1994 Planning Commission conditions of approval, one of the conditions specifically stated that no interior water or sewer service shall be added to this structure. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Paul and Virginia Malone, applicants, thanked the Commission for visiting their property and addressed Commission regarding their special permit amendment. This -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 is an amendment to a special permit to allow an 8'-0" x 5'-0" full bathroom, new wet bar and a window within 10'-0" of the property line to remain; explained that sons used accessory structure for workout room and the applicants were tired of hosting bathroom breaks and showers inside of the main residence; no permits were obtained for the new construction (bathroom addition, wet bar or window) and the applicant apologized for this omission; bathroom is essential to how applicants use home; do not believe there are any adverse impacts on the adjacent neighbors; understand city's concerns regarding accessory structures and rental units in the R-1 zoning district; the applicant suggested three conditions of approval: 1) that if the unit were ever used as a dwelling unit, the special permit shall be revoked, 2) that the special permit would expire at the time of sale of the residence and that the expiration shall be recorded on the title of the property, 3) that a penalty bond shall be posted for the removal of the bathroom addition. Commission noted: the applicant is a member of the California State Bar and should know the difference between non -conforming and illegal; applicant appeared to go out and purposefully build a bathroom when they knew it was not permitted. Charles and Sherry Bona, 1551 Bernal Avenue, spoke in opposition to the special permit amendment: provided a chronology of events from the request for the 1994 special permit to the construction of the bathroom; feel they were mislead about the use of the structure; they have a smaller than usual lot; addition to accessory structure not attractive from their property; applicant removed a window and provided pots of plants to provide screening for the neighbor which was appreciated; concerned about the possibility of this unit being used as a living unit and about the parties and noise that may occur in this area; a unit like this would be attractive to a potential purchaser of the property. Commission asked the neighbor about noise at this location; the unit is close to the neighbor's bedroom; have talked to applicants about noise in the past and issues regarding noise have been resolved. Commission noted the removal of the bathroom would not change any of the existing problems that are occurring; noted the installation of a bath and wet bar encourages the building to be used for parties or residential uses. This is a request for a special permit amendment and not a variance; can make findings which evaluate the impact of the use on the neighboring properties. The applicant responded to the comments made: acknowledged there has been noise in the past which has disrupted the neighbors; would like to think noise problem is a thing of the past since his sons who use the structure are older; has encouraged neighbors to call if there was a problem; acknowledged accessory structure is prominent from the neighbor's yard and indicated efforts have been made to make the structure more attractive; has screened the structure with plants and has offered to painting it a color pleasing to the neighbor; other 5 properties which are adjacent to property do not object to bathroom addition. There were no further questions or comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission clarified there was a special permit to rebuild the existing pump house, roofline is higher and electricity has been installed. C. Mink moved denial of the application indicating the bath portion of the addition be removed, the sanitary sewer plugged and the accessory structure returned to the conditions in the 1994 special permit approval. C. Deal seconded the motion and the denial passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised noting the next council meeting would be on Monday, March 16, 1998. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 On the motion: the use has changed since the original approval to use this structure for recreation; the bathroom and wet bar allows the structure to be used for things it was not used for in the past; the noise and light has increased at the property line; what the neighbor expected was not what he got; no water or sewer service was permitted in the previous permit; the neighbor is not: impacted by the new bath construction; the commission has been very judicious when granting permission to install electricity, heat, water and sewer service to these types of units; if a condition is placed on the project to remove the bath at the time of sale, once the home is sold the new owner will also request a special permit for it to remain. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (G'LUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA SHAHMIRZA, PROPERTY OWNERS). CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 9, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT 1424 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (G'LUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND MEHDI AND DEBRA SHAHMIRZA., PROPERTY OWNERS). CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 9, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reference staff report, 03.09.98, with attachments. Planner Johnson and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twelve conditions were recommended for consideration. There were letters expressing concerns related to the storm drains and flooding in the area from Philip Kahn, Marilyn Elperin, 1451 Capuchino Avenue; Barbara and George Nagata, 1426 Capuchino Avenue; Sarah Langford, 1431 Capuchino Avenue and John and Martha Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue, and pictures entered into the record. Commission noted: the neighbor to the north requested a 36" high wall adjacent to her property. Annette DiMartini, 127 Lowell St, San Francisco, adjacent property owner, responded: a 12" wall along the property line at the driveway is satisfactory in order to prevent cars from driving out her driveway to El Camino Real. Project representative proposed additional parking could be provided in front of the garages for the units. The open space was also addressed: common open space can be used for a place for people to sit. Commission responded that the open space appeared to be left over land; have a sense that space is not usable. The designer noted the area is 400 SF and is too small for large scale activities, but is can be used for picnicking or sitting; designed project to code requirements; additional guest parking was not required in the code; did not feel the addition of one more guest parking space would solve the parking problem; this is a condominium permit and Commission has discretion regarding requirements; one guest parking space is not an absolute requirement, more may be required depending on the location and the impacts; project is in a poor location. The property representative suggested parking could be accommodated in front of the garages; there is a potential for 4 more spaces; lot is narrow; open space in back is as far from El Camino as it can get. Commission responded: the landscaping is as small as it can get and the development is as large as it can get; tandem parking does not work; the parking and open space seem to be an afterthought; open space appears to be a walkway, long and narrow instead of a more usable shape. The Planner noted if parking were allowed in front of garage, exiting would be very difficult in the forward direction. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 Commission comments: at study session it was requested the applicant review off -site parking concerns; there is only 1 guest space and El Camino Real does not have on -street or other guest parking areas; assume guests will park on Hillside or around corner from project. Representative responded; the guest parking meets minimum standards; there is a crosswalk adjacent to property. Commission commented: in the past, apartments in this area have used all of the on -street parking in the area; there is no on -street parking left; open space on the site has been traded for the parking area; the only landscaping provided on the site is the back lawn area and the front setback area; property can support an additional parking space; there is an overburden of parking on the adjacent side streets; project meets the minimum requirements, however minimum is not enough; parking is a critical shortage on this application; complemented applicant for addressing many of the other concerns identified at the study meeting. Commission asked staff if pumping water to El Camino Real is a feasible solution to the drainage problem. The City Engineer responded: if water is pumped to El Camino Real, the water is received in a catch basin at Mills and El Camino; the upper box on Mills probably has added capacity; in most cases the water would flow into the catch basin and culvert under the sidewalk on Mills; if this area were at capacity, the water would continue down Mills, turn corner on to Paloma and continue to Grove where the major problem exists. Commission noted this solution moves the problem, however, the water would end up in the same location even if it were not pumped to El Camino Real. The CE noted the current 5 million dollar sanitary sewer project which extends from Cadillac Drive and Rollins Road up to this area and up to Dufferin and California which will address sewer capacity in this area, the storm drainage can not be calculated; most of system in area can only accept a 5 year storm; recent storms are very heavy; the Hillside sewer problem should be taken care of by this time next year; not a lot the city can do in a short period of time; some residents indicated water has topped El Camino and has flowed out to Capuchin; as lots in this area are developed, it is a good opportunity to berm up higher on El Camino; drainage and sewer system built in 1920's. Commission asked if the drainage from El Camino will exacerbate the problem, no. Chair Key opened the public hearing noting for the record that the condominium permit and tentative map would be addressed. Eugene Bass, representing the owner, introduced Charles Kavanaugh, surveyor on the project, and G'lush, the project designer. Mr. Bass then presented the project: there is one on -site guest parking space, the applicant did not increase or change the guest space, however, it does meet the minimum guest parking requirements and is similar to other projects in the area; no other projects in area subject to more guest parking; it is difficult to provide additional parking on a multi -family lot; guests may park on the adjacent streets, Mills Avenue and Grove Avenue; there is a cross -walk in front of property which makes parking across the street more accessible; have permission from CalTrans to pump water to El Camino Real which is a benefit to everyone downstream of the project; water will be required to go into a junction box and be disbursed before going into the gutter. Annette DiMartini spoke in favor of the project: welcome structure next door; new owner has worked with neighbor to address requests. Stan Moore, 1400 Capuchin, Pat Healy, 668 Miller, South San Francisco, owner of 1427 Capuchin, Maureen Murphy, 1423 Capuchin, Philip Connor, 1451 Capuchino, Carol Ernst, 1434 Capuchin, Jim Breen, 1440 Capuchino, Callie McCrosky, 1419 Capuchino spoke against the project: parking problem in neighborhood has become increasingly worse; if there is a possibility of sewage or drainage problem, request Commission not approve request; stated for the record that the; property owners at 1427 In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 Capuchino and 1423 Capuchin Drive do not want a drainage easement on their property; requested Planning Commission consider this to be a special zone; owners require flood insurance in this area; consider in special planning context in regards to drainage; would like to see city provide proper drainage in the area; requested a drainage opening be put at the corner of Mills and Capuchino or Paloma and Mills to tie to the storm drainage system because there is natural drainage; on El Camino; have been greatly affected by water in area; have sump pump to take care of water in area, had up to 2' of water in back yard; do not want any more water in area; please address drainage concerns in this area; please get in writing that CalTrans will allow water to be pumped to El Camino; flooding during last storm was a problem; El Camino and Hillside drainage come through to properties on Capuchin. The project representative responded that the water from this property is being directed away from Capuchin; there are several projects to the south on the same side of the street have same open space and parking provision; why is owner subject to more stringent requirements; area is zoned for high density uses; there will be problems that spill over from R-3 zones to R-1 zones; noted that applicant would get firm commitment from Cal Trans regarding the drainage. Commission asked how the drainage on the site works now. The CE responded: it appears a portion of the water flows to El Camino, rest of water goes through back yard and ponds; typical drainage for a site on El Camino Real; El Camino is a problem; heavy rain storms are a problem; minimum requirements for the project were met, including parking; asked if there was any additional thought given to additional parking. The designer commented she worked within the parameters defined by the code. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: it is not this property owner's obligation to solve parking problems of Burlingame; asking applicant to provide extra parking; guest parking proposed is not visible; logical to have parking in front of the property; space proposed will not be functional for guest parking; this project is not the same as two earlier projects approved by the Commission on El Camino Real; the other projects shared a joint driveway which helped with circulation; this project is not being treated any different from any other project that has been before Commission; have obligation to see if it can function with parking provided; impressed with how property owner has addressed other issues that the Commission raised; if this project is approved it can not increase burden of water flowing to rear of property at Capuchin or Mills area; not ready to approve project at this time; concerned that landscaping would not grow in area provided; open space does not make sense; project lacks sufficient parking; applicant should consider sliding project further back to rear; take the initial guest parking space provided and place in the in front; would also consider allowing a second space in the front; parking in front of the garages precludes turning from the site; there are limitations on the site; each unit has own stairwell, perhaps sharing the stairwells will maximize the use on this site; Commission's job is not to redesign, but to react to the proposal. C. Galligan then moved to deny the project for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Commission suggested the motion include a request that the common open space be more functional. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. Chair called for the vote and the motion to deny passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Planner Johnson commented the code does not allow parking in the front or side setbacks. Commission noted that may not be a problem if project were to be moved further back on the site; an additional parking space at the front of the property may be considered, although some front landscaping may be -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 lost; if denied, cannot bring same project back for 1 year, a different project would address the deficiencies in parking and common open space; noted that units are approxiimately 1500 SF, which may be larger than some of the homes on Capuchino; project over built; should consider reducing project to 3 units; much prefer to see condominium project rather than apartment project because the units are usually owner occupied. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD A RENTAL CAR USE AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (DON DRISCOLL, GENERAL MANAGER PARK PLAZA HOTEL, APPLICANT AND SHINSEKAI CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 03.09.98, with attachments. Planner Johnson and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Ten conditions were recommended for consideration. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Mike Jaberi, applicant and Don Driscoll, General Manager, Park Plaza Hotel were present to answer any questions. Commission asked what is a bad time of year for the car rental business. Applicant stated that when it rains, car rentals taper off, November is usually a bad time of year for car rentals. Commission asked if there are 20 parking spaces and 40 cars, where are the remaining cars parked. The applicant responded that at this time parking is not a problem; estimated that there may be 30-410 days where the utilization is below 70 %; if there are too many cars on the site they will be shipped to Los Angeles where they have other locations. Commission asked several questions about the parking operation at the hotel. The applicant responded: parking is reserved for guests in the underground parking garage; there is no valet parking at this time, if there is a need it is provided on an individual basis; the company rotates cars approximately every 24 months; a truck delivers 10 cars on a truck at a time; the truck is unloaded at the rear of the property during off-peak hours. Commission also asked about signage and the shuttle service from the airport. The applicant and General Manager responded: there is no intent to have outdoor advertising on the site; there are three operations in Los Angeles, none of the sites have signage; there is a shuttle van associated with the car rental agency which picks up customers from the airport; parking for the shuttle van is also required; the shuttle van for the hotel can accommodate service to and from the airport; would envision that the hotel shuttle van picks up customers from the airport, customers will rent a car at the hotel, stay the night at the hotel and then return to the airport on the hotel shuttle van. Commission noted that there are 3 parking spaces used for loading/ unloading as well as a shuttle van which were not included in the proposed 20 parking spaces for the hotel. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted that there is adequate parking for the hotel and the proposed use; the rental car business is a service to the hotel customers; the operation is small in scale and there are no other facilities for a small operation such as this because of the minimum size requirement, 0.7 of an acre, for independent car rental businesses. C. Deal for these reasons moved approval of an amendment to a special permit to add a rental car use, with an amended condition #2, limiting; the maximum of 20 parking spaces (17 parking + 3 loading) for rental fleet vehicle storage, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the rental car facility shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 Department and date stamped February 12, 1998, Site Plan, Lobby Floor Plan and Basement Parking Plan and shall not block required fire exits within the building; 2) that the uses on this site shall consist of a car rental desk in the hotel lobby and shall be limited to a maximum of 20 parking spaces (17 parking + 3 loading) for rental fleet vehicle storage, and shall not operate more than 60 cars from this site; 3) that all car rental contracts shall be written on site; 4) that the parking lot shall be restriped to provide 20 % compact parking stalls in order to accommodate more parking spaces as part of its resurfacing program which shall be in place before March, 2000; 5) that the hotel shall continue to provide shuttle service to San Francisco International Airport for hotel guests; 6) that should hotel parking demand exceed on -site parking provided so that it impacts use of adjacent properties, the hotel shall institute management techniques such as valet parking, off -site employee parking and hotel van transportation from local rail stations; 7) that the hotel shall monitor its parking lot regularly to control abuse by people using it for long-term airport parking; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Fire Marshal's November 17, 1997 memos shall be met; 9) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that this use permit shall be subject to review in one year and in two years (March, 1999 and March, 2000), and each 2 years thereafter or upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga and passed 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 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, PROPERTY OWNERS). CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 23, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Reference staff report, 03.09.98, with attachments. Planner Johnson and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were recommended for consideration. Commission asked what the length of the parking space is; staff responded that it appeared to be 15'-0". Commission clarified several issues: the non -conforming parking spaces in the south parking lot measure approximately 15' in length; the palm tree reference in the Streetscape Master Plan should be stricken from the text on page 25 of the Streetscape Master Plan; the flowering pear tree is a conical tree, not a columnar tree; there are 10 parking spaces in the south parking lot and 15 parking space in the north lot if the required van accessible space is provided (14 standard and 1 van accessible space); the Building Department enforces ADA requirements; one van accessible space is required for each area of parking; the Building Official may waive the second van accessible space if the valet parking arrangement meets ADA requirements; put the applicant on notice that a van accessible space may be required. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Bill Boyd, applicant's attorney introduced other members representing the restaurant: Mr. Condi, owner of restaurant, Mr. Gibin, project coordinator, Mr. Minna, executive chef. Have reviewed the conditions in staff report, believe that they can reasonably comply with the conditions. Cass Caulder Smith, architect distributed packet showing palm trees in Burlingame, various restaurant projects that architect has designed and the eclectic architecture in Burlingame; In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 diagrams illustrating various issues such as exiting and sight distance were also distributed to the Commission. The architect addressed the design of the project: have studied Burlingame Streetscape Master Plan, recapped three goals of plan; building new architecture like old architecture not in spirit of preservation or consistent with the time the historic building was built; for practical and aesthetic reasons it was decided to save the ticket station portion of the building; rear portion of the building not as visible nor as practical to save; create second building next to old ticket station; the buildings will be in the same Mediterranean style using the same types of materials and landscaping; tried to make a "corner" building by pushing building out towards street; the combination of the building and the palm tree make it a strong corner; recommended that city plant a matching tree across the street to create an entrance to Burlingame; Burlingame is very eclectic, one underlying theme in the environment is Mediterranean features such as stucco, terra cotta, palms and yucca; a restaurant is a pedestrian friendly use in this area; noted that there are utilities in the area proposed for the expansion and recognized that it is the restaurant's responsibility to relocate the utilities if necessary; explained that they can meet requirements of the building code; there is adequate distance behind the existing disabled accessible ramp at the corner of California and Broadway for circulation; they can add 5 more feet to the standard accessible parking in the south lot so that it meets code requirements; sight lines have changed approximately 3 % due to the addition, angular view changes very little; feels the project meets the special permit findings; did not think that "Mediterranean Modernism" describes the style of the architecture very well; the building was designed in the day we live in; indicated that Trax had approximately 112 seats; the train station is a public building in the sense that we look at it and use it, but it is not city owned, it is owned by the Joint Powers Board; it is within reason that a businesses express who they are and what they are through their architecture; existing small parking spaces in the south parking lot are being used right now and function as parking spaces. Mark Spenser, Traffic Engineer, DKS Associates, addressed the Commission: responsible for traffic study intersection of California and Broadway; this is a problematic intersection based on volumes and signal operations; LOS based on field measurements; signal operates at different capacities during the day and varies depending on Cal Train schedule and volume of traffic; based on trips project generates and valet parking, does not affect operation in adverse way; project in peak hour generates 31 additional vehicle trips, including valet service; existing right turn lane has a yield sign which is an existing deficiency; architect did calculations, there is 3 % difference in sight lines; don't have warning that train gate is down; problem should be addressed regardless of restaurant project; if patrons can't make left hand turn into parking, due to opposing traffic or valet traffic, cars will back up into the intersection; key to prevent the back up of traffic is the valet operation; property owners committed to have enough valet operators on site so that cars keep moving and do not back on to street; there are two opportunities to make a left hand turn, one at the driveway adjacent to the restaurant and one further south on California; have opportunity to use south portion of parking lot; south portion of parking lot has capacity for additional non -commute parking; there is an opportunity for restaurant patrons to take advantage of parking spaces not used by Cal Train commuters. Arlene Patton, Joint Powers Board (JPB), spoke in favor of the project; restaurant has been out of service for a year and a half; the new use will breathe life into property. Commission asked if there are sufficient spaces for CalTrain users in the parking lot south of Broadway and noted that enforcement of non-CalTrain patrons in the parking lots is very lax. Ms. Patton indicated that most commuters park before 8 am, once the majority of commuters are in the lot, lot is approximately 70% full. Commission noted that there may be some significant projects in the right-of-way such as BART and high speed rail. It was noted by the JPB representative that the right of way through most of corridor is about 100 feet -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 wide which should be able to accommodate projects; noted that these projectsc are not expected in the very near future; a grade separation is also a possibility; the project lead for a grade separation is the city, lease was written in anticipation that grade separation could happen and information was disclosed to applicant James Goodman, Stinson Beach, colorist and designer for project addressed the image of the project in terms of aesthetics: site is constrained; if they would have had a larger more gracious space, they would have entertained a larger more gracious Mediterranean structure; described the materials - warm white integral color plaster, sandstone detailing, terra cotta detailing, tile feature; all materials are very tactile materials found in Mediterranean buildings; would like to create an environment inside the restaurant by bringing light into the restaurant from the windows under the flat roof. Martin Dreiling, 1321 Paloma, chair of streetscape committee; Richard Taronas, San 1103 Juanita, Diane Wirgler, 1536 Cypress, Michael Grant, 1121 Juanita, and James Dunbar, 1644 Clay Street #11, San Francisco spoke in opposition to the project: the number of conditions, mitigations, and details seem to indicate that this is not the right project or solution for this site; this is a train station, the public perceives it as a train station; it is a historic building to the people of Burlingame; the building being demolished was built in 1915, it is an example of Arts and Crafts architecture, which is an important part of the urban fabric; the intersection is important; intersection is where Burlingame started; people walk to train station, the proposed building will become a barrier to usage; other sites available for restaurant use near the area; the proposed building is a wall and a barrier which hides train station; may be support for restaurant on other side of Broadway; urban fabric exists at Broadway, but that is not the case at the train station; urged Commission to consider carefully, if not deny the project; would like to see the applicant make an effort to find an alternate solution here in Burlingame; not up to architect to decide if the portion of the building that is proposed to be demolished is of value to the community, it is up to the Planning Commission and the citizens of Burlingame to decide; not city's responsibility to be sure that site is viable for a restaurant use; save building for historical significance; the proposed building is a mass which restricts the entrance/gateway to Burlingame; none of the people who spoke in favor of project live in Burlingame; site and train station have special significance to people that grew up in the area and call Burlingame home; have grave concerns about project proposal; concerned about traffic at intersection; there were very few people in Trax, there will be a significant impact on the intersection if the number of people that frequent the site increases; concerned about people parking in north parking lot; Broadway employees usually do not park in the fee lots, but rather park on the adjacent streets for free. Commission asked if the number of trips counted in the traffic study included the valet trips, yes, train delays were also factored into the vehicle count. Commission commented: there are a number of conflicts getting into and out of the site; circulation does not work; expanding the restaurant at this location will exacerbate this problem; asked how do employees get home using rapid transit or commuter type service; parking need seems to be 60-65 parking spaces; if successful, more parking may be required, 25 spaces is not enough, unless CalTrain parking is used; does not seem appropriate to grant a parking variance because all of the exceptional circumstances are self imposed;Cal Train will not gift another 40 parking spaces. The JPB commented: most commuters are parked in the south parking lot by 9:00 am, parking north of Broadway is considered overflow; have no objection to using parking lots in non -commute hours; noted that applicant supplied the number of parking spaces required by the code. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 Commission noted: only way project works at night is if a number of spaces are used in the CalTrain parking lot; noon hour presents a different problem, with a full restaurant from 12 pm -2 pm, there will not be adequate parking because a majority of the overflow parking will be occupied by commuters; does not appear that 25 spaces are adequate for the afternoon. City Engineer commented: by extending the building, the amount of time a person has to view, see and react to traffic at the right hand turn lane on California Drive will be shortened; sight lines will be impacted more than was shown on the submitted diagram; effect is that building is blocking 40 or more feet back from train gate being down; anything that closes up intersection detracts from the traffic operation; also noted that drawing that applicant presented shows a u-turn at Carmelita to access the site, this would be discouraged. The attorney for the applicant made closing comments: feel that they cart meet a lot of the concerns addressed this evening and asked for approval of the application, enhance entry to Broadway area; Aqua restaurant has been a great citizen of San Francisco; please deny without prejudice if not able to approve; willing to work with Commission and community. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented that they would love to see this restaurant come to this city; traffic problem here, flows do not work; the placement of the building closer to the intersection goes against the grain of what we are trying to do here; building too close to intersection; would like to see something other than palm trees at this location; the proposed two buildings do not relate to one another; there will be a lot of complaints if the train station building is eliminated; need a larger more gracious lot; noted that the interiors of the restaurant in the photographs are beautiful, but would like to see a more beautiful exterior; traffic will be much worse than when Trax was at site because the site was not fully occupied when Trax was operating. C. Deal moved that application be denied without prejudice to allow the applicants to come back with a revised projects; feel that they have listened to what Commission and public has to say, but would like to be sure this location is appropriate for this particular use. Motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. C. Luzuriaga entered in record that he had lunch with Mr. Gibin at Aqua. Commission noted: quality of other restaurants that architect has designed is high, but are looking for something which fits into Burlingame, specifically at the Broadway site; this is the right project, at the: right time, but in the wrong location; the location has so many disadvantages that the project as proposed is not possible; this intersection will not be able to withstand traffic or pedestrian needs if this restaurant is as successful as it is projected to be; concerned about visibility due to minor additions to structure itself; recent projects such as the library and fire house took architectural features and incorporated into a new building, do not think train line or city is ready for such a significant departure from the architecture that exists along the train line; architecture of proposed building is out of place; project such as this can enhance Broadway; unless this project were to come in at half its size, it is inappropriate for this location; do not want to give opportunity to come back because of the impacts on parking and other impacts described previously; encourage applicant to reconsider project in different location; if applicant does choose to come back, staff should review accessible parking space requirements; parking will not work for intersection. C. Key entered into the record that she met with Mr. Gibin at Aqua for a Diet Coke; if the Commission has to give any direction this evening it would be to come in with a different project. Chair Key called for a -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 roll call vote. The motion to deny without prejudice failed 2-4-1 (Cmsrs. Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga and Mink dissenting and C. Wellford absent). C. Mink then made a motion to deny the project for the reasons stated. C. Galligan seconded the motion and the motion passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote (Cmsrs. Coffey and Key dissenting and C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON MORATORIUM ON SECOND STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. Reference staff report 3.9.98, with attachments. CA Anderson introduced the item. A letter from the Neighborhood Consistency subcommittee chair was referenced which recommended that the City Council impose a moratorium on second story single family construction greater than .45 FAR or second story single family construction greater than 2,700 SF. It was explained that a moratorium sets in place the status quo for a period of time to allow the City Council to consider zoning code amendment or a General Plan amendment; a moratorium can be enacted by the City Council on a 4/5 vote for a period no longer than 45 days; the city council can extend the moratorium for a period of 10 months, or a shorter period of time, or they can let moratorium lapse; this is called an interim ordinance in the Government Code. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council based on the subcommittee's recommendation. The City Council may accept the recommendation or modify it. Within the 45 days, the City Council should then receive a report back from Planning Commission regarding what progress has been made towards the development of an ordinance. After considering the report, the City Council may extend the moratorium for a period up to 10 months. The CA also indicated that the Planning Commission should recommend what applications the! moratorium might affect; generally the history has been that if someone has filed a planning application or filed a building permit and paid the fees prior to the enactment of the moratorium, those projects would not be affected; the moratorium could either be as short as 45 days, or no longer than 2 years. The Neighborhood Consistency subcommittee chair made the opening comments to the Commission: Referenced the purpose of the Zoning plan: Encourage remodeling of existing; residential structures which conform to the general design of the existing structure; preserving neighborhood character by designing new single family structures, accessory buildings and other structures to be: consistent with the existing character, ambience, mass and bulk of the other structures in the neighborhood where the new construction is located; in practice, Commission does not have an opportunity to review neighborhood compatibility; the design of a project is left to the applicant; in 1996, there were 27 second floor additions and 11 new homes; in 1997 there were 27 second floor additions and 22 new homes; as the economy gets better, home sizes increase; code does not address homes that are "stamped out cookie cutter style" with no consideration for the neighborhood in which they are located; would like to try new approach and develop criteria so that the building conforms to character of each individual neighborhood; there are houses being built now which comply with code requirements which are out of character with the neighborhoods; the subcommittee advised the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council proceed with an urgency ordinance for second story additions which meet the criteria mentioned previously; subcommittee is very concerned about the number of applications which may be designed rapidly and submitted just to avoid the moratorium; it takes months to design a home which is compatible with the neighborhood, however, if the city allows the moratorium to take effect in 30 days, there will be a number of submittals and the situation will be worse than before; idea not to stop construction but -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 to encourage construction that fits into the neighborhood; there is no incentive in the code to make a house appear less bulky from street, the only incentive right now is to avoid the Planning Commission process; the code dictates the design of house, and certain architectural styles are not accommodated in the code, such as Tudor style residences because the roof is too steep and exceeds the height requirements; there may need to be a review committee; there are too many projects in the design phase, it is not fair to stop those people right away; give residents a week to finish up and submit plans. The Subcommittee took questions from Commission: clarified that moratorium only applies to second story new construction, with .45 FAR or 2700 SF floor area ratio; smaller projects are not affected. Chair Key declared the public hearing open. Ann Keighran, 1531 Vancouver, Howard Page, 111 Central, Bruce and Diane Wirgler, 1536 Cypress and Dan Bierman, San ]Mateo spoke concerning the item: asked if the Commission was looking at the character of house or square footage or FAR exclusively; has observed that developers and homeowners take different approach to building; homeowners take more care to be compatible with neighborhood and generally try to please neighbors. Commission responded that the moratorium proposal first came about from the impacts developers have made on neighborhoods, but it was noted that homeowners are also building; out to the maximum extent possible; there homes are changing the style of the neighborhoods; these may be a review type committee proposed which develops guidelines and review projects based on guidelines, but there is no way to monitor neighborhood consistency as the code is now written. Comments from the public continued: asked if term "new construction" was being used generically. Representative from Subcommittee responded: would like to eliminate "new construction" because most variances that come before the planning Commission are for existing conditions; larger homes should receive more review. Public comment continued: thanked subcommittee for recommending that the moratorium not apply to projects already in for review; asked if there was a possibility that projects who can not submit before Tuesday be given an extra few days to submit; have been working on plans for submittal since a house fire 6 months ago; the possibility of a moratorium has put the pressure on to submit within the next week; there should be some accommodation for exceptional circumstances such as this; supported concept of moratorium, but stated that it is the larger developers that are causing problems; it is a burden on the homeowner who is doing a smaller project; many clients in town like their neighborhoods, but have outgrown their homes; has been through many design review processes and a design review board would have many benefits to Burlingame; many clients are concerned about where they are in the design process and how they should proceed; many clients are trying to decide whether to move or stay where they are; clients love neighborhoods; clients are concerned because they have made a commitment to Burlingame, but as their families expand they need more room; have been through many design review processes and think a design review board would be a great benefit to Burlingame; would like to give direction to clients about what they should do at this point in the middle of a design; can something preliminary be submitted at this time to lock the in process; at what stage in planning can plans be submitted. The subcommittee responded: indicated that exceptions are extremely difficult to do; suggested that architects talk to clients before the moratorium and try to submit; only complete planning and building permit applications with the appropriate fees paid will be accepted prior to the moratorium; there is no way to make an exception clause equitable to everyone. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 1998 Commission comments: indicated that City Council will review Planning Commission recommendations on March 16, 1998; may not be able to give architects/residents direction at that time; need time to develop an ordinance; appreciate work subcommittee has done on neighborhood consistency; would like to separate process to another night; when City Council recognized that there was rampant overbuilding, they appointed a committee to review overbuilding; result was envelope city adopted; complaints continued from neighbors; FAR was then adopted; direction and input from Planning Commission was missing on both issues regarding content and implementation; as complaints continue, involve projects that Planning Commission and City Council never see; the city is telling developers how to build houses; we are now complaining about how they are building to extreme limits of code; given parameters and builders are working within the parameters; the solutions thus far has not worked, losing the character that makes Burlingame special; moratorium is a drastic step; we are in a building boom, if we do not do something now, and realize that what we have on the books is not how want community to be developed, there will be 20-30 projects that are submitted which will exacerbate situation; cannot imagine 6 month delay, but don't think there is another solution; need to take time out to see: if this is how Burlingame wants to be; want to make Burlingame better; system is not equitable to people applying for small projects with minor variances because they are hung up while larger projects are approved without scrutiny; may provide help for people who have better designs, such as Tudors or other architectural styles, which can not be accommodated under the current ordinance. C. Galligan moved recommendation to City council. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) voice vote. Discussion on motion: have allowed variances and special permits in the past that should not have allowed; problem is that there is no criteria so that the commission can jointly say that it should not be done; the development of criteria will be a major benefit of the moratorium; urge that work move quickly on this topic. PLANNERS REPORTS - Planner Johnson reviewed the City Council regular meeting of March. 2, 1998. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key called for adjournment. C. Galligan moved adjournment, there were no objections and the commission adjourned on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Wellford absent). The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. MINUTES3.9 -15- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary