Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.11.10MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1997 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 November 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City —Planner, Margaret" M6fiioe; City Attorney; Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the September 22, 1997 Planning Commission approval of the 1801, 1815, 1831 Bayshore Highway and 840 Cowan road application, condition ##3 on pages 8, 9 and 10 were amended to read; "3) that all rental contracts for cars rented and stored on this site for the tour businesses arriving at San Francisco Airport on this site shall be written in Burlingame at the facility located at 1831 Bayshore Highway;" Further, the conditions of the September 8, 1997 Planning Commission action were corrected for the 920 Chula Vista approval, as follows: 1. that the project shall be as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1997 sheets 1-6 (location map, site plan, floor plan 920A and 920B, existing floor plan 922A and 922B, floor plan and electrical 922A, Section A); 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's memo dated June 13, 1997 and the Fire Marshal's June 16, 1997 memo shall be met so that the existing units including 922A shall comply with all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame, 1995 edition; 3. that, based on the June 10, 1997 plans, unit 922A shall be removed within ten years time (by June 10, 2007) and the area of the site occupied by this unit shall be converted to open space useable by the other tenants as approved by the City's Senior. Landscape Inspector; -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 4. that the variance for parking for unit 922A and for providing dwelling units in two buildings in the R-3 zoning district shall expire in the year 2007 so that if this site is redeveloped for multiple famil;housing in the future the new project must meet all the requirements of the applicable zoning district in effect at that time; in the interim period between the year 2007 and any reconstruction, the three remaining units and three on -site parking spaces serving them shall be considered nonconforming; and 5. that if before the year 2007, there is any increase in the square footage of the dwelling units and/or buildings on this site or any other construction, the opportunity to retain the fourth unit for 10 years (to the year 2007) and to retain the nonconforming 3 dwelling units on the site shall be voided, and the property shall be reconstructed within all the code requirements in effect for the zoning district at that time. The minutes of the September •89, 4997 and September 22,, -1997 : were: then approved as amended and certified copies of the Resolutions, as amended, are to be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. The minutes of the October 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were then approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT :FOR OFFICE GREATER THAN 50% OF FLOOR AREA AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN AMBULANCE SERVICE AT 1606 AND 1616 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, APPLICANT AND JOE DIMAIO, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: since these two properties are in one ownership, has the owner considered merging the properties to eliminate the need for a parking variance; if commission were to grant a variance then it would be necessary to tie the two properties together and have the variance terminate when the use terminates on either site; provide information on the total number of ambulance vehicles on the road at peak hour and total ever parked on site at one time, and the time of that: peak; what, if any, energy requirements does the county have for the operation of this fleet of vehicles; city attorney needs to look at parking variance issue and see that these two properties are "joined at the hip" so that a variance does not extend to future uses on this site. The project was set for public hearing on November 24, 1997. ACTION ITEMS -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND AREA AT 1100 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, (DAVID R. FRAZER, APPLICANT AND NATHAN & MARILYN SCHMIDT, PROPERTY OWNERS.) Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked why the sign over the door was counted with the secondary frontage (California Drive) instead of the primary frontage since it can be seen from either side; staff noted that we assign signage to one frontage, and this sign could have been assigned to either frontage and was assigned in this case to the secondary frontage. Chair Key opened the public hearing. David Frazer, 310 Grandville Court, San Jose, representing Left at Albuquerque, the applicant, noted that the restaurant has been open about a year, people have commented that coming down -Californ a -they. have -difficulty finding the restaurant; -they- put the arrow up on the secondary frontage because they felt that it was a piece of art, it has no wording on it; want the wall sign to identify the business, the sign over the door is hard to see from California; the proposed sign will be the same color as the one now on the building, commissioners asked; part of justification in letter was that this is your slow season and need better signage to survive, trying to target as much of the market as can over the winter which is the slower season for us because the sidewalk use is not available. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he had been past the site hundreds of times and it is true if coming south on California from Broadway one cannot see any identification for this restaurant, if the signage on the comer were divided evenly between the two frontages there would be less than the maximum 50 SF of signage on each frontage with this request, also less than the maximum number of signs; therefore he does not see this request as a grant of special privilege, the signage is in keeping with the building; he moved approval of the sign exception, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 24, 1997 Sheets K, S1, and S2; and 2) that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. There were no comments on the motion. The motion to approve passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ADD 3 PARKING SPACES AND TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP AT AN EXISTING GAS STATION AT 1101 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2, (RHL DESIGN GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND CHEVRON USA, INC., PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. Is the dimension of 9' x 20' all right for space number 3; yes since it is not confined on two sides. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 Chair Key opened the public hearing. Tom Piskor, RHL Design, 1137 North McDowell, Petaluma, architect representing Chevron, stated that they wanted to provide parking for employees and any customers. He then responded to commissioners questions: now there is a place to fill tires and get water, is there enough room in front of parking place 2 to use these facilities, yes if one pulls up in a straight line from sidewalk at Broadway; if cars park in front of the pump island closest to space number 1 can a car get through; yes; I tried this maneuver today and not a chance a car can get past stall number 1; did you do the measurements, apparently not well enough.; could move space 1 and 2 forward to curb and add a space behind 2; have you tried this with a template, no. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: difficult site to get parking on, space 3 works, space 2 works, space i is squeezed into the comer; need to rework the site and change the curb cut; could relocate the pump but not advantageous, reluctantly in favor; has this gas station been renovated, yes; like to suggest that we are being incrementally had by Chevron, don't know that there were two parking spaces on site when they first developed, then they renovated and moved the islands so that they could not get two parking spaces on site, let alone; three; don't know if -anyone ehecked-mam-uvers --or-,dimension�at•that"" — time; this is a gas station not a gas station/mini-mall, in their remodel they enlarged the space for the mini -mall and took up the space needed for parking; agree, using some of these spaces when a delivery truck comes from Broadway is wishful thinking; why were the pumps part so far apart, delivery is difficult; they created a mess,now they need to figure it out; people will not be able to get air and water without creating a conflict, not satisfied with circulation or parking; parking stall number 3 could be relocated by the snack shop, which is very modest, not going to be a destination but will serve gas customers only; with two full time employees chance someone will park in space 3 all the time is good; not as affronted as others, perhaps stall number 3 can be put by the snack shop; this is a very modest retail area with one drink case and some candy, not going to be a destination; agree parking proposed is a problem with circulation of tanker truck; cars often park in these spaces now; there seems to be an opportunity to move space number 1 to the lower left hand part of the site, at 90 degrees it would improve access for truck circulation. C. Wellford moved for a denial without prejudice to allow the project to be revised to locate one stall down to the left part of the site rather than a redesign of a greater magnitude that requires the relocation of underground tanks and pumps. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion it was noted that denial without prejudice was a semi-approval/semi-denial, public will determine if site is unworkable, they will go to another gas station nearby; believe in motion, see stall moved to southeast comer, see others where they are, then we can get 4 parking spaces; maybe we could direct them to move the space to the southeast comer and not make them return to the commission; when use the station to pick up a cold drink, park in the middle under the canopy, would they be willing to move space number one there. C. Coffey moved to amend the motion to one of approval with the added condition that parking stall 1 be moved to the southeast corner of the site including all of the built items needed to achieve this; and if this is not possible the applicant would return to the Planning Commission for additional approval. The amendment failed for lack of a second. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 Additional discussion: CA Anderson noted that another alternative to denial without prejudice is to continue the item for a period of time and ask for a redesign; that is the same as denial without prejudice but without specific direction allowing the applicant to come up with an alternative; denial without prejudice requires renoticing, a continuance does not. A denial without prejudice is not going to close this business for the sale of gasoline while waiting, want to see what their solution is. Staff noted it should be specified when the matter was to be returned since the snack shop is a code enforcement. Want a clear proposal, want applicant to know that snack sales is not a service related to a gas station. Commissioner expressed concern about short time frame for redesign to get in for next meeting noting issues to be addressed. C. Wellford reviewed the motion clarifying that this was a motion to deny the request without prejudice directing that parking stall number 1 be relocated to remove the conflict with delivery trucks and be relocated to the left hand comer of the plans and that this application shall be scheduled to return to the commission at their first meeting in December. Chair Key called for the,vote,-The,motion� passed- on a 5-2 (Cers. Galligan,and Mink dissenting) -rol1a.; K call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE AREA IN EXCESS OF 20% OF THE STRUCTURE AREA AND FOR EXCEPTION TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT; AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR DIMENSION (UNISTALL) AT 770 AIRPORT BLVD., ZONED C-4, (THE GYMBOREE CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BURLINGAME SHORE INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were recommended for consideration. It looks as if Alternative 1 proposed reduces landscaping on site from 9545 SF to 9371 SF, yes; could they add two more parking spaces behind the building at the roll up doors, yes; do the 69 spaces provided in the proposed project meet the on -site parking requirement for the office conversion, yes; can we identify the spaces which are partially or wholly on another property, yes, numbers 43 through 54, 67 and all the tandem spaces are partially or wholly on someone else's property. There were no further questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Dennis Strucker, Korve Engineering a traffic and civil engineer, spoke representing the applicant Gymboree Corporation, presently there are 56 parking spaces to support the existing uses in the building, this is a non -conforming number; the project square footage added would require 13 additional spaces for a total of 69 spaces; these can be achieved without using tandem spaces by converting all spaces to unistall dimension. The business expects 10 visitors a day but they will come throughout the day, expect no more than 2 to 3 to be there at one time; national surveys say that office uses generate one parking space per 360 GSF of building, Burlingame's requirement 1:300 GSF is conservative; also national surveys indicate that offices generate .79 employees/space (because of sickness, vacation, business travel etc.) on this basis the 95 people employed here would require 75 on -site parking spaces. Applicant counted employees present on days in September and found this ratio to parking spaces to be lower than the national average, 6 employees per parking space. Photographs documenting September parking lot usage were displayed. Maximum -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 usage of the parking lot currently is 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. noon. Korve has suggested that the applicant employ TDM strategies to reduce on site demand/usage from 75 to the 69 parking spaces provided, they outlined a program which is included in the staff report. They understand the city position on counting tandem stalls for meeting on -site parking requirements, but in this case these stalls are already there, they suggest that the applicant devise a scheme for designated employees to use these spaces in such away that cars can be moved if necessary. At commission's request applicant looked at alternatives to providing parking, Korve did that and they and the applicant prefer Alternative 1 included in the staff report to the scheme shown in the project. Alternative 1 provides 3 disabled accessible parking spaces plus 72 unistall. spaces (8.5' x 19') on site; Korve prefers unistall to compact because more people are driving larger czars now, and small cars can park in standard stalls while big cars cannot all use compact stalls. After the removal of the roll up doors they could add 2 more parking spaces at the rear wall, for a total of 4. Since Alternative 1 includes an encroachment into the landscaping at the front of the building they would propose that initially these spaces in the landscaping not be installed but the two more will be added at the rear of the building, to help offset theiloss. If the parking sehemc-turn9-out•to�be adequate without the spaces in the front landscaping then the applicant will not have to install them. If it turns out on site parking is inadequate the applicant can be required to remove the landscaping and construct the appropriate improvements. In summary the existing parking ratio on site is 1:382 GSF, the proposed project has an on site ratio of 1:385 GSF, Alternative 1 without the tandem and with parking in the landscaping to arrive at 75 parking spaces has a ratio of 1:356 (less than the national average of 1:360), Alternative 1 with the tandem and parking in landscaped area has a ratio of 1:3213 GSF; the on site parking demand would be reduced with a TDM program by about 10%. Alan Katz, representative of Gymboree Corporation, 700 Airport Blvd., expressed a concern about the condition stating the hours of operation, since employees are sometimes there longer hours; commissioner asked what would be preferable, he responded 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., commissioner asked if they provide on site security for such long hours, no; Alternative 2 is not viable at this time since they do not have the adjacent property owner's permission to use his land, have permission for spaces in front of tandem, are negotiating for right to continued to use tandem spaces, are willing to submit agreement to city attorney for his review; spaces 43-54 they presently have an agreement to use, only question is tandem spaces; alternatives were prepared at commission's request, they felt that the proposed project was enough parking based on their experience of use; if you do not install parking in landscaped area at front Alternative 1 is the same a proposed project except for the use of the tandem parking spaces; is space 67 located in the same easement as 45-52, yes. Martin Ling, managing partner of the building, 67 Waterside Circle, Redwood City, they support the application, feel that the proposed improvements will be good for the building, good for the neighborhood and therefore good for the city; site is surrounded by class A office buildings and class A hotels, this is the only office/warehouse structure; changing this to all office would help to upgrade the area and change the warehouse to a more compatible use. Taking out the roll up door and converting them to windows will increase the safety at the rear of the building. Edgar Finney, architect, 315 Moleno Drive, San Francisco, spoke in support, this proposal will remove the steel framed second floor, installed without permit, which is seismically unsafe; and the building will be brought up to code. Alan Katz spoke again about the hours of operation, noting the site is not open City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minoru November 10, 1997 to outsiders except between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. C. Coffey commented that he had been to the site,looked at the parking and the buildings next door, and appreciated the study of alternatives; he was agreeable to the October 14 proposal (the project) with unistall when he looked at the entire possibilities of the site, current usage, and neighboring properties, it is impossible to infringe on to the property to the southeast because there is a retaining wall so the piece of property on this side could be used by this site without any effect on the adjacent property, but they cannot use this space until they reach agreement with the: adjacent owner, removal of the rollup doors will provide more space for parking; Alternative 1 without removal of landscaping, unless they feel the need for the additional parking, seems to meet the parking needs of the building; so he moved approval of the application for a special permit for more than 20 % office and for an exception to the design guidelines landscape requirements and a parking variance for dimension (unistall dimensions except for disabled accessible spaces) removing parking; spaces 70 - 75 for a total of 69 parking stalls on site unless the applicant needs to install them, can use tandem but they do not count in the required number of :space@-forthis,site;1 and -change, the, hours -of, operation -nor to,exteed-­-, the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. which would be the maximum hours the business would be open to the public, the action is by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended; Discussion on the motion: the findings for this action should include the information from testimony received, the use of the property and the location of the property the proposed change will not be detrimental to other properties in the area especially if the applicant undertakes a TDM program for its employees at both locations; the history shows that this change to all office is consistent with the general plan; the building is as built on the site, the retaining walls make it difficult to reconfigure the property to create more area for parking; granting this exception will not affect any other property except perhaps one built like this one. Thank applicant for providing alternatives, feel that TDM program makes project work. C. Luzuraga moved to amend the motion to require that some of the stalls The standard width, 9 feet, because there are so many larger utility vehicles on the road now, parking spaces 23 to 42 on Alternate 1 should be converted to 9 foot width with two parking spaces added to the proposed two at the rear of the building where the roll up doors are to be removed. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the amendment: regarding the original motion feel that the tandem stalls provide opportunity for larger vehicles since on the drawing spaces 76-81 (alternative 1) do not take the whole width of the area; on the amendment the applicant offered two additional spaces at the rear and making spaces 23- 42 wider will make them more useable, like idea. C. Deal called for a vote on the amendment to the motion, that parking spaces 23-42 as shown on Alternative 1 be increased in width to 9 feet each and that two parking spaces be added to the two shown at the rear of the building for a total of four at this location. The amendment passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Discussion: tandem spaces are not legal parking spaces, but are a benefit if the project is built, better than removing existing landscaping; not want complaints a year from now and have to enforce landscape removal, could use tandem as mitigation for spaces 70-75 in the landscaped area; concerned -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 that the neighboring property owner may not agree to let the tandem parking continue, if there is an easement allowing would be comfortable; this is their plan, they have the easement to use; CA noted that they have a memorandum of understanding to use the parking, do not know that they have a permanent easement; why not accept that they can put parking there, if not they must come back to the city for review. C. Coffey moved to recognize the tandem parking as required and a mitigation for the parking provided for the spaces shown in the existing landscaped area on Alternative 1. Motion died for lack of a second. Chair Key called for a vote on the amended motion on the floor that 2 conditional use permits for more than 20 % office and to the landscape requirements of the Bayfront Design Guidelines and a parking variance for dimension to allow all the parking spaces shown on Alternative 1 except numbers 23-42 to be unistall (8.5' x 19), two additional parking spaces shall be added parallel to the building at the rear where to roll up doors are to be removed making the total at this location 4 parking spaces; parking stalls 23-42 shall be 9' x 19% the tandem parking stalls may be; used by the business with proper permission but shall not be considered a part of the required parking for this use at this site; and the hours this business shall be open to the public shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 14, 1997, Sheet A0.1 (General Notes & Legends), Sheet A2.1a (Building Floor Plans), Sheet A5.2 (Exterior Elevations) and Alternative 1 (parking plan) except that parking stalls 23- 42 shall be dimensioned 9' X 19' . The parking stalls shall be added to the two shown on the Alternative 1 parking plan at the rear of the building next to the rollup doors to provide 4 parking spaces at this location; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official and Senior Engineer, September 29, 1997 memos, (requiring that one of the three handicap parking spaces shall be a van accessible space with an 8'-0" unloading space) shall be met; and that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 29, 1997 memo (an automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be modified to meet office design and all fire sprinkler work shall be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor) shall be met; 3) that the tandem parking stalls shown on Alternative 1 Parking Plan may be used by the property owner for on -site parking using an appropriate program with his employees but these spaces shall not be counted as a part of the required parking on the site; 4) that the TDM Management Strategies identified in the Korve Engineering Memo (October 31, 1997) shall be implemented at the site and also incorporate the Gymboree employees at 700 Airport Boulevard within 90 days of this project's approval, and an annual report on TDM progress shall be submitted by the TDM coordinator to the Planning Department by January 1 of each year; 5) that if the property owner finds that it is necessary for the safe operation of the site or to eliminate impact on the neighboring properties he shall add more parking to the side by installing spaces 70-75, located in the required landscaping; 6) that no classes, workshops or training sessions shall occur at this location; 7) that the office shall not be open for business except between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum of 95 employees assigned to this site; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. The motion passed on a 6 - 1 (C. Culligan dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. amended 11.24.97 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 that the neighboring property owner may not agree to let the tandem parking continue, if there is an easement allowing would be comfortable; this is their plan, they have the easement to use; CA noted that they have a memorandum of understanding to use the parking, do not know that they have a permanent easement; why not accept that they can put parking there, if not they must come back to the city for review. C. Coffey moved to recognize the tandem parking as required and a mitigation for the parking provided for the spaces shown in the existing landscaped area on Alternative 1. Motion died for lack of a second. Chair Key called for a vote on the amended motion on the floor that 2 conditional use permits for more than 20 % office and to the landscape requirements of the Bayfront Design Guidelines and a parking variance for dimension to allow all the parking spaces shown on Alternative 1 except numbers 23-42 to be unistall (8.5' x 19), two additional parking spaces shall be added parallel to the building at the rear where the roll up doors. are..toabe removed. making, the total: at this location 4- parking spaces; parking stalls 23-42 shall be 9' x 19% the tandem parking stalls may be used by the business with proper permission but shall not be considered a part of the required parking for this use at this site; and the hours this business shall be open to the public shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 14, 1997, Sheet A0.1 (General Notes & Legends), Sheet A2.la (Building Floor Plans), Sheet A5.2 (Exterior Elevations) and Alternative 1 (parking plan) except that parking stalls 23- 42 shall be dimensioned 9' X 19' . The parking stalls shall be added to the two shown on the Alternative 1 parking plan at the rear of the building next to the rollup doors to provide 4 parking spaces at this location; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official and Senior Engineer, September 29, 1997 memos, (requiring that one of the three handicap parking spaces shall be a van accessible space with an 8'-0" unloading space) shall be met; and that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 29, 1997 memo (an automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be modified to meet office design and all fire sprinkler work shall be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor) shall be met; 3) that the tandum parking stalls shown on Alternative 1 Parking Plan may be used by the property owner for on -site parking using an appropriate program with his employees but these spaces shall not be counted as a part of the required parking on the site; 4) that the TDM Management Strategies identified in the Korve Engineering Memo (October 31, 1997) shall be implemented at the site and also incorporate the Gymboree employees at 700 Airport Boulevard within 90 days of this project's approval, and an annual report on TDM progress shall be submitted by the TDM coordinator to the Planning Department by January 1 of each year; 5) that if the property owner finds that it is necessary for the safe operation of the site or to eliminate impact on the neighboring properties he shall add more parking to the side by installing spaces 70-75, located in the required landscaping; 6) that no classes, workshops or training sessions shall occur at this location; 7) that the office shall not be open for business except between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum of 95 employees assigned to this site; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 6 - 1 (C. Galligan dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The motion was seconded by C. Mink. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 INTRODUCTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS IN C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, TO ELIMINATE THE TRANSFER OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM PROPERTY TO PROPERTY AND TO CLARIFY WHEN A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT USE IS TERMINATED. Reference staff report, 11.10.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. There were no comments from the Commissioners. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Gary Cohn, 347 Primrose Road, commented that he had personally been involved in 14 real estate deals on Burlingame Avenue and half of them were restaurants; he felt that there were a couple of issues not fully addressed by this ordinance; if a restaurant goes out of business and -is-replaeed- by - a•shoe -store; -then, there, will, be"ane! lemTestaatant' on the Avenue; if one restaurant goes out it can replaced by another restaurant; does this regulation affect take-out permits, no; if Bon Appetit downsizes and continues his deli operation will that be allowed. Commissioner noted that this ordinance does not address type of restaurant nor does it affect take-out permit regulations; this ordinance does address when a food establishment ceases to be such a use and the fact that you cannot expand an existing food establishment. Why not continue the practice of having conditional use permit on enlarging food establishments within existing buildings as is now the practice. Feel that the problems are caused more often by the larger establishments; commission will be rewriting the entire ordinance and will address differentiation among food establishment then; this ordinance is to address the immediate problem, which can't wait, of transferring food establishment rights and increasing size. In next phase will look at size of site, number of tables, seating, and reach out to the people who are affected. Want ordinance where the standards are clearly set out in the code so the property owner does not have to apply to the city and wait for approval, frustrates tenants and they leave. It was noted that the grocery store deli is not a food establishment and should be treated as a take-out food service use. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: if the building burns can the restaurant come back: under this ordinance, yes; can the square footage of the premise be changed to add a restroom, no; this is not the solution to all the problems, it is the first step; have all the URM buildings been repaired so there is not need for the temporary relocation clause, yes; leary of prohibiting expansion, there are times when it is necessary, should allow a conditional use permit; purpose to hold current situation while study what to do; is there a sunset on this, no; agree needed to close loopholes in current regulation, could take a year or more to find a solution, reticent to put on a flat out prohibition. CA Anderson noted that if a special permit is to be allowed for expansion then commission needs to establish criteria for when expansion is to be considered. Commissioners discussion: basic concern is that those already existing; be permitted to expand; conditional use permit does not make clear enough reason to say no now; historically this began as a way to address a temporary crisis, it had a sunset, the sunset was extended and then removed so WE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1997 regulations became permanent; have a clear message that there is a problem; primary issue is to eliminate the expansion of restaurant; should have a task force of people directly involved and planning commission to try to write regulations; some existing food establishments could become very large destination restaurants with big impacts on parking under current code, that is a real fear; would consider criteria of increase 25 % with a conditional use permit, no, not until understand the problem better; seems to be a clear charge from Council from Saturday meetings that need to stop selling food and relocation of food establishment rights. Chair Key called for a motion. C. Wellford stated that given the complexity of the issue and the need to deal with a manageable part of it at a time, it is necessary to first stop the sale of restaurant rights and retain current size, giving an opportunity to address the issue more thoroughly later; so he moved to recommend to the city council for approval the change to the food establishment regulations. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. PLANNERS .REPORTS - , - - - - - R - - - - CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions at the November 3, 1997, Council meeting. Discussion of the 1997 Zoning Update CP Monroe reviewed the highlights of the changes proposed to the zoning ordinance, noting the changes made by the Commission Subcommittee in their review. She commented that we should also consider adding psychic services to home occupations so that they are liimited to no employees, no visitors to the site; CS 25.68.025 was identified as the place to add psychic; services. Several typo and editorial items were called out to staff. These changes will be made before the item comes to the Planning Commission for hearing. C. Galligan moved to set this item for public hearing. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Staff noted that this item would be placed on the Commission agenda for the December 8, 1997 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key moved for adjournment, C. Wellford seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. MINUTES 11.10 -10- Respectfully submitted, Chuck Mink, Secretary