Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011204PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 12, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the January 12, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the December 8, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Brownrigg asked if staff could prepare for the Commissioners a report on the residential fire sprinkler requirements, what is their intent and how they are triggered. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1129 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 - FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION. (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFF AND DIANE FELTMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • How is the setback measured, is it to the closest portion of the structure; • What is the front setback of the houses on either side of the project; • Would any addition to the front of the house trigger the front setback variance, for example could the addition be held back to the required front setback without triggering a variance. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 2. REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed changes to regulate emerging legal lots. Commissioners discussed and noted: • Is 10 years long enough before a development is allowed to increase lot coverage to 40%. Staff noted that the 10 year time was picked because it would allow for other changes in the neighborhood to catch up with the reuse of the emerged legal lots; at the end of 10 years the additions affecting lot coverage would still be subject to design review and other single family residential requirements in effect at the time of the remodel; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 2 • While like the idea of putting FAR in the basement, how will this greater excavation affect emerging lots with a lot of established, protected trees; • Will smaller footprint result in more boxy houses; • Did the subcommittee consider basing the permitted FAR on the existing average FAR on a block, similar to the front setback standard; • Creekside lot regulations should be included with emerging legal lot regulation changes, footprint/FAR should be calculated on the 60% that is developable not on the total lot size; • Creek side lots should look at setbacks from top of bank not from property line, cantilevers should not be allowed; • Reduction in lot coverage is a good idea but is 30% the right number, what is the typical maximum lot coverage of existing development, can staff collect some information, in fact 30% may not be reducing by 10% but by some other amount; • How does section on protecting trees address trimming trees? • Understand reason for not having an outdoor connection from basement living areas to discourage area becoming second unit, but is this a real concern; • Concerned that with 30% lot coverage will cause all houses adjacent on the emerged lots to look the same, how will we insure variation among the new houses, would prefer a sliding scale so that one is 100% of the permitted FAR, second 80% of permitted FAR and third 75% of the permitted FAR; • Sliding scale for FAR among emerged lots could result in a clouding of the title for the new houses, the cookie cutter appearance can be dealt with through the design review process; and • Think 25% reduction in lot coverage from 40% to 30% is pretty radical. Commissioners suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meet again and discuss the issues raised by the Commission and report back. Would like to do this soon, since this is an important issue and would like to hear from developers on this topic. Chair Bojués directed that this item be returned to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for more study and then return to the Commission for action. Recognizing the importance of this issue, he encouraged the Subcommittee to meet soon. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Auran requested that item 3a Policy on FYI Review be removed from the consent calendar. There were no requests from the audience to remove items. Item 3a was moved to be the first item on the Regular Action Calendar 3 b. 360 & 380 BEACH ROAD, ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 360- 380 BEACH ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 2, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 1 SUBDIVISION, PM 03-11 (MICHAEL T. MCCALLION, APPLICANT; BEACH ROAD ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (10 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Chair Bojués then asked for a motion to approve the consent calendar, item 3b, the lot line adjustment for 360-380 Beach Road. C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 3 report, commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3 a. POLICY ON FYI REVIEW – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented the staff report reviewing the policy direction that the Commission made on November 12, 2003. Commissioner noted that staff had recommended that they would bring project changes to commission for review for items on which the neighbors had commented during the action. He wanted it to be clear that this review would be based on design items/issues raised at the original hearing not complaints during construction. Staff noted that was the case. Commissioners also suggested that FYI’s were a good way for the Commission to track the implementation of design review and so the commission should see them all. Staff suggested that the purpose of this policy was to reduce the Planning Commission’s work load and the amount of paper staff needs to prepare for packets. It was noted that staff will keep a log of their decisions regarding this policy and this log will be forwarded to Commission for their information on a three or six months basis. Commissioners noted that the majority of the FYI’s the Commission has seen have been no problem. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to adopt the Commission written policy on Processing of Minor Project Modifications During Construction as presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the written policy for Processing of Minor Project Modifications During Construction. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 4. 147 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROCQUE YBALLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SANDRA JIMINEZ, DESIGNER) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: has the encroachment permit been granted and if so does it limit any part of the structure extending over the property line; yes, the encroachment permit has been granted and it does limit any extension of the structure over the private property line. Need to add a condition that if the house is ever demolished any variance granted based on these plans will be voided; yes can be added. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Sandra Jimenez, designer; Rocque Yballa, property owner, 147 Loma Vista; Alex Tilson, 143 Loma Vista; spoke. Was unaware of the problem of door swinging over property line, can fix easily. Commissioner also asked if stair and eave over hang on front of garage can be easily adjusted as well? Is the plate height for the new second story as shown on the plans measured from the garage slab elevation or adjacent grade. Applicant responded: can reduce eave overhangs and plate is 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 4 feet over garage slab. Commissioner asked about information on trees which should be included in landscape plan; would like to know how the tree would be pruned to accommodate the addition. Architect noted on branch would need to be removed, need to ask an arborist the best way to trim at that location on the tree. Since you do not know now, we need to be sure to address in a condition. Commissioner noted that a tree protection plan should be provided that would include trimming and fencing to protect the area under the Sycamore; should be fenced before further construction to protect roots below grade. Architect noted that there is construction underway at the house now, all the debris is being put in the back yard. Commission noted that struck by height of addition, did you consider a shallower roof? Architect noted that the problem with the roof slope is the ceramic tile, need at least a 3:12 pitch, designed to 4:12 so can reduce. Commissioner noted plans show brick on three sides but new is stucco, should add brick. Architect brick veneer is no longer made, cannot find 16 inch face bricks, would have to be custom made at considerable cost, if commission really wants can have done. Commissioner asked how going to deal with stairs overhanging into the public right-of-way. Architect noted did not know, presently the only access to the rear yard. Bought house in Burlingame because of its character, liked curb appeal and want to retain it; cannot see story poles from the front of the house; need the size of the house because of the size of the family, four children; also one room called bedroom is a gym and one is an office, daughters will share a room; the office and gym rooms do not meet the egress requirements of building code so not really bedrooms. Because cannot get brick, contractor creative and drew lines in the stucco so look like brick pattern; not impossible to get brick but not economical. Commission asked if stairs could be removed. Will need to remove with addition and will not replace, can get access another way. Commissioner asked with grade shown how will you get to sill level at the three doors that open into the garage, wall of dirt will be like walking into a retaining wall. Can remove the doors from outside into the storage room, access can be through the garage since its an area to store lawn equipment. Noted that when asked to move fence to far side of public park easement, took access gate out, if the gate is needed into the park easement can go into his yard, not want to replace public gate because of concern about security. Public hearing continued: like design, city of trees but a void at Yballa property line, have added trees in this plan; addition of the proposed second story will require cleaving about 13 feet of the Sycamore tree, he should be limited to that maximum, my property looks across the Yballa yard to trees and sky, tree reduction will have impact. Path was never a problem when the gate was there, this project takes away the public access to Skyline. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: agree that design nice, concerned about the door swing change at the rear, the double doors to the outside at the storage area should be removed, the roof slope should be reduced and a tree protection and pruning plan should be developed by an arborist and reviewed by the City Arborist before a building permit is issued. Project does not create major view blockage and mass and bulk are OK. Concerned with errors in the drawings, lot of overhangs of the rear property line, eaves, stair, balconies on the second floor, which are not allowed and which when removed will affect the elevations of the building, before can support need to see plans corrected. Removing iron work and eaves at the rear will result in a flat face, better to have something on that wall. Problem is legal, technical problem which needs to be solved. CA noted that limitation on overhang is from Public Works, applicant needs to continue item and resolve or redesign. Four new trees in easement, what if they are removed in the future, need Public Works or Parks Departments to comment; should applicant be required to replace again? C. Brownrigg noted that he would be happy to place this item on the consent calendar when the corrections have been made; should also add a window where the double doors are removed in the storage room, and moved to put this item on the consent calendar when all the plan items have been corrected with the addition of a condition that should the house be demolished the requested variances shall be voided; and that tree City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 5 protection and pruning measures as developed by a licensed arborist and approved by the City Arborist shall be required and enforced before issuance of a building permit. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this request for design review and rear setback variance for a first and second story addition on the consent calendar after the revisions and corrections have been made to the plans and the conditions amended to address voiding the variance if the house is demolished and the preparation and implementation of a licensed arborist requirements. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keele absent). This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 5. 1448-52 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING FULL- SERVICE RESTAURANT (RIMARDEN, LLC, RICHARD J. BEALE, APPLICANT; PHIL HYLAND, ARCHITECT; JAMES AND RUTH MODISETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 1/12/04, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if parking is an issue with this application; how many full-service food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue area. SP Brooks noted that first floor retail uses, including food establishments, are exempt from parking requirements in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District; don't have a count of the number of full-service food establishments, there are 35-40 food establishments in the area, but there is not a limit on the proportion of full-service restaurants, other types of food establishments can convert to full- service restaurants. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Richard Beale, 1165 Wedgewood, Hillsborough, applicant, indicated he was available for questions. There were no questions of the applicant, and no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that this business location occupied by a full service food establishment, with 2,684 SF of on-site seating (1,465 SF - 1st floor; 965 SF - 2nd floor; 254 SF - outdoor patio) may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2) that the 2,684 SF area of on-site seating, including the first floor, second floor or outdoor patio seating areas, of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 4) that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business, including the parking lot to the rear of the site; 5) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 6) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 7) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 8) that this full service food establishment may be open seven days a week from 11 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., with a maximum of 25 employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 6 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, and as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 6. 1315-1317 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS (DUKYON YOO, APPLICANT; LENO FRESCHET, PROPERTY OWNERS) (17 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted a concern with backing on to Marsten Road, and asked if this is a common practice in this area. SP Brooks noted that this is a common practice, this issue has been reviewed with the City's Traffic Engineer, and he noted that he is not concerned with vehicles backing onto Marsten Road, this is common for businesses in the area and there haven't been any resulting safety or congestion issues reported. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dukong Yoo, applicant, 1315 Marsten Road noted that he leases two buildings, one at 1315 Marsten and one at 1317 Marsten, the building at 1315 Marsten is only used for his offices and for employee parking, would like to expand the business into this space and relocate parking to the north side of 1317 Marsten behind the building. There is now a yellow loading zone marked on the curb where access to those spaces would be, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission has approved removal of that loading zone and a curb cut for the parking spaces can be put in. The only way to provide the three parking spaces is in a tandem configuration, but it will only be used by the employees and the business owner. The five existing parking spaces in front of the building at 1315 Marsten will be used by customers. Commissioners asked: Will the area proposed for parking behind the building be cleaned up and paved; will more employees be hired once the business is expanded; other car repair businesses have a separate lot for storing cars to be worked on, where will the cars waiting to be serviced be parked; how many customers do you expect to have each day. The applicant noted that he now has two employees and himself working at the business, which should be enough for the next two to three years; at that time may hire additional employees; doesn't think extra parking will be necessary, cars can be stored in the customer parking spaces in front of the building, those spaces are only used when cars are dropped off and picked up, they have never had to park customer's cars on the street; there would be about seven to ten customers per day. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: It doesn't appear that parking will be a problem in that area, independent auto repair businesses are a dying breed and we should do whatever we can to support; don't have a problem with the cars backing onto the street, want to make sure a condition is added that the area with the tandem parking spaces will be paved. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the office use (682.5 SF) and auto repair and service shop area (4927.5 SF) on this premise, including City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 7 the location of the paint booth and three vehicles lefts, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 18, 2003; 2) that the parking variances shall only apply to an auto repair use at this site with a maximum of one paint booth and three vehicle lifts, and shall become void if the use is intensified or if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3) that the applicant shall obtain a special encroachment permit from the Public Works Department to install a curb cut to provide vehicle access to parking behind the building prior to installing the paint booth and vehicle lift; only after receiving an encroachment permit shall the applicant obtain a building permit to install the paint booth and vehicle lifts; 4) that the area to the north of the building between the structure and the property line accessed from Marsten Road at 1317 Marsten Road shall be paved prior to issuance of the building permit to install the paint booth and vehicle lifts; 5) that there shall be a maximum of two employees on site at any one time including the owner and all employees; that an increase in the number of employees shall only be allowed with an amendment to this parking variance; 6) that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; 7) that any changes in the hours of operation, floor area, use, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this permit; and 8) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Commissioners noted that the conditions require that the variance goes with this use and any increase in the number of employees would require an amendment to the parking variance. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7. ACTION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTING ZONING REGULATIONS – (NEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the proposed changes to the present Second Unit Amnesty Program and required changes to the zoning code to implement them. Commissioner asked how very low and low income units would be managed. CP Monroe noted that the City has a process in the inclusionary zoning provisions which would be applied to qualifying second units; in general the very low and low income units would be managed by a third party, usually a non-profit housing group. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Lee Tanton, Linden Avenue, spoke noting that it was recently reported in the newspaper that the city had received an “F” for meeting its affordable housing needs, clearly the current second unit program is inadequate and needs this improvement; he reviewed the history of the city’s second unit amnesty program; he noted that people don’t come forward to have their second units legalized because they do not trust government; city needs to do more to open up the process and create public trust; he is the only one making noise about this, if there were 50 people in the room the city would do something; you know that the units are out there, they can be used because they are nonconforming, but people cannot make improvements. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to recommend the changes to the second unit amnesty program and implementing zoning changes to the City Council for approval action The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 8 Comment on the motion: staff should be complimented on the amount of time they put into preparing this revision and for the quality of the work done. CP Monroe noted that she appreciated the extra time and effort, over a number of months, the Planning Commission Subcommittee put in as well. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the second unit amnesty program and the implementing zoning changes to the City Council for approval action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keele absent). This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, REAL ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICES AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (349 RADIUS NOTICE/95 MERCHANTS NOTICED/STREET POSTED/NEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the application to add four uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area, noting that if these uses were found to be consistent with the General Plan designation for the Broadway Center, CEQA issues would be addressed. Commissioners asked: if one of these uses were allowed for a trial period, say 24 months, by condition could the commission limit the lease to 24 months. CA responded it would be a problem for enforcement, leases are not city business, if the use were conditional the city could make it “temporary” and limit the use permit to 5 years for example, as we do on the Bayfront and the conditional use permit would be subject to review and could be revoked at that time; however, in general it should be expected that if uses are allowed and spaces filled that they will remain as the currently non-conforming uses in the Broadway Area have. In 1969 when the General Plan was approved any use was allowed them in 1984 the uses were limited, why? In the early 1980’s the city was looking at Burlingame Avenue to create a high pedestrian traffic retail center (subarea A), Broadway merchants and property owners asked to be treated the same; so the Broadway Commercial Area was created with the same regulations as Subarea A of the Burlingame Commercial Area. How many store fronts are vacant at this time? CP did not know exact number at this time. Can the same kind of limitation of number and type used for food establishments be created for financial institutions and real estate offices. CA responded we do not have enough information to be able to determine the correct number; with food establishments we started with the number in the area at the time we established the regulation, that would not work here since the issue is creating opportunity for more of each of these four uses. Regulating the number and mix of uses needs to be based on a plan for Broadway. There is no plan or vision for Broadway which addresses the appropriate number of each of these four uses. Commissioner asked if any limit on the maximum square footage of each of these uses is proposed. CP noted no, in general the lots are small on Broadway and that limits the size of the individual commercial areas. Commissioner asked if two of each use could be allowed and the city could develop a lottery system to decide how to fill the opportunities. CP noted that the city had some experience with a lottery system as the food establishment regulations evolved and it was unhappy. Would not like to repeat. Do these uses address issues like Pilates? CP noted the City has other regulations in effect now which address physical fitness and training in the Broadway area. There were no further questions or comments from the commission. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. David Hinkle, 1616 Sanchez; John Root, 1407 Montero; Virginia Vince, 1301 Paloma; Maida Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 Broadway; Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 Broadway; Ross Bruce, President Broadway BID; Saco Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway all spoke. As a BID advisory board member support the merchants opinion as expressed in the 80% support for the four uses in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 9 survey; position of BID board is to support members recommendation and to recommend if adopt the four uses, you should include a two year trial period; as a citizen, merchant and property owner on Broadway opposed to any change to the retail structure in the Broadway Commercial Area, like to keep the pedestrian orientation and protect retail. Afraid of unintended consequences, fear that allowing these uses will result in “shuttered windows and store fronts”, doctors do not open windows for people passing by to look into; San Mateo has had a lot of experience with this, the Judd Green store for example which went dot.com with a very bad result on the retail area, in the end they did the same thing – limited these uses. Would like to see the retail neighborhood "feel" with small businesses of Broadway preserved, lots of change new families; feel that Broadway has turned the corner on the vacancies; contacted Paul Ferrari CEO of the Italian Market Place, he expressed desire to explore Broadway because he is looking for neighborhood locations e.g. location with quality, small businesses not corporate; see Broadway as an opportunity to support small local businesses which is different from Burlingame Avenue. Commissioner asked why start business on Broadway? Demographics in area have changed, lot of new young families can walk or bike to Broadway, rents have skyrocketed on Burlingame Avenue, Broadway rents much more reasonable. Commissioner asked do you think banks and real estate offices would be detrimental to Broadway? Had banks before, so OK, object to health services and other business offices; real estate seems more appropriate on El Camino Real where there is more space; Broadway is for small businesses, a destination for shopping, bakery, deli’s, where people will continue to return. Public comment continued: applicant stated heard pros and cons, the property at 1199 Broadway has been vacant for more than two years, now 4 to 5 vacancies besides 1199; current restrictions on uses hurt her financially, few people go to the stores, have had several prospective tenants, dentists, asset to Broadway, would raise revenue for the city and would generate foot traffic; there is a lot of available parking; also get a lot of calls for restaurants and delis, 4 to 5 today, referred them to the city; took a petition to 91 merchants and property owners who signed it, available to the city, supports removal of all C-1 zoning regulations in the Broadway area; BID wrote a letter to the Planning Department requesting that the city allow dental office on first floor at 1199, there was no response; have spent a lot of time and effort to rent, nothing has happened; need to remove restrictions it would benefit the merchants and the city revenue. Commissioner asked there are a few new businesses on Broadway, why has your site been empty two years? Don’t know, the interested people are dentists and delis. Lot of vacancy on Broadway, people come and go, tenants change during the time this request for uses has been processed; time to change uses allowed, have had inquiries from mortgage company, real estate, insurance company, health service; problem really is discrimination, there are already eye doctors and physical therapists on Broadway, have been told I cannot have a real estate office in my own building; no use in allowing health services on the second floor when the building does not have ADA accessibility; over 90 people signed the petition we took around, met with city staff, they noted that the wording was for the removal of all C-1 restrictions, city staff wanted to do it their own way, OK; asked BID to write a letter. Commission asked to see the petition; it was not provided. CA noted that staff did not tell the applicant not to submit the petition. Submitted September 19, 2003, letter requested from BID supporting allowing the four uses requested and noting that the petition was not intending to eliminate the entire C-1 zoning restrictions but was to allow the four requested uses (health services, other office uses, real estate and financial institutions). The letter noted that “The petition was merely loosely worded”. Applicant noted that City planner did do “ballot” on Broadway. The record is clear, there is discrimination, his family is suffering, want these four uses to get rid of the vacancy in his building, need to lease it soon. Commissioners asked it is surprising to be two years without tenants. Now asking city to change zoning; want to determine if this is a result of market restrictions or market pricing, therefore it is fair to ask which City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 10 will have an impact on other residents, based on the fact that you have vacancies what rent are you asking? Asking $2.29 to $2.49 per square foot, way below Burlingame Avenue; have made improvements to building including a new roof and awning, think that his rate is below market. Commissioner noted that if truly below market the space would be full. Applicant noted that uses most interested are not allowed, restaurants and delis. Comments from public indicated actual average rents on Broadway. Commissioner asked over the years Broadway has gone through a genesis, are there other types of businesses which might do well there now? Don’t know, would like to loosen regulations and let the free market make the decisions because we are having difficulty now. Commissioner asked based on your real estate experience what is the current range of rental rates in the Broadway area? Depends upon the size of the space and the condition of the building, but generally range from $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot; $2.29 per square foot is not below market rate; 1199 is the newest building on the street, it has some dedicated parking on-site and a good corner location, can get better rents than older, run down building. Public comment continued: For the record there are 8 first floor vacancies on Broadway, 3 have leases pending, of the 5 remaining vacancies , three are in Mr. Bezdjian’s building at 1199; there are a couple of offices on the second floor also vacant. Would like all four uses to be conditional uses for a two year trial period, this would give the city control and flexibility as well as giving the ability to see if there were unintended consequences. Been a tenant at 1199 for two years, issue has been blurred, these four uses would not result in "closed shutters", they would be neighborhood businesses and would regenerate Broadway; his four employees generate business for Broadway, without service businesses retail would not survive because there is not enough foot traffic; look into allowing for 24 months, stop after that, Broadway needs something. There was no more comment from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: did own research of residents west of Broadway and people who work on Airport Blvd.; consensus was do not want dental offices, financial institutions on Broadway, want more retail; need to hear from residents. In the past uses rolled in and out of Broadway, may have dried up because of competition from Big Boxes and Burlingame Plaza — sucked away by the larger full service businesses; community loyalty drifted away; need to infuse quality merchants to draw people, agree not want windows curtained to block view into stores. Question the value of health service, visits take an hour or more, dentist sees 8 – 10 people a day much less foot traffic than retail and uses a lot of street frontage space; what we need to do is rejuvenate quality merchants; financial institutions and real estate uses generate pedestrian activity, real question is how does the use add foot traffic. At last meeting asked for more data to understand existing conditions and understand what effects change in use might have; information like existing FAR by use; no information provided so cannot make a educated decision. Mentioned before that could do a trial, but without information unwilling because don’t know if open to office might result in 40% of Broadway becoming office use; talked to merchants, lot of residents and received mixed responses; merchant survey helpful; people live here, the vision of Broadway is more local Business, Burlingame Avenue is the primary source of business revenue; need data about what is there, the percentage of different types of businesses, exact vacancies and where they are located. Concerned about comments about shutters being closed affecting the street, all closed could have the same effect as 10 vacancies; a lot of people talk about wanting a bakery on Broadway. CA noted could do now if there was no seating. Commission discussion continued: If rezone for one landowner, do we need to consider the input of others; sympathetic toward financial institutions and real estate uses, should be permitted; an 18 month trial period should be considered. General office and health service uses should not be allowed at all. Big impact is unlikely in 18 months since it will take anyone several months to put a business together and find a location; banks and real estate offices can be a part of a neighborhood service area. Agree an 18 –24 month trial period may be the answer; concerned that may join existing spaces to create offices and get 4,000 SF which City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 11 would have a big impact; hear testimony that employees create foot traffic, want commercial area that draws people in, lived here 30 years seen Broadway change; all agree on what we would like to see, but cannot compel it to happen; if restrict real estate cannot be certain the vacant space will cause a bakery to locate there. As real estate professional would like to see rent survey, when a space remains vacant it can take years to recoup loss. Believe in free enterprise but more comfortable keeping area as is because not enough information to evaluate impact, article in Independent about Fourth Street area in Berkeley, developer successful because he knew what it took to bring quality tenants to area, that is the approach to take; Broadway has the advantage of having residents nearby, lot of people and merchants concerned about change, and resulting increase in rents which would squeeze out small businesses. There are 5 vacancies in the Broadway area now, 3 are in the applicant’s building, this means that there are really 2 vacancies and this is not enough to justify a change in uses; applicant reduced his rent he could fill his space from the current use list; should leave zoning uses are is and seek out small businesses. Chair Bojués moved to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request for four additional uses in Broadway Commercial Area. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Would be willing to consider financial institutions in keeping with the neighborhood “main street”; the current number of vacancies is not enough to justify this kind of change; several commissioners noted they could support financial institutions as a permitted use; given definition, if allow financial institutions should be a conditional use because they are a conditional use in the C-1 district; is there a way to allow the applicant to operate a real estate business from his building without changing the code. CA responded no, would need to identify real estate use as either a permitted or conditional use. C. Osterling made a motion to amended his original motion to recommend to City Council that financial institutions be allowed as a conditional use in the Broadway Commercial Area with a 24 month sunset. C. Auran, second to the original motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request change from prohibited to permitted real estate, general office and health service uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area and that they change from prohibited to a conditional use financial institutions on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area for a period of 24 months. Following the 24 months financial institutions would become, once again, a prohibited use in the Broadway Commercial Area. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keele absent). It was noted that this action now goes forward to the City Council as a recommendation for their action. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 9. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.76 OF THE ZONING CODE REGULATING ADULT-ORIENTED (ENTERTAINMENT) BUSINESS IN THE C-4 ZONE – CITY ATTORNEY: LARRY ANDERSON Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. CA Anderson presented the report noting that several recent legal decisions had resulted in the need for the city to reconsider the current regulations which apply to adult-oriented (entertainment) businesses. Some of these regulations are included in the zoning code, so the Planning Commission needs to review them and make recommendation to the City Council. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 12 Commissioners asked: does the city regulate the sale of alcohol at such businesses? No that is done by the ABC and state regulations. Note that operator cannot get a permit if convicted within 5 years of application, what if operator is still on probation or parole. The 5 year limit is taken from state law. If on probation or parole may be advantage since individual being supervised. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to recommend the changes to the zoning code for regulation of adult oriented business in the C-4 zone to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the changes to the City Council. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). This item goes forward to the City Council as a recommendation. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1008 TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WAYNE FAIRBROTHER AND JENNIFER HEATH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Randy Grange, Architect, 205 Park Road, was available for questions. Commissioners asked the applicant to think about the front door treatment, since the front door will no longer be in the center of the porch, can something be done to make more of an entry statement. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the revisions to the plans regarding the front door have been made and plan checked. Commissioners noted that it is an excellent project, and will trust the architect's judgment on what changes to make to the front entry. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent action calendar when plans had been revised as directed and checked by the Planning Department. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:32 p.m. 11. 1318 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (FRANK PRENDERGAST, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PIERRE AND CAROL UHARRIET, PROPERTY OWNERS) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. A letter was submitted from the neighbor to the north at 1320 Benito Avenue which noted that there is a large, old redwood tree on his property which extends over the property line and may require trimming so that the proposed second story can be built; he asked that an City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 13 arborist report be required to determine if removal of the necessary limbs would affect the tree, and asked that the required tree trimming be done by a qualified tree trimming service. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Frank Prendergast, Architect, 1124 Summer Avenue, was available for questions. Commissioners asked if he had given thought to the footprint of the building, it now extends well back into the rear yard, could he be more aggressive in widening the house and pulling it in from the back yard; also asked about the metal railings in front, will they be as bold as is shown on the plans. The applicant noted that the project was to add a second floor to an existing house, was working with the existing footprint, it seemed logical to orient the second floor to the north wall of the existing house, didn't want to interfere with the front porch, and was responding to the wishes of the owner. He noted that there will be no change to the existing metal railing. Commissioners noted that the neighbor's tree hangs over the property and will need to be trimmed for the addition, how will the tree be protected, wouldn't it make sense to design so the addition is away from the tree; also noted a concern with the roof form at the rear, it is a shed roof where all the rest of the roof forms are hips and gables, did you consider a different type of roof. The applicant noted that there were many ways the house could have been designed, the owner is pleased with this design and the interior layout, and since it was a partial upper floor addition, it was designed so it didn't impact the neighbor's upper floor on the south side; a different roof form in the rear would be difficult to tie in, wanted to keep it simple and low. Commissioners noted that the tree could be lifted, trimmed and balanced to accommodate the addition in a way that would not impair the longevity of the tree. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Think the proposed design is pretty decent, the plate heights are not excessive, it has been designed to accommodate the owner's needs, could come back as a consent item; agree design is fine, have a concern with the tree, would like to see an arborist's report before it comes back, it looks like it can be done, but would like to see it in writing, any recommendations in the arborist's report should be added as conditions. Further Commission discussion: Don't agree with the design, hate to see back yards reduced, will be losing 180 SF in the back yard, it is natural to go into the double car wide driveway in this case, make the house wider and pull back from the back yard, think that a better house can be designed, there is a lot of hardscape on the lot, the driveway is 13 feet wide. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when an arborist's report has been completed and recommendations have been made regarding the trimming and protection of the tree in the adjoining neighbor's yard. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: Strong points were made regarding the impact of this design on the rear yard and the structural bulk could be pulled away from the tree, but the project adequately addresses the Design Review Guidelines regarding mass, bulk and plate heights, and the project is more than 200 SF under the maximum floor area, would note that if the applicant wants to reconsider the design based on Commission's observations, they could choose to do that. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 14 Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when an arborist's report regarding the neighboring tree has been submitted, reviewed by the City Arborist, and recommendations for trimming and tree protection during and following construction have been made and added as conditions of approval. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 12. 1235 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENT (GYMBOREE CORPORATION, THOMAS DULICK, GYMBOREE CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KIRKBRIDE C/O HENRY HORN & SONS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Thomas Dulik, Gymboree representative and applicant, 700 Airport Boulevard, noted that they had submitted a color rendering with the latest revision to the elevations, originally proposed dormers, these have been eliminated, it made the storefront look fake. Commissioners noted that it looks better without the dormers, and asked about the copper roofing material, would prefer that it not look shiny. The applicant noted that this type of copper roofing will look aged and have a typical copper patina, it will not be shiny or reflective. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with no changes requested. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: Think that the applicant has done a nice job, this building needs some tender loving care, look forward to seeing the change. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 13. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN – FIRST STUDY SESSION (277 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS There was a consensus among the Commissioners that since people in the audience had been waiting patiently for this item, we should take public testimony first and then review the plan. Chair Bojués opened the public comment, noting that at this meeting, the Commission will be reviewing the first two sections of the plan, the Introduction and the Goals and Policies. Bruce Balshone, 500 Airport Boulevard, representing property owners on Ogden Drive, noted that he will come back and testify when the Commission considers the Land Use Section, but wanted to let the Commission know that the owners proposed a project that generally is consistent with the plan policies, and wanted them to be aware of the letter submitted regarding the proposal. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 15 Matt Nassiri, 1832 Rollins Road, noted that he has a business there and participated in all the workshops, appreciates the process developing the plan, has been on Rollins Road since 1988 and is very familiar with the area; noted that the plan covers two distinct areas, the Rollins Road area and the El Camino Real area. People who work in the Rollins Road area have difficulty accessing Burlingame Plaza because there is no pedestrian link between the two areas; right now these two areas are not cohesive and traffic is heavy on Rollins Road, would like to see a policy that the areas be made more cohesive by providing a pedestrian connection. Eileen Chow, 1218 Rollins Road, manages property on the east side of Rollins Road at the Broadway intersection, the vision statement in the plan document indicates there are two sub-areas, the Rollins Road area and the El Camino Real corridor and that the Rollins Road area would remain primarily industrial, she would like to suggest that the southern end of Rollins Road at the gateway, the parcels fronting on Broadway should be commercial as an extension of the Broadway Commercial area. The plan now proposes commercial uses at the northwest corner, would like that to extend to the property on the northeast corner of Broadway and Rollins Road. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, would like to point out that Policy H-4 indicates that the northern portion of Rollins Road would allow limited live/work opportunities, however, the map on page 26 shows a medium-high density residential overlay. SP Brooks clarified that the map needs to be corrected to show the overlay as live-work only in that area. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. SP Brooks briefly reviewed the first two chapters of the plan, noting that this is the first opportunity for the Commission to review the draft plan, there have been five community workshops and three commission subcommittee meetings; and that the plan has been developed and evolved based on the input of these meetings. The Introduction states the purpose of the plan and contains an overall vision statement for the Planning Area. The Goals and Policies Section provides the framework on which the remaining sections are based. Commission discussion: • In the Vision Statement or in the Goals and Policies, we need to add something that functionally will tie the two subareas of the plan together, a pedestrian access link, with the potential opportunity to tie into one of the existing streets and create a pedestrian linkage from west to east. • Seek ways to tie the two areas of the plan together such as: o pedestrian access at Broadway o bike lanes o pedestrian access across or under the Caltrain tracks o tie together aesthetically through common tree species • The Vision Statement talks about the area's proximity to BART, it is also proximate to Caltrain with stations at both ends, would like to add that this plan is an effort to intensify the uses around these transportation hubs. • Would like to see a goal or policy stated to create pedestrian/retail pockets in the Rollins Road area to serve the local employees. • Add a goal or policy to more clearly express the desire to create a strong visual connection between the northern end of El Camino Real and the tree-lined portion to the south. • Make sure that there is a general goal to encourage housing within walking distance of BART and Caltrain. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 16 • Goal B: wherever it is used, change "viable" to "vibrant" or "vital", speaks more assertively. • Goal B appears to be a finding rather than a goal. • Need to make it clear that one of the overriding goals or policies of the plan is to provide an opportunity for expansion of housing consistent with State requirements and the adopted Housing Element. • Policy B-1 fits better under Goal D. • Add Policy C-4: Improve circulation within the Rollins Road area by creating better road connections to facilitate planned land uses. • Add Policy C-5: Create pedestrian pockets of service/retail uses to serve the employees in the area. • Add Policy C-6: Protect and develop greenways, particularly along the creeks, to facilitate a recreational asset for area employees and Burlingame residents. • Modify Policy C-4 to specify that the related businesses would be auto-related, but can include retail auto parts sales. • Policy C-5 should cover both parts of the plan, not just Rollins Road, move to A-2. • Make sure that Goal D spells out that mixed-use emphasizes housing and would be retail/residential in some areas and office/residential in others, in both cases could be free standing use of one or other use side by side. • Clarify policy D-3 to state that it is referring to pedestrian and bicycle access. • Policy D-4 should refer to the residential neighborhoods to the west, not north. • Add Policy D-5, that the El Camino Real area is identified as a place for additional housing to meet the community's housing needs. • Clarify Goal E to state that streets shall be appropriately scaled, and that it will also promote safe vehicle use in addition to bicycles and pedestrians. • Add to policy E-2 that pedestrian connection to BART shall be safe and inviting. • Add Policy E-4: create safe and well designed bicycle access through this area, plan should include designated path or location. • Add Policy E-5: El Camino Real shall be developed so that it is visually narrower in order to transition with the tree-lined portion of the street south of the planning area. • Add Policy F-4 that the character of the Broadway gateway to Rollins Road would be commercial in nature to provide a link to the Broadway Commercial Area. • Clarify that the craft and artisan uses in the North end of the Rollins Road area will focus on fabrication of goods in keeping with the industrial nature of this area. • The topic of whether housing should be allowed and how housing will be defined in the Rollins Road area will be discussed as part of the Land Use Section of the plan. • In the Goals and Policies Section, add cross-references to the implementing guidelines and concepts in later chapters. The Planning Commission then discussed the schedule for review of the rest of the Draft Plan. CP Monroe offered different options regarding when to hold the meetings and noted the public notice requirements for the meetings. Commissioners concurred that the review should continue to focus on individual Sections at regular Planning Commission meetings as divided in the City Planner's memo. The next study session would be scheduled at the Planning Commission's regular meeting on the February 9, 2004, and discussion would be on the Land Use Chapter. The remaining Commission study sessions of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan were tentatively scheduled as follows: • February 9, 2004 Chapter 4: Land Use City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 17 • February 23, 2004 Chapter 3: Illustrative Development Concepts Chapter 6: Design Guidelines and Development Standards • March 8, 2004 Chapter 5: Circulation and Infrastructure Chapter 7: Development Framework Chapter 8: Implementation X. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 12, 2003 , AND THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2004. CP Monroe noted that the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's action on 1348 Vancouver with the addition of a condition which would void the FAR variance should the house ever be demolished. She also reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 5, 2004, noting that the applicant for the appeal at 1029 Balboa had requested that the hearing be delayed to February 17, 2004, and that Council set a Special Study Session for the FEIR for the Safeway project on January 27, 2004 and set the public hearing for action on the Safeway FEIR and the project at their regular meeting on February 2, 2004. - RETURNING FYI FOR REVISIONS TO EXTERIOR MATERIALS AT AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1036 (1032) CABRILLO AVENUE Commission reviewed the requested changes and had no comments. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary S:\MINUTES\01.12.04unapprovedminutes.doc