Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.01.31 -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 31, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the January 31, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioners Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ACTION ITEMS Regular Calendar 1140 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO CONSTRUCT A CITY PARKING LOT. Reference staff report, 1.31.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commissioners asked about the process for eminent domain and asked how long the process takes. CA Anderson noted that this is not necessarily an eminent domain process, the owner put the property on the market and the City has submitted a bid. The process for acquiring property starts with the preparation of an appraisal, communication with the property owner of the appraisal information, the owner decides to accept the offer or not, if not, then the City Council decides whether to proceed with eminent domain and a judgment to decide the value of the property. The process from inception of appraisal to making judgement takes a minimum of 6 months, but the City can get possession of the property in a matter of days. Commission had no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: feels it is a necessary evil, hate to see loss of buildings to parking, but impact is not substantial, good thing for the City. C. Vistica made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the negative declaration and determination of general plan consistency by resolution. C. Deal seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: need to talk about implications on the future of neighborhood, this is a low impact idea, but major planning choice Chula vista lot has large light fixtures and too little landscaping; now residential fabric flows into commercial fabric, this will create a barrier to that flow, needs to be viable for pedestrians, need to be aware what this choice means; CE noted Chula vista lot built to maximize parking at merchants request and during drought, less landscaping, at least make sure this parking lot is landscaped properly so it fits into neighborhood; can add to recommendation that landscaping be included and pedestrian amenities such as bench, added along street frontage; concerned with competition between auto amenities and pedestrian amenities, would like to see tree pockets added City of Burlingame Planning Commission Agenda January 31, 2000 -2- within parking area and immediate amenities at sidewalk, should be considered an urban design, not engineering problem; there is a parking demand, if not provided, parking will spill over into residential streets, concur with need for amenities, low impact because lot is small. CA noted that there two were reasons for adding this parking lot, to add parking and for better circulation out of the Chula Vista lot, to keep traffic out of Chula Vista residential area, the number of spaces on the Laguna lot has not yet been determined. Continued commission discussion: doesn=t take much in the way of sacrificing parking spaces to get good design, need to look at the way the edge along the sidewalk is treated, could eliminate one parallel space and add tree bulbs between the remaining parallel spaces; circulation in Chula Vista lot could be improved by removing one space at end of entry aisle closest to Broadway and allowing two-way internal access aisle, this would cause the loss of one space in the Chula vista lot; support idea of parking lot there when weighed against potential multiple family building, will alleviate parking on residential streets, would like to also see more landscaping and improvements to the Chula Vista lot; support the motion with the added recommendations for landscaping. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve recommendation of consistency with the General Plan with the additional suggestions that trees wells be placed between the parking spaces parallel to the property line, landscaping and a bench be placed along the side wall frontage on Laguna. Also that lighting be compatible with the streetscape improvements and the Chula vista lot be re-evaluated for landscaping and internal auto movements so the two areas work better together and provide a nicer pedestrian amenity for those walking by. The motion passed on a 6- 0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. 1347 & 1369 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD PARKING TO THE CITY=S CORPORATION YARD. Reference staff report, 1.31.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission asked if this is a new site plan for this project; would this acquisition would be by eminent domain; how many parking spaces are proposed. CE Erbacher noted that plan is only conceptual, need to decide whether to acquire additional property or construct a parking structure on the existing site. CA Anderson noted that eminent domain not at this point, the City is in negotiations with both property owners, and noted there are about 64 parking spaces shown on the conceptual site plan. Commission had no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, asked what is currently on the property at 1369 North Carolan that will be displaced, will the trucks now stored at Washington Park be moved to this site, what is located to the rear of this property, and as part of this consulting project were any other properties looked at in the study. CP Monroe responded that the existing building at 1369 North Carolan is a warehouse building, there is no intent to store Parks Department equipment on this site, this seems to be the lowest cost real estate in the area, since property on Rollins is more desirable frontage, this is somewhat more affordable; this property backs up to the railroad tracks. Harry Thodos, 1544 Overland Drive, San Mateo, noted that he is one of the sellers of the 1140 Laguna lot, and asked what action was taken on that item. CA Anderson noted that the Planning Commission action was a recommendation to the City Council that the use was consistent with the General Plan. Chair Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Agenda January 31, 2000 -3- Commission discussion: support the concept of improving the corporation yard, want to make sure the installation of lighting is done so that there is no overflow on residential areas. C. Dreiling made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the categorical exemption and determination that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and its implementing zoning, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. On the motion: Commissioners noted that this is a good thing to do, this is a reasonably close location within the city, the yard is already there among similar uses, the expansion makes sense. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR NEW RETAIL USE (FRAMING GALLERY) IN AN EXISTING BUILDING. (PETER GUMINA, APPLICANT AND 701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (54 NOTICED) - CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 24, 2000 Reference staff report, 1.31.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted two corrections to the proposed conditions, in Condition No. 6, Afoods@ should be Agoods@, and in Condition No. 7, Along@ should be Alonger@. Commissioners asked if the variance was now just for one parking space. CP Monroe noted that if the new set of assumptions in the staff report were accepted by the Commission, it would result in a one parking space variance. Commission had no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There was no public comment and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in support of granting the variance, it is clear that this is more bulk retail, the conditions specify limitations on the use. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 9, 1999, Sheet A-1 with 990 GSF of retail frame sales, 920 GSF of framing workshop space, 350 GSF of storage; 2) that the framing shop may not be open for business except during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday; and from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursdays, and on Sundays from noon until 5:00 p.m. With no more than four employees on site at any one time; 3) that the applicant shall require all employees to park off-site in non- residential areas during the hours the store is open for business; 4) that the applicant shall post a sign in front of the ADA parking space which allows all customers to use the space with priority given to customers with ADA parking needs, but that the towing of customers parking in this space will not be enforced; 5) that there shall be no self-framing of pictures by customers permitted on site; 6) that within the building the retail sales and display space shall be limited to no more than 990 SF of area; that within this space the predominant use shall be display of types of frame s and framing materials available to be used by the employees for assembly of picture frames on site; display and sale of any items not assembled on site shall be limited to incidentals common to this type of business such as ready -made frames, pre-cut mats, posters, prints, sample framed pictures, photo albums, and goods related to mounting, repairing and framing pictures; 7) that should the premises no longer be used for the assembly by employees of custom products from wholesale products for retail sale on site, the parking requirements for the uses on site shall be recalculated based on the proposed uses within the building and a parking variance, if needed, shall be applied for and granted before the new business occupies the site; and 8) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Agenda January 31, 2000 -4- The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. On the motion: staff did an excellent job in drafting the conditions to tie down the use, have comfort that use is limited to a framing shop. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS DISCUSSION OF BASEMENTS IN CALCULATING FAR CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and a brief history of how FAR was established to measure mass and bulk. Commissioner comment: recall that initially when discussed FAR decided to let people have basements because the square footage would not affect the bulk of the structure, now people look at this as a way to get another floor of living area; if going to allow some exemption it needs to be more than 100 SF because of the cost of building retaining walls would make such a small area uneconomical; main concern is the placing of bedrooms in the basement area, thus increasing the number of people in the dwelling; if can get the emergency exiting addressed can put an 8 bedroom house in a neighborhood that cannot support it; can see basement areas used for storage, family room and laundry areas. Think should consider allowing 250 SF exemption for basement areas used for workshop or laundry, if used as living space should be included in FAR calculation; maybe need special permit for basement area since once built it can easily be converted to something else such as sleeping area; if the entire basement area is below grade, there are no egress windows for sleeping areas; the city uses the UBC definition of basement which means 50% of a basement is below grade this in some cases would allow egress for sleeping rooms, would prefer definition of basement which would not allow area to be used for additional bedrooms; like the idea of people adding space below grade where it does not add to bulk, but do not want it to be used to increase the number of people living in the house; can we just except 200 SF and have the rest of such area count in the FAR calculation; some cities count one-third of the basement area as FAR, this includes crawl space, this would address bulk issue caused by current definition of basement; in hillside areas have large open existing areas below first floor which could be made into basements and used as living areas without changing the existing mass of the structure; if the exemption is 100 SF there will not be many basements proposed; who is likely to put in a basement when it is cheaper to add a second story; that depends upon what they want, today there is a lot of expense in the foundation so making a basement is not a big line item; impact of basement is related to some extent to the site configuration, more likely to have where there is a minor slope to the lot; could change definition so that there could be no exterior wall greater than 24 inches from existing grade to top of plate in order for basement area to be exempt from FAR; legal egress is a problem in basement areas, can light wells be used as legal egress for sleeping areas; Planner noted that we use a definition for half-story for attic areas, could that be used for basements; could use half story definition plus an exception of 250 SF; Planning Commission should review everything and allow people who do a responsible job to go ahead, a special permit would do this; since garages can be placed in basement areas, ceiling height for areas considered to be useable should be 7 feet. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the consensus of the commission for direction to staff as a place to begin their revision to the FAR would be a 250 SF exemption for basement areas, to include in the measurement of useable space finished areas with 7 foot or higher ceiling heights and a definition of basement in which the walls were more than 2 feet above existing adjacent grade. Staff indicated that they would return to the commission for further study with alternative suggestions based on this direction. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Agenda January 31, 2000 -5- DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD FRONTAGE ADJACENT TO TOYON AVENUE CP Monroe pointed out that City Council Resolution 24-75 had amended the General Plan Land Use Map for the area zoned R-1 between Toyon and the south side of Rose Court, so the commission=s attention should be focused on the proper transition zone use for the area zoned R-3 but designated Aretail sale and service@ on the land use map. She discussed the historic circumstances which might have lead to the designation of this area as commercial initially and how the situation has changed. The various transition solutions considered historically for the Rollins Road frontage were also reviewed. Commission comment: Rollins Road is not a fit place to live, the function of what is built here is to give the people on Linden a better living environment; this is an unfortunate location, need to weigh the impact of the proposed use on the neighbors behind; don=t want auto row and don=t want strip commercial, can=t support the residential density of the condominium project proposed earlier, like the idea of encouraging combination of the existing small lots so get a residential development which could include a court yard amenity to make the living environment better, would like a two story limit, could be applied by an overlay zone; the old R-3A zone has many acceptable components; do not want more drive-up businesses; extension of the freeway sound wall in front of this area is important, CP noted that to get the wall extended with the auxiliary lane project this area needs to be designated for residential use. Chairman Luzuriaga suggested that staff return to the commission with a suggestion for the land use designation and the implementing zoning on the February 14, 2000, agenda. Commissioner Dreiling noted that he continues as an alternate on the San Mateo County Design Review Board and that they will be meeting on February 2, 2000, at the County Government Center, at 4:00 p.m. to review three projects. If any members of the commission would like to observe how this approach works they are welcome to come observe. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES1.31