Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.03.25hNk%117111.9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of .Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Ellis on Monday, March 25, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink and Wellford Absent: Commissioner Jacobs Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman and Assistant Fire Chief, Bill Reilly MINUTES - The minutes of the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. It was noted for the record that the item listed as M-1 discussion should have been listed as M- 1 Review and Recommendation FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR PARKING, EXISTING SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 801 PALOMA, ZONED, R-1, (JEFFERY P AND J. P. LINDSTROM, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: was the uncovered parking area a part of the plans originally approved when a building permit was issued for the garage; how was the declining height envelope arrived at, please show diagram; setback on Paloma is shown on the plans at 4' on the site plan, when in fact it is 7', correct; when was the building permit for the garage issued; was lot coverage exceeded at the time the permit was issued for the garage; how big was the prior garage; does it make sense to attach the garage to the house. Hearing was set for April 8, -1996, providing that all the questions could be addressed in time. CITY OF BUBLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 2. APPLICATION TO AMEND PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRING REMOVAL OF A SHOWER FROM AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY THE YEAR 2000 AT 204 BAYSWATER AVENUE, R-1, (LESLIE AND FRANK DOYLE, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) Requests: include minutes of June, 1990 action in next packet; is there a pool on the property now; justification is home occupation, if so do want to apply for home occupation permit? do they need a different justification if not home occupation. Set for action April 8, 1996. 3. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEW 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 107-121 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED, R-3, (SUNSHINE HOLDING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: traffic report shows a lower trip generation for the new condominiums than for the existing apartments, explain; the guest parking spaces should be labeled; plans do not show the security gate; how will access be gained to the guest parking, where will delivery trucks park; side set back along El Camino Real is not accurately shown, should be 20'; show cross section documenting floor to ceiling heights within the structure; delineate open space areas on plan so can see what was included in required open space; provide an alternate plan which shows driveway off Newlands and how it would affect the parking layout; have the traffic engineer check the history of accidents for the past four or five years on El Camino at Newlands and a block in either direction. Item was set for action on April 8, 1996, providing the information requested can be submitted in time. 4. APPLICATION FOR A TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT AT 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED, C-1, SUBAREA A, (ZEKA GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER AND ROSTI #7, INC.. APPLICANT). Requests: where will the delivery vehicle for this restaurant be parked and where will it be loaded; what type of food will be served; will there be tables and chairs on the sidewalk in front of this business; what does 30% take-out mean in terms of number of meals a day; where are the other restaurants in this chain located; what type of activities are employees on site doing, i.e., waiting tables, manning a cafeteria line, cooking, number of each in each job; submit a menu and price list; will the patio area be covered or heaters provided so that it can be used year round; could they describe "take-home" as it relates to "take-out", e.g., can the food be eaten on the street or in the car; how is the food packaged; advise on how to handle the traffic impact, what plans for customers who stay on site, what about those who park, pick up and run; how will they address the cumulative impact on parking, traffic, and trash of this use in this area; will any of their delivery and pick up occur on Burlingame Avenue; two aspects of delivery: one to the site from other businesses - how will this be done; other from this business to customer, how will this be done; does the 30% take-out figure include delivery business; what percent is take-out of the total food service; will percentage of take-out and delivery increase over time, how will we know, how can we manage. Item was set for April 8, 1996 meeting assuming that responses are available in time. -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 5. APPLICATION FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW WING TO THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AT 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE, ZONED, C- 3, (CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) Requests: there were no questions. Set for hearing, April 8, 1996. 6. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO REPAIR AT 45 STAR WAY, ZONED, M-1, (N. & S. CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNER AND WILLIE DAVIS AND RICHARD AMBROSIO, APPLICANTS). Requests: the floor plan is unclear, cannot use to make decision cannot tell if will work, need a scale drawing as all others submit; where is this business relocating from; in the past the property owner has supplied a parking plan for the whole area in his ownership, how does this plan fit into the assignments shown previously; contact the property owner for updated information and include in packet. Item set for public hearing when the information is complete. 7. APPLICATION FORA SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MINOR AUTO REPAIR AND PAINTING AT 1333 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED, M-1, (REEDY AND HOOVER INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER AND DAVID LOVECCHIO DBA OWIK FIX, APPLICANT) Requests: applicant's letter indicates that he operates at several locations, where are they; since he is seeking a site big enough to repair cars under cover in bad weather, will this site serve all his other locations during bad weather; how is S-3 auto repair defined in the code. Set for public hearing April 8, 1996. ACTION ITEMS 8. DISCUSSION OF M-1 ZONING REGULATION CHANGES CP Monroe reviewed the staff report on the revised M-1 district regulation. She noted that there were four items the commission had indicated that they wished to review at this meeting before acting on the revision: added definition of Motor Freight Terminal; added definition of Service Business; definition of "incidental" sales allowed with permitted and conditional uses; and quantified measures for determining "incidental" uses. CP discussed findings from other communities that use "accessory uses" defined in terms of floor area occupied to define retail sales from industrial uses rather than the concept of "incidental". The needed action to move this item forward is a recommendation for action by the City Council. In their discussion the commissioners noted: that the bulk of the ordinance was all right as previously adjusted, they would focus on the unresolved issue of retail sales in the light industrial zone; none wanted to see 50% retail in this area either in floor area or percentage of business from site; need sales to be allowed since some businesses with associated retail sales located in this area are not appropriate or viable in areas such as Burlingame Avenue; prefer 15 to 20 percent of floor area; if uses 10 percent of 10,000 SF area it would be 1,000 SF which is a lot of sales area; not intend to have retail sales drive the warehouse activity; what does one expect to see within the allowed floor area: display, products for sale, counter area, office for sales staff; concern about the traffic and parking implications -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 of these sales areas;, the amount of space is less important as a driver than the amount of sales, at least 51 percent of the activity should be the dominant (permitted) activity, sales of 15 percent of the gross business could be a lot; not want a regulation which keeps normal businesses out, such as repair service which would sell a replacement if repaired item could not be fixed; resolution may be to have 5-10 percent for floor area and 15 percent for gross business done from the site, if in excess then it becomes a conditional use. Commission consensus was that "incidental" should be replaced with "accessory use". Retail sales in the M-1 district should be considered an accessory use. The definition of accessory use should include occupancy of a maximum of 10 percent of floor or,site area and 15 percent of gross business done from the site; in addition the definition should include that parking on site to current code requirements should be required by use for all use areas within the building. The commission's last area of discussion was on the section which applies to processing exceptions. This section defines performance zoning and when exceptions to performance (use) requirements can be requested. After some discussion clarifying the legal requirements having to do with exceptions to uses, the commission directed that this section be modified to state that performance requirements for permitted uses had to be met by permitted uses. All the performance requirements for conditional uses, however,. may be subject to review, including on site parking and landscaping requirements. Commissioner Mink moved that the revised M-1 district regulations as modified by the Commission this evening including Motor Freight Terminal and Service Business definitions, replacement of "incidental" with accessory use and addition of a definition of Accessory Use, and clarification of the application of the performance requirements for permitted and conditional uses be recommended to City Council for action. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Deal. The Commission voted in favor on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Jacobs absent). Staff noted that this item would be placed on the agenda for the Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on April 20, 1996. From there the City Council would indicate the time of their next review. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meeting of March 18, 1996. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. MINUTES3.25 corruted 4.1.96 10 Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary