Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.08.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday., August 12, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, August 12, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES - AGENDA - FROM THE FLOOR Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis None City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman;. Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall The minutes of the July 22, 1996 meeting were approved as mailed. Item #1, 860 Fairfield Road, has withdrawn. The order of the agenda was then approved. There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO F.A.R. EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BY ± 480 SF AND VARIANCES FOR 3 STORIES AT 860 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED, R-1, (JOHN A. MAKA, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). CONTINUED FROM JULY 22, 1996 WITHDRAWN 2. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR APPLIANCE REPAIR AT 1500-A ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED C-1, (MAMORA TERRELL, PROPERTY OWNER AND FRANCISCO CALONJE , APPLICANT.) Commission requested the following information: the plans show a retail sales area, what is to be sold there; is the proportion of sales area to repair area correct; where will appliances to be repaired be stored, there does not seem to be much space allotted for storage; site plans have been reproduced a lot, tenant space designations cannot be read, can commission have a clearer copy (maybe a new original) in the future. Item was set for public hearing at the meeting of August 26, 1996. -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1210-1216 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED, C-1, SUBAREA A (ARCHIE L. OFFIELD PROPERTY OWNER AND RALF NIELSEN. APPLICANT.) Reference staff report, 8.12.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested. Commissioners asked if the occupancy numbers had been reviewed by the Fire Department, yes; why is the future seating shown as a range; why were phasing plans not submitted for coordinating, this expansion with the seismic retrofit. Staff explained that phasing plans were not requested since at no time during the retrofit would the limits in terms of seating, use areas, or employees being requested here be exceeded. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Ralph Nielson, 1210-1216 Burlingame Avenue, the applicant, spoke. He noted that this is their twentieth year at this location; the expansion was prompted by the retrofit, they had the choice of paying more for less space after the retrofit or to expand after the retrofit with the opportunity to have more flexibility during the retrofit construction period; the seating numbers are flexible at this time since they have not done a final layout; their objective is the improve the bakery with additional space for better display, get a real kitchen for the cafe and get better seating. Difference between high and low is 40 seats over existing that is a lot of seating; additional seating will benefit people already in city who will go elsewhere to eat if there are no seats in the cafe, therefore they accommodate people already in the area. The maximum number of seats will be 110, if the applicant wishes the number may be fewer, not more. Applicant noted that any plans for the use of the bakery's parking spaces at the rear will have to meet with the approval of the landlord; applicant would like to designate two of these for customer's picking up items. The business does not intend to supply small bakeries elsewhere. Wayne Lassiter, 1208 Burlingame, spoke noting that he has no objection to the retrofit, in fact it benefits him. However, he notes that parking on this site obstructs a private easement at the rear of his property. His property fronts on Burlingame Avenue. The City Attorney noted that this is a private matter, not involving the city or this application. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The commission discussed the application: the Chief Building Official noted the need to realign the parking space for the door swing, it would be better to move the door away from the parking space; no problem with the expansion, this business has been at this location a long time unfortunate for it to go someplace else; many restaurants the same size have more than 110 seats, this would be one of the smaller on this block; the parking spaces at the back are hard to find, difficult to use, not a good place for customers to use, prefer available for deliveries or on site tenants. Commissioner Deal moved to approve the two special permits for food establishment expansion and take out, by resolution, with the conditions amending condition one to show that the door at the rear should be relocated in order to leave the parking space unobstructed and amending condition six -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 to state that the applicant shall supply two trash containers along the sidewalk. The conditions as revised follow: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 24, 1996, Sheets 1, 2, A-1 and A-2 with the change that the door at the rear from the site into the parking be relocated so that it leaves the parking spaces unobstructed; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 24 and July 15, 1996 memos and the Chief Building Inspector's July 15, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that a maximum of 3625 SF of the basement area shall be used for a food assembly, the remaining 1875 SF shall be used for storage only; 4) that the hours of operation of the business shall not exceed the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, with a maximum number of employees of 17 on site at one time; 5) that seating on site, inside, shall not exceed 110 and seating outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 6) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least once a day, more often if necessary, two trash receptacles placed on the sidewalk outside the building at a location approved by the City Engineer; these two trash receptacles shall be of the type approved by the city as a part of the streetscape plan adopted by the City Council and shall be installed no later than January 1, 1997; 7) that all deliveries to this business shall be made from the Donnelly Avenue side of the premise; 8) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently if the City determines it to be necessary, all debris on the sidewalk, on sidewalk tables fronting this premise, in the gutter and in planters 50 feet of the store; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes 1995 Edition as amended by the City and that any lack of compliance with these conditions or change to the business or use on the site which results in a change which would affect any one or more of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. In discussion following the motion and its second, the Commissioners noted that it would be appropriate to designate the number of approved trash containers the applicant would be required to provide on the street, two was suggested, the maker of the motion and the second agreed to amend condition 6 to reflect this; there was further discuss of the phasing of the project, staff noted that after the expansion area was retrofitted, the cafe portion of the existing business would be moved in to the newly retrofitted area while they worked on the existing cafe area. Thus, at no time during the retrofit process would the business exceed the limits of this request; moreover it can operate throughout the construction. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Galligan and approved on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1218 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED, C-1, SUBAREA A (M. H. PODELL COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNERS AND BANANA REPUBLIC. APPLICANT.) Reference staff report, 8.12.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested. Commissioners noted that this was not a request for a master signage program; that the. Building Official's memo notes 7' minimum above the sidewalk, the planner notes 8'; staff acknowledged discrepancy but noted that the applicant is requesting 9' so both limits are met; how -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 is signage on this site related to that on the Pottery Barn next door, each is free standing and treated independently, based on the retail site's street frontage. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Susan Malik, representing Banana Republic, the applicant, spoke. She noted that the tenant space was 5,890 SF, 890 SF of this is in a storage mezzanine, 5000 SF on the first floor; a total of 9 signs are being requested; the small window signs are to keep people from running into the windows; not more than two signs can be seen from any one direction on the street. The facade has a large presence on the street; they wanted less signage so that they would not overwhelm the street,'asking for half what is allowed; submitted pictures of seven sites on the street with more signage. The blade signs are to add to the architectural integrity, the Pottery barn has no blade signs. Alex Podell, M.H. Podell, 1201 Howard Avenue, spoke representing the developer/property owner, He supported the sign exception and approved of the aesthetic approach. Francisco Calonje, applicant for the retail service use at the Adeline Market site spoke. He asked what had happened to his request. He was advised that it had been set for August 26, 1996, and he should call the City Planner. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: The amount of mezzanine in this building should be checked to insure that parking to code requirements for the mezzanine areas on both this premise and the Pottery Barn are provided on site. Commissioner Deal noted that this is a tasteful sign program, the blade sign is one of the suggestions made by the architect doing the streetscape study; the blade signs should work so long as there is some kind of stiffener in them so that they do not flap in the wind; no problem with the number of signs especially since the amount of signage is half what is allowed; it is good to see a sign application which is sensitive to the amount of visual impact. He then moved approval of the sign exception 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 June 27, 1996; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 1, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. On the motion Commissioners noted: that approval of this application did not include any tassels, streamers or other items hung from the blade signs as shown in the pictures submitted as an example of the signs; this is not a grant of special privilege, it is a different approach needed because of the size and shape of the building and contributes to Burlingame Avenue; could see blade signs such as these being a problem if everyone had them, then none would be visible. The motion was seconded by C. Key and approved 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. se Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 VIILPLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the August 5, 1996 City Council regular meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p. m., after a moment of silence in memory of the City Attorney's brother-in-law, William Pitcher. MMUTES8.12 -5- Respectfully submitted, Charles Mink, Secretary