Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1977.11.14COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Francard Kindig Sine Jacobs CALL TO ORDER CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 1977 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Mink City Planner Swan Taylor Asst. City Planner Yost City Attorney Coleman City Engineer Kirkup A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chairman Jacobs at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL . The above -listed Commission and staff members were present. Chm. Taylor and C. Mink were not present with excused absences and C. A. Coleman arrived at the meeting during Item #5. MINUTES The minutes of October 12 and 26, 1977 were considered. C. Sine referred to Item #1 of the October 26 minutes concerning 33 Park Road. He requested that the record show he had questioned why the final parcel map was needed by the developer for financing when the developer had already poured the foundations and was proceeding with due diligence on the job. The developers had commented that these costs were out of their own pocket. Referring to the October 26 minutes, page 4, Item #3, 320 Lang Road, C. Jacobs requested that her findings prior to the motion for approval be included: that this was unusual property; it was difficult to build on because of the easement; the development would not interfere with neighboring properties; and there was compliance with the General Plan of the City of Burlingame. It was noted an appeal had been filed with the City Clerk on this item, but later the appeal had been withdrawn. There being no further corrections or additions, the minutes of the meetings of October 12, 1977 and October 26, 1977 were approved as mailed and corrected. . MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (APN 026-363-170/180); PROPERTY AT 411 AIRPORT BLVD., ZONED M-1, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST Chm. Jacobs read the item. C. E. Kirkup briefly reviewed the application, noting that all utilities are in and recommended approval of the tentative and final map with some commitment from the developer that adequate access be provided to Parcel E for the future. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, representing the -applicant, stated that they would agree to this. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1977 There being no further discussion, Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, and the public hearing was closed. C. Sine moved for approval of the above -noted tentative and final maps, incorporating the letter from the Asst. City Engineer dated November 11, 1977, and the City Engineer's comments at this meeting. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and, upon roll call vote, it carried unanimously (5-0). 2. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT THE RESUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS, ONE OF WHICH HAS TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS; PROPERTY AT 1862 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-169-100/110) AND 1872 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-169-090), ZONED M-1, BY ARTHUR RUDE, JR. (ND -140P POSTED 11/3/77) Chm. Jacobs read the item. Asst. C. P. -Yost reported that the proposal is to take an existing lot with two structures on it and divide the lot down the middle so that each structure would sit on a separate lot. He stated that the present proposal is somewhat different than the one presented to the Commission in August, noting that the property owner has acquired title to a small triangular piece of land immediately adjacent to Parcel B. If this additional land were paved, the parking would now be in excess of code requirements on Parcel B. And with an improved parking layout, Mr. Yost stated, Parcel A would have a net deficiency of only two spaces. In summary, he noted that the applicant had reduced the proposed deficiency from 18 parking spaces to two spaces. He said if the Commission chooses to approve the variance, it might be conditioned that the parkimg areas be paved and striped according to the plans submitted. It was noted that the word "proposed" in reference to the ingress and egress easement would be removed on the final map, and that it was the intent of the property owner that this be recorded. It was also confirmed that staff had been provided proof that the triangular parcel had been purchased. As there seemed no problems with the amended application, the Commission agreed that action could be taken without the presence of the applicant. It was noted that an agenda had been sent to the applicant. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the public hearing was closed. C. Cistulli moved for approval of the variance as per plans presented with the condition that the parking spaces be paved and striped. As a finding of fact., it was noted that the proposal is much improved over that previously submitted. With this addition included, C. Kindig seconded the motion and it carried unanimously upon a roll call vote (5-0). 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS B AND D (PORTION OF LOT 1), BLOCK 2, UNIT NO. 1, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK; PROPERTY AT 1862/1872 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 025-169-090/100/110), ZONED M-1, BY MARTIN M. RON ASSOCIATES FOR ARTHUR RUDE, JR. Chm. Jacobs read the item. The City Engineer briefly reviewed the map and then recommended that the final and tentative map be approved. C. Sine moved that the above -noted application be approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Asst. C. E. in his memo dated November 'P0,1977. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote it carried unanimously (5-0). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 14, 1977 4. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT (APPROVED 9/28/77) FOR AMERICAR RENTAL SYSTEMS TO MOVE THE RENTAL OFFICE FROM 890 MAHLER ROAD TO 1530 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-321- 490), BY CHARLES G. MAYO, ET AL (APPLICANT) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF MAHLER GILBRETH PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -128P POSTED 9/16/77) Chm. Jacobs read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost noted that this is an amendment to a previously approved special permit. He referred to a letter from Mr. Mayo dated October 26, 1977 and stated that with Mr. Mayo's assurances that the details of the proposed car rental agency would remain unchanged, this proposal could be an improvement over the original application. He noted that the alley leading to the original office area would no longer be used by customers as access could now be from Gilbreth. He further stated that the two customer spaces outside the office on the Gilbreth frontage seem reasonable and would be compatible with the rental car storage in the adjacent building at 890 Mahler Road. He further noted that the original special permit reviewed by the Commission September 28, 1977 was approved with conditions; Mr. Mayo understands that these conditions would remain and that staff would report back to the Commission in March, 1978 on the rental operation. He then stated that staff has no objection to the proposed amendment. Mr. Mayo was present to answer any questions and stated that he understood and agreed with the conditions of the original special permit. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the public hearing was closed. C. Kindig moved approval of the amendment, subject to all previously approved conditions being met by the applicant. C. Sine seconded the motion and it carried unanimously upon a roll call vote (5-0). 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1977 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1978 IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT 1290 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-142-110), BY DAVID H. KEYSTON OF ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) FOR STAR RENT -A -CAR (ND -141P POSTED 11/3/77) Chm. Jacobs read the item. Asst. C. P. -Yost reviewed the history of the application, and referred to two letters from David Keyston dated October 20 and November 2, 1977 which explain the relationship between AA Auto Rental (a previously approved item by Planning Commmission action 9/28/77) and the proposed Star Rent-A-Car operation. Mr. Yost stated that from the facts presented in the two letters there would appear to be little practical change from the original application. Mr. Keyston confirmed that Star Rent-A-Car would be leasing year old cars and AA would lease brand new cars; the same personnel will handle both types of rentals. Both local companies are owned by the same Los Angeles parent company. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence, the public hearing was closed. C. Kindig moved for approval of the special permit. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon a roll call vote it carried unanimously (5-0). Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 14, 1977 6. VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT A 690 SF ADDITION TO THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT AT 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-410), ZONED C-4, BY ALBERT R. SEYRANIAN (ARCHITECT) FOR RICHARD PATANE, RESTAURANTEUR WITH MIKE GERALDI (PROPERTY OWNER) (ND -139P POSTED 11/3/77) Before continuing, Chm. Jacobs asked if it would be proper to open the public hearing at this meeting and continue it to a later meeting. C. A. Coleman advised that this would be proper legal procedure. Chm. Jacobs read the item. C. P. Swan reviewed his staff report dated November 14, 1977 which explained the application setting forth facts and figures, referring to code requirements and containing suggested conditions to the granting of the variance. (This staff report is attached to these minutes for reference.) Mr. Swan expanded on some of the conditions as follows. Condition #1 - Reference was made to a document showing where the compact and handicapped spaces would be. Condition #3 - With a 30 -day revocable lease, staff would suggest there be a performance bond that would provide enough money to rent off-site parking for a period of five years. Condition #5 - The access easement should be kept open for emergency vehicles. Condition #6 - Reference was made to a letter from counsel for the Benihana of Tokyo restaurant, dated November 14, 1977; it was noted that this was the basis of this condition. Condition #7 - It is understood that a comparable amount of area would be required to satisfy San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). This variance proposal would extend the restaurant into an area that had been previously designated as a public access easement between The Fisherman and Benihana of Tokyo. Condition #8 - Approval by BCDC should be obtained as a prerequisite for a City building permit. Mr. Swan noted that the architect, the restaurant operator and the property owner were present. He confirmed that the applicant had an opportunity to review the staff report and the conditions: He referred to an exhibit aerial photo with overlays indicating the site and the off-site parking area. Mr. Seyranian, architect for The Fisherman, stated that they would be in agreement to the conditions, noting that Conditions #2 and #4 have already been met. He also noted (re: Condition #5) that an access easement is shown on the plan although it is currently being used as a service entrance; he stated that measures would be taken to see that this is not blocked. With regard to Condition #6 he stated that they are trying to increase the parking with a better parking plan and did not feel this would be a problem. He agreed to Condition #6. With regard to Condition #7 he stated that this had been discussed with Mrs. Quist of BCDC and it was felt that this could be worked out and would require hearing before BCDC. Secy. Sine read a letter from Susan J. Passovoy of Ellman, Passovoy & Burke, attorneys for Benihana of Tokyo, Inc., dated November 14, 1977 and delivered to City Hall by messenger. The letter expressed the concern that if The Fisherman is permitted to expand without providing additional parking, the additional customers might use the parking lot of the Benihana. It was requested that, if the expansion is permitted, The Fisherman be required to provide sufficient additional. parking to serve the increase in clientele, or some other arrangement be made to insure the Benihana parking area be preserved for Benihana's customers. Referring to the Benihana letter, C. Kindig asked the applicant how he could insure that each restaurant's customers parked in their respective lots. Mr. Seyranian assured the Commission that he did not feel this would be a problem. He emphasized that most of The Fisherman's customers use valet parking and it simply would not be permitted. He said someone might deliberately park in Benihana's parking lot, but it would not be a common event. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1977 Commission discussed valet parking at length. Commissioners Sine, Cistulli and Kindig stated that they personally do not like to have valets park their cars. Mr. Seyranian stated that the valets would find a place for the customer to park his own car. C. Sine commented that he was Chairman when the restaurant was initially approved by the Planning Commission. He stated at that time the property owner had been urged to retain a portion of the property for future expansion. He noted building permits had been obtained on various conversions within the building, and felt that if those conversions had come before the Planning Commission additional parking would have been reuqired. Responding to C. Francard's question, Mr. Seyranian said there was a chain link fence between the two parking lots so that if people parked in one lot and planned to go to the other restaurant they would have to go back to the entrance driveway. Responding to C. Jacobs': concerns that the 10-20% compact provision should be rationalized in some way and a traffic count provided showing the types of cars being parked there, C. P. Swan noted that the increment of the additional space is small and eight more parking spaces would be required. C. Sine and C. Cistulli felt something more definitive should be stated in Condition #2. They felt a specific number or percentage of customer parking spaces should be provided or an area designated for customers in the parking lot. It was felt that valets would use the choice spaces, leaving less desirable spaces for customer parking. Commission discussed this at length and C. Jacobs felt that reserving a portion of the lot for customers might further restrict the number of available spaces. C. Kindig agreed and expressed hope that the proposed customer parking option would not reduce available parking. Responding to C. Sine's question, Mr. Seyranian stated that the valet set-up is subleased and operates pretty much on a full basis. Mr. Patane, operator of The Fisherman, stated that peak hours were between 7:30 PM and 9:30 PM weekdays, and later on weekends. He added that it would be difficult to have customers park in a designated area at night because customer parking signs would be ignored. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak and no further correspondence (ref. letter read during the discussion), the public hearing was closed. C. Sine asked Mr. Seyranian if he had a solution for this parking problem. Mr. Seyranian stated that he could not give a foolproof solution. It would depend on people parking properly and spaces being clearly designated; however, at night even this would be difficult. He reemphasized that many of the customers would utilize the valet service. Mr. Patane referred to the parking layout and stated that 15 spaces could be designated for customers wishing to park their own cars. This suggestion was briefly discussed. Responding to C. Francard's inquiries, Mr. Patane stated that employees park along the backwall and on Saturdays they park in the service station lot. He stated that the new addition would not increase the number of employees. He noted that cocktail waitresses are permitted to park nearby because of the late closing hour and safety. C. Sine moved that the variance be approved with the provision that the plot plan be as shown on Job #7707, and that the aisle marked for 17 standard size spaces be designated for customer parking. C. Cistulli seconded the motion. C. Kindig amended the motion to include the eight conditions contained in the staff report. C. Francard wished to add that the present parking lot be restored to "first class" condition. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1977 Mr. Patane noted that there is construction on the Benihana site and this construction has caused the damage to the parking lot. C. A. Coleman, referring to the phrase "acceptable to City Council" in Condition #3, felt this would not be necessary unless the item is appealed. C. P. Swan explained it was not the intent that separate action be taken; actually this would be acceptable to the Council through City Attorney and City Engineer approval. With the motion for approval amended to include the eight suggested conditions, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Sine thanked Mr. Patane and Mr. Geraldi for attending the meeting. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 17-77 RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-46P, FOR WESTATES PARK Chm. Jacobs read the item. Dermot J. FitzGerald, attorney representing the applicant, asked that action be taken on this item tonight although the corresponding special permit might be continued. Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item, noting that the Commission held public hearing on the Draft EIR October 26, 1977. He referred to an Addendum to the EIR dated November 8, 1977 by Earth Metrics Incorporated which was prepared in response to public comments at the hearing and letters received from various public agencies. He stated that if the Addendum and EIR-46P are found to meet State requirements, the EIR could be recommended to the Council for certification. He made reference to the draft Resolution No. 17-77 recommending the EIR to Council. He requested that the Commission review the resolution and the draft findings in Exhibit A, and noted that Kay Ransom of Earth Metrics was available for questions and comment on the EIR. C. Francard referred to page 2 of Exhibit A, paragraph 2, Item #7, and expressed concern about the berms. He felt that drainage plans 'should be provided and questioned what is planned along E1 Portal Creek. C. E. Kirkup discussed this with C. Francard. The Commissioner asked how the berm would protect the shoreline walk and bikeways against flooding. It had been recommended the berm be placed between the paths and the Bay; the embankment slope would extend into the Bay. He was also concerned about the berm along Bayshore Highway and felt that if this property were enclosed in a berm there might be further flooding problems. C. E. Kirkup replied that the total height of the berm would be 9 to 10 feet; the berm would be 3 to 4 feet above the high tide of 6 feet. The 10 feet was to elevation 10 which is above mean sea level. The property owner would leave the channel open and put a berm along the channel. Chm. Jacobs expressed concern about the consistency with the General Plan (Ref. Exhibit A, Item 4, page 1). C. Kindig and C. Sine agreed that Item 13, Exhibit A, page 3 should be more strongly stated, suggesting that "could" (second line) be changed to "should." A brief recess was called so that Mr. Yost could get some factual material for the discussion; the meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Referring to the Waterfront Element of the General Plan he reviewed the objective concerning public access to the Bayfront. The Commission discussed this briefly. It was noted that C. Jacobs' concerns were mainly problems with Phase I; however, the ultimate proposal would be consistent with the General Plan. It was agreed that Exhibit A, Item 4, page 1 should be changed to: "The proposed ultimate project ." C. Sine stated that approval of the EIR would not be an indication of Commission's feelings about the project, noting that he felt the proposed project is very poor land use. C. Sine moved for adoption of Resolution No. 17-77 with revisions (as discussed) in Exhibit A, #4 and #13. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and upon roll call vote it carried unanimously (5-0). C. Sine suggested that the applicant review the land use because he was not in favor of the project itself as currently planned. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 14, 1977 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 1700-1880 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (PORTION OF APN 024-380-080), ZONED C-4, BY JESSE D. YOHANAN Dermot FitzGerald, attorney representing the applicant, requested that the public hearing be opened and input received and then the hearing be continued. Chm. Jacobs read the item. Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed the application, making reference to EIR-46P. He stated that the special permit application is for a commercial parking lot with space for up to 810 cars and a shuttle bus service to the airport. He stated that the issue is first to determine if the proposed use is an acceptable use in the C-4 zoning district and, if it is not, the Commission should make findings to support denial. If the project is found to be acceptable, conditions should be established to mitigate the adverse impacts set forth in the EIR. He made reference to a memorandum from the Director of Public Works, dated October 20, 1977, and the Addendum to the EIR which bring out additional points for the Commission's considera- tion. He stated that Resolution No. 17-77 attempted to match impacts with mitigation measures and suggested the use of the resolution as the basis for any conditional approval. He noted that Mr. FitzGerald, the applicant's representative, was present for the discussion. Mr. FitzGerald spoke briefly, stating that Stage I is to be an interim use and he would like to prepare more detailed plans for the Commission's review. Chm. Jacobs expressed concern about the wording "interim," stating that nothing indicates this would not be the same 20 years from now. C. A. Coleman advised that approval could be conditioned; it could be a condition for "X" number of years. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating the proposed park -and -fly facility was stretching the intent of the C-4 zone and this was not the best use for the property. With regard to economic hardship, he stated that a number of commercial establishments (restaurants, hotels, etc.) are interested in choice bayfront property. There were no other members of the public wishing to speak. C. Kindig stated that the City has had experience with "interim" airport parking and expressed concern about this. He also expressed concern about assurance that all of Stage I would be completed and questioned whether the office building portion would be constructed. He further stated that this is probably the finest piece of bayfront property in Burlingame and it could be used for restaurants, hotels, etc.; he felt it would almost be a crime to use it for parking. C. Cistulli agreed with C. Kindig. C. Sine reemphasized his feelings, stating he felt it would be bad land use for the choicest property in Burlingame. C. Francard stated he does not like telling a property owner what to do with his property; however, he agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners. Mr. FitzGerald thanked the Commission for their input and stated that the office building in Stage I would be the first thing to go in and his client would have no objection to a time limit on the parking facility, noting that his client plans to phase it out. He explained that his client is not a developer and the interim parking would enable him to finance the future phases. He added that he appreciated the Commission's honest comments. C. Sine said that Burlingame is fortunate to have this property and in surrounding communities waterfront property is almost gone. Mr. FitzGerald voiced his appreciation of the Commission's concerns and asked them to keep their minds open; more detailed architectural renderings would be presented for the next meeting. The plans Commission currently has, he continued, are conceptual plans and in no way represent the appearance of the proposed buildings. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 14, 1977 C. Sine moved that the hearing on this item be continued to the meeting of November 28, 1977. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (5-0). C. A. Coleman advised that Commissioners Taylor and Mink could act on this item if they reviewed the minutes of this meeting. 9. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR 11 SIGNS WITH 117 SF OF TOTAL FACE AREA AT LIBRARY PLAZA, 401 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, BY MURRAY COHN Chm. Jacobs read the item. C. P. Swan stated a sign exception was required to allow more than three signs along Chapin Avenue, the secondary frontage. He briefly reviewed the application and introduced Murray Cohn, the applicant. Mr. Cohn presented a rendering of the building, pointing out locations of the proposed signs. He stated that he was requesting 11 signs, eight signs facing Chapin Avenue and two facing Primrose Road, and one main directory sign. The directory sign would be 12 feet in height, six feet from the ground to the bottom of the sign with the sign height about six feet. The individual signs for the businesses would be four feet in length, 18 inches high and two inches thick, and would be dark brown with gold leaf lettering. He noted that all the signs would be the same style except the directory. Responding to various questions from Commission, Mr. Cohn stated that the store units are approximately 22 feet wide. He further noted that the directory sign would show the complex' name, address and tenants. He said this is the only sign that would be lighted and it would be lighted with spot lights from the ground. He advised the plans did not show the exact height of the sign as the ground level grade has not been definitely determined. C. Sine felt that it would be best as close to the ground as possible. He also expressed the hope that the tenants would not be changing and asking for their own sign exceptions; he asked if Mr. Cohn would be agreeable to maintaining the situation. Mr. Cohn stated that the signs will always remain the same; he would have control of the signs through the leases to which the tenants have agreed. He further stated that he did not expect much tenant turnover as his tenants were established Burlingame businesses seeking larger or more modern facilities. Responding to C. Kindig's question, Mr. Cohn explained that two of the tenants are renting two store units at the corner and would be eligible for a sign on each street. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak and no correspondence received, the public hearing was closed. C. Kindig moved that the sign exception be approved in accordance with the plans presented and the dimensions presented, noting that this would represent the complete signage for the building and that the sign exception and its conditions go with the building if it changes owners. C. Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (5-0). MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY ADDED ITEM - SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUE LEARNING CENTER, INC. TO HOLD CLASSES IN COOLIDGE SCHOOL AT 1400 PALOMA AVENUE C. P. Swan explained that this item could now be scheduled for hearing at the next meeting. A letter from Mr. Black of the Burlingame School District, dated November 14, 1977, was referred to and C. A. Coleman stated that this had been discussed at length with the School Board. Larry Krusemark was present and he was requested to expand on the parking and traffic situation around the location at the time of the hearing. With specific reference to Items 2 and 3 of Mr. Black's letter, C. Sine requested that someone from the School District should enlarge on these points. He requested that a representative of the Burlingame School District be present for the public hearing. This item was set for hearing November 28, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 November 14, 1977 10. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-44P, FOR BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUMS; PREPARED BY TORREY & TORREY'INC. FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME C. P. Swan briefly reviewed the above item and questioned whether the Raiser Construction Company plans are current. Commission briefly discussed this item. C. Kindig noted that the public hearing would only be on the EIR. David Keyston, speaking for the applicant, stated that there has been no change in the project and the plans in the EIR are the ones that are the preferred project. He explained that research had begun on the mitigation measures in the EIR and what might be acceptable if the Commission chooses not to approve the proposed development. Regarding the right-of-way around the lagoon, it was explained that there would be more than enough room for a pedestrian path to go around the lagoon on State property, although it would not be suitable for a bicycle path. C. Cistulli was concerned about the impacts such a development would have with regard to services, i.e., supermarkets, schools, etc. Commission discussed traffic impacts and C. P. Swan noted that several things were not included, i.e., nothing is said about traffic getting in and out of the development. Mr. Swan further explained that the City had a traffic consultant for the Bayfront Land Use Study, but he had been directed by Council not to do any further work until the convention center project has been acted upon. Mr. Keyston added that he had told the applicants the application would probably not be approved until the Blaney Report has been submitted. C. Sine asked, in view of these restrictions, if this study meeting should be continued rather than the EIR scheduled for hearing. Mr. Keyston felt that many of these concerns might be resolved through input at the public hearing, i.e., some direction as to how much of the adverse effects would be acceptable. Chm. Jacobs stated that the Commission could act on the EIR and it would not mean the Commission is voting for the project. C. Cistulli reemphasized his feelings that more information should be included in the report as to the impacts on the surrounding areas. C. Kindig suggested possible future R-4 areas adjacent to the project should not be used as a mitigation measure; the project has to stand on its own. C. Sine requested more information on traffic. This item was scheduled for hearing November 28, 1977. 11. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.50.080 TO PERMIT A 990 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE WITH NON -CONFORMING REAR YARD; PROPERTY AT 144 CHAPIN LANE (APN 028-314- 400), ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. NORMAN BROD Asst. C. P. Yost reviewed the item briefly, stating that the item is ready for hearing and requesting the Commission inspect the site before the hearing. This item was set for hearing on November 28, 1977. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FROG POND, A HOT TUB AND SAUNA CLUB, TO OPERATE AT 1320 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 026-113-480), ZONED C-4, BY BRUCE R. QUIE (APPLICANT) WITH DAVID H. KEYSTON (PROPERTY OWNER Mr. Yost reviewed the item; Mr. Quie was present and briefly took part in the discussion. Mr. Quie explained that the proposal is basically for a spa at which customers can rent rooms containing the equipment. He emphasized that this is not a massage parlor. Detailed sketches of the room layout showing the equipment were requested, and the application was then set for hearing on November 28, 1977. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 November 14, 1977 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 808 BURLWAY ROAD (APN 026-111-120), BY JOHN SWANSON OF LOOMIS COURIER SERVICE, INC. (APPLICANT) WITH UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FUND LTD. (PROPERTY OWNER) Staff briefly reviewed this item and recommended it for hearing. Hearing on this item was set for November 28, 1977. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A QUICK PRINT SHOP IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1530 GILBRETH ROAD (APN 026-321-490), BY RICHARD HSIEH OF BURLINGAME SUPER PRINT (APPLICANT) WITH HERBERT HUMBER OF MAHLER GILBRETH PROPERTIES (PROPERTY OWNER) Commission briefly discussed this item and it was set for hearing on November 28, 1977. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP WITH TOWING SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY DONALD STEIN OF ARC AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE (APPLICANT) WITH KATHLEEN DORE ET AL (PROPERTY OWNERS) C. P. Swan reviewed this item and Mr. Stein was present. C. Kindig stated he would like assurance that cars would be kept off the access easements and that the area would be kept clean. C. Francard questioned the number of totally wrecked autos and where they would be stored. Mr. Stein stated he had contracted with wrecking yards for this. This item was scheduled for hearing on November 28, 1977. ADDED ITEMS (1). Mr. Swan noted that the City Council is requesting another hearing by the Planning Commission on Mr. Pisani's application at Dwight and Peninsula. He explained that the Planning Commission action was appealed to the Council.but that a revised parking plan was presented. -to the Council. Therefore, the Council would like the Commission to consider the revised plans. He stated the hearing would have to be noticed. This item was set for hearing November 28, 1977. Items (2) and (3). Mr. Yost explained that the property owners at 925 Laguna Avenue and 1608 Marco Polo Way were present to request that variances be scheduled for hearing. He explained that the property owners came in for building permits for additions and it was discovered that variances would be required. He briefly reviewed the items and said that both applications were complete; staff recommended they be set for hearing. These items were scheduled for hearing November 28, 1977. C. Sine asked if City Hall would be open the Friday after Thanksgiving. Staff noted that City Hall would be open. CITY PLANNER REPORT The Commission briefly discussed the Capital Improvements Program. It was decided Commission would contact heads of the departments regarding projects needed and their priorities. C. P. Swan was instructed to find out what Burlingame's share of HCDA 4th year funds would be. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 November 14, 1977 There was some discussion about the scheduling of December meetings. It was noted that two meetings were required although it might be feasible to have a long agenda the first meeting of the month and a brief agenda the second meeting of the month which could be adjourned to another meeting date if a quorum was not present. C. P. Swan briefly discussed the upcoming meeting and noted items scheduled for hearing including six special permits and four variances. OTHER C. Kindig expressed concern about the Retirement Inn, stating that the garages seem to come up to the property line on the south side. He felt the purpose of a setback was for access, noting that the garage is open and it would not be possible for people to pass through. Staff stated that the plans would be checked out to see how it was designed. An.NN IRNMFN T There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary Item No. 6 P.C. 11/14/77 STAFF REPORT THE FISHERMAN RESTAURANT 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY VARIANCE from parking regulations to allow addition of 690 SF of GFA to the cocktail lounge and office area at the northerly end of the existing building. Reference Negative Declaration ND -139P filed and posted November 3, 1977. Parking Regulations specify the following (Sec. 25.41.080) Customer parking to be provided on site @ 1 space/100 SF of GFA Note: Ten percent of customer parking spaces may be allocated to compact car; in this instance 10% of 118 is 12 small car (8'x17') spaces Employee parking within reasonable proximity @ 1 space/1000 SF of GFA Total parking required for 11,740 SF of building area Proaosed Darkin 3 handicapped person parking spaces 36 standard size customer parking spaces 16 standard size tandem parking spaces 41 compact car spaces 4 employee parking --spaces in loading zone 100 parking spaces -on site 30 short term leased parking spaces off-site at 1499 Bayshore Hwy. 130 Parking spaces = 118 spaces 12 spaces 130 spaces Amt. of Variance 16 19 18 53 spaces Valet parking is not recognized as a legally approved business in Burlingame because city zoning regulations require a specific number of standard size parking spaces with safe and proper means for ingress and egress. New specialty restaurants are obliged to provide adequate off-street parking for both customers and employees. Each customer should be permitted to park and lock his own car in a 9' x 20' parking space. Valet parking functions otherwise. Vehicles are parked close together in tandem and at off- site locations by attendants who are not necessarily employees of the restaurant. Attendants park customers' cars at the customer's risk. Customer is expected to pay a gratuity for the valet service. We do not approve a business license for valet parking. The Fisherman Restaurant is a non -conforming land use with a present parking deficiency of 37 parking spaces. To meet code there should be 122 on-site spaces; there are only 85 spaces. When plans were reviewed for a building permit in 1971 the parking requirement was one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). Original plans showed about 11,000 SF of gross floor area and 93 parking spaces to satisfy code. A shop area near the front door was converted to a banquet room, and an office area was added by enclosing a portion of the covered deck. These changes Increased the GFA and the amount of parking required. When the restauranteur sanctioned valet parking the actual number of spaces was reduced by modifications to the entrance drive and addition of the small attendant shelter. P.C. 11/14/77 Item No. 6 Page 2 The Fisherman Restaurant received a building permit in 1971 because it conformed then with the requirement of one space per 200 SF of GFA. Following a survey of specialty restaurant parking needs, the City amended the zoning code by adding Sec. 25.41.080 parking space requirements to the C-4 District Regulations. Ordinance No. 1037 which was adopted April 21, 1975 and is now effective requires one parking space per 91 SF of GFA. The restaurant became a non -conforming land use because of less than adequate off-street parking. The Municipal Code Sec. 25.50.020 limits extension of a non -conforming use. The increment of additional parking for the additional 690 SF of floor area is only 8 spaces. However, the Environmental Assessment form submitted by the applicant estimates the building addition would permit an increase of 57 customers. But to meet the present code there is no way to provide 122 plus 8 for the building extension. It is not possible on the present site without a parking structure. Alternatives to the requested variance are to add a parking deck or to add property and provide a larger parking area. The magnitude of this parking variance is described as follows: a. • 16 tandem parking spaces require valet service. b. 41 compact spaces amount to 32% of the total number required and 19 more than permitted by code. C. The 30 off-site spaces amount to 18 more than permitted 6y code. A lease that is revocable in 30 days does not guarantee off-site parking. A five year lease has been suggested as a minimum period of commitment. If findings can be made to satisfy Code Sec. 25.54.020 requirements, then the following stipulations are suggested conditions to granting this Variance. 1. All on-site parking spaces shall be clearly marked; and spaces for handicapped and small cars noted as such. 2. If valet parking is continued, a sign shall be posted to direct customers to available on-site spaces where they may park their own cars if they request to do so. 3. A performance bond and Lease Agreement, acceptable to City Council, shall be provided to guarantee that there will always be not less than 30 off-site parking spaces within reasonable proximity to The Fisherman Restaurant. 4. The Fisherman Restaurant shall provide adequate liability insurance coverage for all vehicles removed by employees or agents to off-site parking locations. 5. The twenty foot wide access easement along the westerly edge of the site shall be open and accessible for bicycles and emergency vehicles at all times. P.C. 11/14/77 Item No. 6 Page 3 6. The entrance driveway and parking layout on The Fisherman Restaurant site shall not infringe upon property occupied by the Benihana of Tokyo Restaurant. -7. Landscaped open space shall be provided to compensate for public access area that would be covered by the proposed building addition. 8. BCDC approval of amended Permit No. 25-71 shall be presented to City before a building permit may be issued. G� WMS/s Wayne M. Swan 11/11/77 Reference the following attached documents: Negative Declaration ND -139P Fisherman Restaurant Addition Variance Application with Applicant's Affidavit Applicant's Statement re: Legal Requirements for Variance Authorization letter of September 28, 1977 by Michael Geraldi, property owner Interoffice Memo from John Caswell to Ralph E. Kirkup dated October 26, 1977 Re: 1492 Bayshore Blvd. Bayside Land Use Study - Specialty Restaurants (Preliminary Draft) Communications from 1499 Bayshore Office Center to The Fisherman from Doris M. Baughman Re: Off-site parking contract/Agreement Site Plan and Parking, Fisherman Restaurant Addition ' Floor Plan - Fisherman Restaurant Addition Parking Layout - Fisherman Restaurant Addition