HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.04.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 10, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame
was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, April 10, 1989 at
7:34 P.M.
RILL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Harrison, Jacobs
Absent: Commissioner Ellis
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City
Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill
Reilly, Fire Marshal
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 27, 1989 meeting were
unanimously approved.
A ENDA - Order of the agenda was reversed to take the
action items first. Chm. Jacobs introduced newly
appointed Commissioner Patrick J. Kelly who would
be seated following public hearings on the action
items. Agenda was approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
4. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A THIRD BEDROOM ADDITION AT 1350 BALBOA
AVENUE ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants, letter. Three conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: with removal of the bathroom at the rear of the garage
there should be sufficient room for two tandem parking spaces, it
would not be necessary to remove the storage shelves; staff stated
a site inspection revealed there is plumbing in the wall for the
bathroom which could be used for the washer and dryer, applicants
will remove the bathroom.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. John and Peggy Stoddard,
applicants, were present. Mr. Stoddard's comments: they would
prefer not to remove the bath in the garage; it would be expensive
to remove the big shower stall; to relocate the washer, dryer and
sink would be a big expense; they would prefer to move the shelving
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
April 10, 1989
into the new storage area; two cars can be parked in the garage
with the present 3.6' depth, they want to keep the cars off the
street.
A Commissioner noted the necessity of making findings, particularly
that there are exceptional circumstances, expense is not a factor.
applicant stated there is 36' from the door to the wall of the
bathroom, however the sink is further forward, about 21; the
concrete slab in the last 4' of the rear of the garage would be the
hardest to remove. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: length of the garage is the
most important, relocation of the sink would give another 21; don't
know how wide the slab is and if it would be possible to put the
washer on top of it, if the bathroom is not removed the washer
cannot be relocated.
C. Giomi stated she was comfortable with the project as proposed by
staff, the bathroom is not in use and it would be expensive to
relocate the plumbing, they would have a much more usable garage,
other improvements made to the property are well done and good
quality, to remove the bathroom and relocate the laundry area would
complement these other improvements. C. Giomi found there were
exceptional circumstances in the location of the original structure
and garage, there is no feasible way to put in a two car standard
garage, this has been supported by the CE in his memo of March 13,
1989, the variance will not be detrimental to other property owners
in the vicinity, the appearance of the house will not change and
the zoning will remain R-1.
C. Giomi moved for approval of the variance and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the conditions in the
staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia.
Comment on the motion: do not think removal of the shower is
necessary; have no problem with removal of the wall of the bathroom
and the toilet but removal of the concrete slab would be a big job
and would only add 4'; staff noted the washer and dryer could be
placed on top of the slab, with the bathroom in place there isn't
space toward the rear to relocate the washer and dryer, if a 40'
depth could be attained without removal of the slab that would be
fine. Commission continued discussion about possibility of removal
of the bathroom but not the slab; intent of the conditions is to
get 40' of parking area, think the slab could be removed; CE
confirmed he was referring to tandem parking in his memo.
Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the project as built shall
be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department
and date stamped March 8, 1989; (2) that the bathroom in the
existing garage and as much of the shower slab as necessary to
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
April 10, 1989
obtain 40, clear shall be removed and the washer/dryer and sink
relocated to provide for a 10, x 40, parking area inside the
garage; and (3) that the new basement area under the third bedroom
addition shall have a maximum head clearance of 71 and shall be
used for storage purposes only and shall not be used as habitable
area. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOURTH BEDROOM ADDITION AT 2112
HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants' letter. Letter in opposition from Elna W.
Hull, 2204 Hillside Drive, was noted. Two conditions were
suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to
Commissioner question, CP stated that to provide a code ,standard
two car garage 5' would have to be added to the width plus roughly
6" for a wall.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. James Ferrara, applicant,
was present. His comments: the expense of widening the garage is
not the entire issue, they feel the structure as it stands now is
functional, it provides space for both their vehicles, widening
would cut into a fairly small back yard, it would change the
appearance of the garage which they feel would be less
aesthetically pleasing, they have done a considerable amount of
remodeling on the property in the past two years and added
landscaping, they probably will not proceed with the project if
they have to widen the garage, it would be a disservice to the
property.
Applicant presented photographs of the site for Commission review.
He stated if the garage were widened 5' it would reach a bit to the
left of the stone wall. CE commented he would prefer a width of
24' for access. Lia Turk, 2108 Hillside Drive (next door neighbor)
spoke in favor of the application, noting two cars do fit in the
garage now and there is extra length to the driveway which would
accommodate another vehicle, cars cannot be seen from the street.
There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Harrison found applicants, findings were well stated, two cars
do fit in the garage, there is a long driveway with room to park an
additional vehicle behind the front setback, widening of the garage
would detract from the size of the yard and usable space. C.
Harrison moved for approval of the variance and for adoption of
Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the two conditions
listed in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
April 10, 1989
Comment on the motion: cannot support the request, there is
sufficient room to provide standard covered parking, cars of a
future owner might not fit inside this garage; opposed primarily
because of the fourth bedroom, three bedrooms might be all right,
there is room to expand to a 20' x 20' garage, findings heard this
evening would apply to almost any property in the city, think
applicants can comply easier than most.
Motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Giomi, H.Graham
and Jacobs voting no, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were
advised.
6. VARIANCES TO PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A
THIRD BEDROOM ADDITION AT 1300 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. C. H.Graham stated he would
abstain.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Stephen Antonaros,
applicant and architect for the project, was present. He stated he
had read the staff report; he did not anticipate the parking
variance would be a problem; the cabana in the rear does not have a
bath, if bath in the garage were removed there would be no bath
accessible to the pool; he was requested to change the study to a
den on the plans, this is being referred to as a second bedroom;
applicants restore antiques, the house is furnished in antiques,
project has taken so long because property owners have been trying
to decide whether to move or not. Responding to Commission
questions, architect said access from the pool to the downstairs
bathroom is through the garage or door in the side yard; house next
door on Lincoln is one story but applicant stated sun would not be
blocked to this home by the proposed addition except perhaps in
summer.
The new master bedroom is very large with two walk-in closets, this
addition would have to be pulled in about 6' to meet requirements
of the declining height envelope; applicants have a lot of heavy
furniture they wish to put in the addition; if addition were inset
to meet declining height envelope requirements major changes would
be necessary to the house and they would affect the lower levels
which have been finished, this would have a negative architectural
impact. A Commissioner stated if the large bedroom addition could
be pulled in 6' along the side where there is a neighbor it would
be much better and have less impact on the neighbor.
Antonio Mariani, property owner, discussed their work on the house
for many years, the huge trees on that street block out the sun,
they have two cars which they can park in the garage, his wife's
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
April 10, 1989
mother lives with them and cannot go upstairs, they bought the
house because of the bath in the garage; Mr. Mariani stated pulling
the addition in 6' would not be worth the amount of money spent,
Commission noted its concern is that the addition is next to the
house on the east on Lincoln. Architect commented if this were a
vacant lot a building could be constructed which would comply,
applicants are restricted on several levels given the existing
structure; he did not think cutting back 6' would give more sun to
the neighbors, property owner stated from the front maybe but not
the back.
A Commissioner commented to the architect on their three years of
planning for this project which he had called exceptional
circumstances, since he was watching any code changes by the city
during that time it would seem he would have been aware of the
discussion about declining height envelope and could have applied
to the city before the declining height ordinance was adopted.
Architect said there were other circumstances, the owners were out
of the country and came back after the ordinance was passed. A
Commissioner commented that part of the issue of declining height
envelope is control of bulk and mass as well as light and air
space.
CP noted letter received prior to the meeting this evening signed
by neighbors on Paloma and Lincoln in opposition to the
application. Staff and Commission discussed possible Commission
action. There were no further audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances in that the
garage cannot be made wider than its present width because of the
original construction of the house, the variance to parking is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of
the owners, it will not be detrimental to other properties in the
vicinity and it will be compatible with the aesthetics of existing
properties in the area. C. Harrison moved for approval of the
parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the
project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped March 28, 1989 and March
31, 1989; and (2) that the garage shall be remodeled to provide for
code standard depth of 20' as noted in the City Engineer's memo of
April 4, 1989. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on
a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham abstaining, C. Ellis absent.
C. S.Graham moved for denial of the variance to the declining
height envelope for the reasons previously stated. Motion was
seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C.
H.Graham abstaining, C. Ellis absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
April 10, 1989
7. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONVERSION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
TO A RECREATION ROOM AND ART STUDIO AT 301 BAYSWATER AVENUE,
ZONED R-1
Item continued to the meeting of April 24, 1989 at the request of
the applicants.
A recess was called at 8:45 P.M. to honor retiring Planning
Commissioner A. M. (Bill) Garcia. The Chair and Commissioners
spoke of their enjoyment working with him for eight years,
appreciation of his knowledge of construction, and wished him well
in the future. Chm. Jacobs presented Planning Commission
Resolution of Commendation and Appreciation. Mayor Amstrup
presented a plaque from the City Council and thanked Commissioner
Garcia for his service to the city. In his statements Commissioner
Garcia thanked the Mayor, Planning Commissioners, City Planner
Monroe and her staff, and his wife who was in the audience. He
offered congratulations to newly appointed Commissioner Patrick J.
Kelly. Refreshments in the lobby followed, all members of the
audience were invited to participate. The meeting reconvened at
9:15 P.M.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT 12
ONE ROOM UNITS TO SIX TWO ROOM UNITS AT RETIREMENT INN OF
BURLINGAME, 250 MYRTLE ROAD, ZONED R-3
Reference staff report, 4/10/89 with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment on the history of the conversions, applicants, letters,
study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner noted the
original 1976 conditions required accommodation of not less than
15% of residents under SSI; he wondered if that condition is being
met.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Charles Mellerup, Director
of Facilities, Retirement Inns of America (applicant), was present.
He noted CP Monroe had addressed his concern that the history of
the conversions be addressed; three conversions were done with a
building permit, he did not know plugging in microwave ovens would
convert the units to an apartment designation; this is their first
conversion, it is a marketing ploy to make it more attractive and
give broader choice, would reduce the number of units to 68; about
80% of the rooms are occupied now. He did not know what percentage
of residents might be under SSI, a Commissioner noted if there is
only 80% occupancy now this might be an area to investigate to
avoid forfeiting the use permit. Another Commissioner wondered if
similar operations in the area would create significant competition
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
April 10, 1989
for this facility; applicant thought anything that is competitive
will have an impact on this operation. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: have no problem since parking is a main
concern, during its first nine years did business at the Retirement
Inn and there were no more than seven vehicles in the garage; any
changes must come back to the city for a permit.
C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in that
parking is not being used to its fullest and probably never will
be, neighboring properties will not be affected. The Chair found
no problem, this is a minor conversion, there will be no change to
the outside of the building.
C. Shelly Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment
and parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution
Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: '(1) that
all the requirements and conditions of the January 6, 1976 special
use permit shall be met (Swan letter, January 6, 1976 with
attachment April 7, 1975); (2) that there shall be no further
combination of rooms within this building and that the number of
units shall remain fixed at 68; (3) that there shall be no more
than six two -room units with cooking facilities; (4) that a
retroactive building permit shall be applied for, penalty fees
shall be paid, all kitchen facilities and remodeling construction
shall be inspected and brought up to current Uniform Building and
Uniform Fire Code requirements for this type of structure and use;
(5) that no resident shall be less than 60 years old and all
residents shall be required to purchase three meals a day from the
common dining facility as required by code; (6) that no part of the
31 on-site parking spaces shall be used or leased by anyone except
the residents, employees and facility van and their visitors (on a
space available basis) nor shall any of this parking area be
converted to any other use (as required by,code); and (7) that this
use permit shall be reviewed in one year (April, 1990) and each two
years thereafter or upon complaint.
Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call
vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE
FOR AN ENGLISH TEA ROOM AND GIFT SHOP ON THE SECOND FLOOR AT
1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A
Reference staff report, 4/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing. CP described the location of
the proposed tea room and gift shop.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
April 10, 1989
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Herb Strange, applicant,
was present. He thanked city staff for all its help, noted he was
a 23 year resident of Burlingame and has conducted his own business
here for 23 years, and this proposal will be his wife's business.
They feel their proposal will be a good addition to the town, the
concept of antiques, English products and a tea room also serving
light lunches, old English decor. They expect most of their
traffic will be foot traffic. A survey taken at 12:15 P.M. showed
that usually there were 11-12 empty spaces not including the
parking lot at the rear of the building. Regarding parking impact
of their employees, he owns two houses on Douglas with available
parking for six cars, they will encourage employees to park there
or across California Drive. Their location is not in the main part
of Burlingame Avenue so they should not impact the
Primrose/Burlingame Avenue corridor.
They have read the proposed conditions and found them reasonable.
The town needs small businesses, this concept is unique and will be
compatible with the other businesses in that area, it will
complement the Irish store. They have had discussions with the CE,
the stairs will come down behind another building but these
buildings are not on separate properties. There were no audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment/discussion: wish this business were located
where it didn't need a parking variance; consider this a trade-off,
opening one restaurant which is a first floor use on the second
floor, it is a trade-off in that there could be a much larger
restaurant with much heavier impact on the first floor. CE
explained how the second exit stairway will block the rear doors of
the. barber shop and flower shop, in order to use these doors it
will be necessary to step into a parking stall in the adjacent
public parking lot; responding to a question he stated a drop
stairway for this kind of use cannot be used as a required exit.
Further comment: it is a unique proposal, if it were only in
another location; a recent office application in this area was
turned down because of the need for a parking variance; like what
the applicants are proposing but cannot make findings for
exceptional circumstances to grant a parking variance; regarding
the two offices in the proposal, Mr. Strange's office is for his
personal business, he has no clients.
C. Giomi moved for denial of the special permit and parking
variance, for the reasons mentioned in discussion, conversion from
office and extension of a retail business to restaurant is more
intensive and requires a three space parking variance, there is a
parking problem in the area now. Motion was seconded by C.
Harrison and approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham
dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
April 10, 1989
10. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF REZONING OF PROPERTIES AT 1501 EL
CAMINO REAL AND 1508 ADELINE DRIVE FROM R-3 RESIDENTIAL TO
SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. C-1
Reference staff report, 4/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
discussed this request for extension of hours of operation; she
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants' letters, CEQA evaluation. The following
communications were noted: April 5, 1989 letter from the property
owner, Marmora Terrell, with copy of her letter to all tenants
advising them each business must apply for amendment of its use
permit to use the new hours of operation; April 3, 1989 letter from
Ann Wallach, 1524 Balboa Way, in opposition; telephone call from
Peggy Lake, 1148 Oxford Road, expressing concern about signs in the
windows and outside, concern about people loitering after hours.
She requested staff inquire about Police calls, staff did so and
received the following information: from 1985-88 there were eight
Police calls at the market, in 1988-89 there were seven calls.
CP discussed study meeting questions and evaluation of petitions
received: there were 625 signatures, of these 14% (85) gave
addresses within 500 feet of the shopping center, of the total
signatures 14% (89) were not Burlingame residents. Commission
action this evening should be a recommendation to Council, one
condition should be considered to replace Condition #7 of Ordinance
1266. Responding to a question, CP advised property owners within
500 feet of the site were noticed, this did not include apartment
renters since only property owners are noticed. C. Garcia stated
he would abstain.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mufid Shehadeh, applicant,
was present. He has operated the Adeline Market since 1985, many
customers have requested he stay open later since the market is
closed when people reach home at 7:00 P.M.; during the last four
years several stores have started 24 hour operation and 30% of his
business has been lost; in four years they have not had any Police
calls, they have had false alarms after closing hours. He advised
the extension of hours would not increase number of employees, they
have one part time and one full time employee now, the part time
employee would go to full time if hours are extended.
Speaking in opposition: Inez Costa, 1517 Adeline Drive: she lives
across the street, opposed to longer hours, it will just bring kids
in for beer. Margaret Lake, 1148 Oxford Road: she had observed
that the market was open until 8:00 P.M. some days, this store in a
residential area is for the neighbors' convenience but Lucky and
others are now open 24 hours and not far away; she expressed
concern about signs, neon signs in the windows gives the
neighborhood a garish appearance, there is a large sign hanging
from the directory advertising rental of rug cleaners, are they
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
April 10, 1989
trying to get the local residents or people who pass through
Burlingame; there is also a large Lotto sign.
Applicant said he would be willing to remove half of the signs, he
could take the Lotto sign down but these are statewide; he
suggested a six month trial of the new hours; his store closes at
7:00 P.M., once or twice it has been open until 8:00 for stocking
but not for the public. There were no further audience comments
and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: have a basic concern about staying
open after 7:00 P.M., the previous store used to close at 6:30,
Lucky is open after 9:00 and is nearby; this area is adjacent to
residential, without even a fence; when this use in this center was
approved it was with very reserved feelings on the part of the
Planning Commission and City Council, it was to be a neighborhood
convenience, think the clientele changes after 7:00 P.M., do not
think it should be a full blown shopping center.
C. H.Graham moved to recommend to City Council denial of the
request for change in hours and amendment of Condition #7 of
Ordinance 1266. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on
a 5-0-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia abstaining, C. Ellis absent.
Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to City Council.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES AT 111 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 4/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters,
study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Nancy Rancatore, Raiser
Development Co., applicant, was present. She advised 55% of the
building is currently occupied. She did two parking studies, one
Friday, March 31st at 2:30 P.M. which showed 39% of the spaces were
being used. Studies on April 4, 5 and 7, two times in the morning
and once in the afternoon, showed percent of spaces being used each
day as 44%, 42% and 46%. Martin Doerner, Manager, Japan Kumon
Institute stated almost all of the training sessions are held from
10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.; they can schedule an afternoon session if
requested but almost always training is done in the morning. There
were no further audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. S.Graham had no problem with this request given the low parking
use of the building, even if the building were fully leased she
thought the parking would be acceptable, 30 days a year from 10:00
A.M. to 1:00 P.M. did not seem unreasonable. She found this use
would not be detrimental or injurious to neighboring properties.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
April 10, 1989
C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for
adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the
following conditions: (1) that the business shall operate from a
2,647 SF office area, using a 736 SF area for the training and
orientation sessions; (2) that there shall be a maximum of six
orientation sessions (3 hours each) and twenty-four training
sessions (6 hours each) per year and there shall be a maximum of
seven applicants in the orientation and training sessions; (3) that
this use permit shall expire in three years (April, 1992) unless
renewed or amended prior to that date; and ( 4 ) that this business
shall be reviewed in six months (October, 1989) and yearly
thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison.
Comment on the motion: if any portion of this use were to change
applicants would need to amend the use permit; will there be a
problem with parking requirements when the building is fully
occupied; staff commented required review would address that issue.
Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
12. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RESTAURANT USE AND
TWO VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING AT 1461
BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1
Reference staff report, 4/10/89, with attachments. CP Monroe
reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff
comment, applicants' letters, study meeting questions. Fifteen
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Discussion: required lighting on Burlway, directional signage and
lighting for the off-site parking, management of traffic and
security for the off-site lots; FM advised the occupant load for
this building is 697 persons and includes persons working on the
site; 400 customer seats will be provided, applicant has indicated
they have a fairly fast turnover; average number of weekday and
weekend customers expected.
Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Chandler Eason, Blunk
Demattei Associates, Architects was present. He addressed
Commission: normal layout of the restaurant includes dining area,
lobby and bar; The Old Spaghetti Factory looks at an occupancy
factor of one person per 17 SF, it is a family restaurant,
approximately 95% of their employees are local college students,
one-third drive to work, the other two-thirds get dropped off,
carpool or use bus service; approximately 5% of their employees are
full time; they have use of Lots A, B and C by the terms of their
lease, they have signed a 15 year lease with two 5 -year extensions;
they would like employees who work on the site to park on the site
in the early hours and then move to Lot B around 4:00 or 5:00 P.M.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
April 10, 1989
They are still trying to get use of off-site parking across the
street, they like to provide as much parking as possible, the owner
of Lots A and B has agreed to limit new tenants' parking to certain
daytime hours before The Old Spaghetti Factory opens; the parking
on site, Lots A and B and on -street parking meet the 165 spaces
required for the project. They will handle the parking management
system by directional signage, not using valet parking; the
restaurant would provide someone on-site to direct traffic only if
they feel that one is required and that their directional signage
is not doing an appropriate job, they have found directional
signage works very well at other sites, it may be necessary to have
someone directing traffic when the business first opens; litter
will be controlled, lots will be patrolled, parking patrol is their
form of security.
Mr. Eason pointed out two changes to the staff report: truck
loading and unloading will be between 12:00 Noon and 3:00 P.M.,
some may occur before or after these hours; approximately once a
month a semi truck will deliver bulk items; since the truck is
oversized it will park on Burlway and unload as promptly and
efficiently as possible; the restaurant's daily operations require
10-50 people on site at any given time between 8:00 A.M.and 11:00
P.M., staff meetings for 50 people are held once a month, sometimes
these meetings are held in the morning; there are 41 parking spaces
on site, approximately one-third of the employees drive their cars
to work; a typical restaurant day will have approximately 10-15
employees between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and approximately 40-50
employees between 4:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M.
There are two handicapped stalls on the restaurant site, for the
165 spaces the requirement would be four handicapped stalls,
believe there is handicapped parking in Lot A. Commission/staff
noted the idea of handicapped parking is proximity, this could take
four spaces in front on the restaurant site since these required
spaces should be on the primary site. Commission also noted the
figures as far as percentage of college student employees and two-
thirds of employees who would use public transportation or carpool
are unrealistic for Burlingame; concern was expressed about
employees parking on site during the day and moving to Lot B around
4:00 or 5:00 P.M. which would coincide with P.M. peak hour traffic
in the area; there was concern about inability to control tenant
parking in Lots A and B, tenants may not go home at 5:00 or 6:00
P.M.
David Cook, Vice President, The Old Spaghetti Factory, addressed
Commission: he stated they would consider valet parking but did not
propose to make it a part of the operation in their application;
they would like the parking to be self directed by their signage
and education of their customers, this would not happen overnight;
their survey showed there was quite a lot of on -street parking
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13
April 10, 1989
adjacent to the restaurant, they have 165 spaces within their
control for the life of the lease and extra capacity on Burlway; if
it is determined parking with directional signage won't work then
perhaps valet would be the answer; they are a low check type of
place and do not charge for parking, people generally feel they
must tip for valet parking.
A Commissioner felt people will have concern about walking down
Burlway especially with children and will park in nearby office
building lots; Mr. Cook advised in addition to the Crisafi lots
they are negotiating with others, they have received no response
from one, the American Heart Association has expressed no interest
in leasing to them, they would have to install a chain at the
entrance of their lot, the Heart Association is the most
immediately adjacent parking lot, the restaurant would pay for the
chain and respect any problems they might have.
Nick Crisafi, property owner, addressed Commission: he and -his wife
have owned Burlway for 10 years, they also own property on Broadway
and land behind the Broadway property as well as 840 Malcolm Road;
he is very much aware of the parking problems in the city. At the
present time at 1461 Bayshore there is a tenant, his occupancy is
strictly a garbage control operation, for the last year at least
60-70 construction employees have been parking on Burlway while the
Hyatt was being built, during this time there were no tenant
complaints; the building immediately adjacent to the proposed site
is mainly used by tenants as a mailing address; across the street
there is a building with one-third manufacturing (making exhibits)
and two-thirds storage; there have been no parking problems.
Burlway has no street lights, no street sweeping; Lots A and B
would need lighting, they are completely empty now after 4:00 P.M.;
there is a SamTrans bus stop at the corner of Burlway and Bayshore;
with this project the area will be much better than it is now,
there is a lot of parking on Burlway itself. Mr. Crisafi advised
he does not plan to sell any of the parcels; however, the lease
will be recorded and would go with sale of the properties.
Mr. Eason stated he had a rendering of the proposed project should
anyone like to see it. There were no further audience comments and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/comment: concerned about off-site parking, it
is difficult to tell people where to park, might have a traffic jam
onto Bayshore with valet parking; like the concept of a family
restaurant; it would be early dining with young families coming in
around 5:15 P.M., this is peak hour traffic time for offices along
Burlway and other nearby properties, office people will be leaving
just as early diners are arriving; doubt that young families will
walk from an off-site parking lot with a toddler; valet parking is
probably not practical at this time; in consideration of how to use
a building such as this, the project is too big for the site, it's
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14
April 10, 1989
a good idea but at this location it is entirely too much; in
considering the negative declaration do not find the mitigations
are addressed satisfactorily, am not convinced they reduce the
impacts to an acceptable level; CP noted some information has been
added this evening which staff did not have previously,
particularly number of people on site during the day, change in
truck deliveries and the monthy staff meetings; in making a
recommendation Commission must identify whether the comments made
this evening are also addressed. A Commissioner stated there are
statements in the negative declaration with which she agrees,
basically she had no problem with it.
Further comment about the negative declaration: parking concerns
have been addressed, the distance of the parking, concept of off-
site parking being used for required parking and the precedent it
might set; employee count, employee working hours and shifts,
cumulative circulation of the area do not appear to be fully
addressed.
C. S.Graham moved to recommend to City Council that Negative
Declaration ND -403P is incomplete because of information received
this evening. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a
6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent.
C. S.Graham moved for denial of the special permit and two
variances. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Reasons given for
the denial include parking concerns discussed by Commission,
project is too big/intense for the site and building.
Comment on the motion: would hate to see valet parking, the off-
site parking. is adjacent and will remain in effect for the next 25
years; project looks big for a restaurant, if lots were merged it
might be all right if they had control of the two lots and they
were contiguous to the restaurant, any other way it will be
encumbered with problems down the road; it is my understanding
there is a 15 year lease with two 5 -year options which will be
recorded as such so that even if the property is sold Parking Lot B
still remains in the control of the restaurant; think employees
should be restricted to the back of Lot B and not use Lot A at all;
the four handicapped spaces should be closest to the front door of
the restaurant; parking Lot B has 55 spaces and with 50 employees
there does not appear to be much of Lot B left for anyone else.
Motion to deny the special permit and two variances was approved on
a 5-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting, C. Ellis absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
At the end of the action items Commissioner Garcia stepped down and
Patrick J. Kelly was seated and welcomed by the Chair.
A short recess was called at 11:20 P.M.; reconvene 11:25 P.M.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15
April 10, 1989
ITEMS FOR STUDY
1. PARKING VARIANCE AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS - 1515 BERNAL
AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: identify which rooms are bedrooms; was the bath in the
garage always there; square footage and lot coverage of the house;
was conversion of the garage done by a contractor; were the two
bedrooms and bath upstairs originally there or added with or
without a permit. Item set for public hearing April 24, 1989.
2. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1100 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1
Request: how will the sign look with reorientation of the Broadway
Burlingame sign. Item set for public hearing April 24, 1989.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - 1101 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2
Requests: where will people park; number of employees in the
original permit; include minutes of the City Councils decision on
the original permit; are there any legal mini markets in town.
Item set for public hearing April 24, 1989.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
PLANNER REPORTS
Commission acknowledged special permit review of 707 E1
Camino Real (infant/toddler day care center) and 1550
Rollins Road, Suite G (ceramics classes).
CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its April 3, 1989
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S. Graham
Vice Chairman