Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.05.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 14, 1990 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, May 14, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The April 23, 1990 minutes were unanimously approved with corrections which have been made in the numerical notation of the votes when a Commissioner is absent. AGENDA - It was noted Item #12, special permit for a retail dry cleaning plant at 1501 E1 Camino Real, has been withdrawn. Order of the agenda was then approved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS C. Kelly nominated C. Graham for Chairman, the nominations were closed and Shelley Graham elected Chairman unanimously. C. Jacobs nominated C. Kelly for Vice Chairman, the nominations were closed and Patrick Kelly elected Vice Chairman unanimously. C. Ellis nominated C. Mink for Secretary, the nominations were closed and Charles Mink elected Secretary unanimously. Commissioner Ellis passed the gavel to newly elected Chairman Graham. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 731 WINCHESTER DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: is electricity the only utility intended for this structure; can Commission action be by resolution and recorded with the county. Item set for public hearing May 29, 1990. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 14, 1990 2. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1109 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Requests: is there provision for storage for owners of the condominiums; will proposed plan affect on -street parking; how will the on-site parking spaces be assigned; compare this application with the one submitted previously for this site. Item set for public hearing May 29, 1990. 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, 1109 BAYSWATER AVENUE Set for public hearing May 29, 1990. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR NINE CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNAS AT 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: plans show cable will be covered, what will cable cover look like from a top view. Item set for public hearing May 29, 1990. 5. PARKING VARIANCE AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR RETAIL SALES AND CLASSROOM USE OF A WAREHOUSE AT 370 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: will they maintain their Daly City location, where will sales contracts be written; further response from applicant addressing findings for the variance, exceptional circumstances with the property; would like a clearer blueprint; does property have easement at the back which can be used for parking; was there a parking study or data on parking at the time of the bus -limousine service application for this site in early 1988, what time will the classes be taught; history of retail sales and classes in the M-1 district and review of the permit for the existing adjacent boat sales; what are their needs for delivery, in-house or will they have a service, when and how frequent will deliveries occur; has signage been discussed; address handicapped parking for the site, can a_time limit be put on the variance. Item set for public hearing May 29, 1990. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. PARKING VARIANCE TO PARK A CAMPER IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 720 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/14/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, variance granted in 1988 with a two year time limit, Planning Commission action. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP reviewed code regulations regarding parking of inoperative vehicles and CA noted the city has had inquiries about this Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 14, 1990 particular vehicle ever since the previous variance was granted. Staff further advised Condition #3 includes a time limit so that the variance will not run permanently with the land. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicants, Sophie and Pete Boubare, were not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff advised applicants had been noticed of the hearing and were sent a copy of the staff report with attachments, they did attend the meeting two years ago. C. Mink moved for denial of the application, seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Jacobs and Graham voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Staff will call applicants in the morning. 7. VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION AT 925 LARKSPUR DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/14/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, Planning Commission action. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. There was a letter in support from Martin L. Cohen, Sr., 911 Larkspur Drive. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John and Marianne Saucedo, property owners, were present. They stated other options such as relocating in Burlingame or a second story addition have been considered and are financially prohibitive. A Commissioner explained that financial considerations are not applicable findings, a finding of exceptional circumstances must relate to the physical property itself. Diana Hollingsworth, designer representing the property owners, commented there is no physical problem with the lot but there is a larger side setback on the side where the addition is proposed which will allow more space than required between the adjacent property owner's structure and the proposed addition, this is one of the smaller lots in the city, lots are all the same size in this area, lots in the general area have mixed occupancy, there are some multifamily apartment buildings. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a problem with 42.6% lot coverage without acceptable variance findings, there are alternatives to this proposal, they could add a second floor, would like to grant the request but cannot find exceptional circumstances to justify the variance. It was noted slightly less than one-third of the addition would have to be removed to meet 40% lot coverage. Further comment: the reason for lot coverage, setback, etc. regulations is to maintain a sense of open space, neighbors' structures are set back a certain distance from their fences and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 14, 1990 give the appearance of open space, like the addition and wish there was some way to support the variance request. With the statement there are other alternatives, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variance application, seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: is there a way to deny without prejudice, perhaps a finding could be made that the illusion of open space is an exceptional circumstance; from an aesthetic standpoint a second story may look ugly in comparison with the rest of the neighborhood, if trying to keep the neighborhood compatible it might be better going with the variance procedure; things always change, if Commission starts granting variances because of whates in the neighborhood someone a few houses away could come in the next day and build a second story without even coming to the Commission; possibility of removing the front porch and making the addition smaller; there are creative ways to do this, will support the motion. Motion to deny was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Kelly voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. FOUR VARIANCES FOR REAR SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND PARKING DIMENSIONS TO BUILD A THREE UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 910 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 5/14/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants' letter, Planning Commission action. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Regarding the requirement that the covered parking area be fire sprinklered with a system off the domestic water supply serving the residential portion of the structure, Fire Marshal advised there are only a few heads so this can be accommodated by the domestic water supply. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Kenneth Morando and Ronald Mafrici, applicants and property owners, were present. Their comments: this is a substandard lot which is an exceptional circumstance, four variances sound like a lot but they are all due to the narrow width of this lot. They presented photographs depicting the on -street parking situation in the area during the day, it is a mixed residential/commercial area and there is not a lot of on -street parking; they have owned this property for about three years, it is an old building with many electrical and plumbing problems, they are trying to improve the property; in appearance the project will match some of the older houses down the street. They presented petitions in support from residents at: 136 Myrtle Road; 908, 915, 916, 918 Howard Avenue. Responding to a question as to why they connected the building to the parking in the back, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 14, 1990 why not leave as a carport (staff advised there would have to be a 4' clear separation), applicant stated the reason for the overhang is to support the back part of the upper unit, they needed the backup area so had to cantilever over the parking structure. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal advised he would abstain. Responding to a question, CP stated the lots between this lot and the corner all seem to have 37-1/2' widths, lots across the street are wider. Commission comments in support: a creative solution to a difficult problem, adds more parking to the area than presently exists, parking proposed should be sufficient for two small 1 -bedroom and one 2 -bedroom units; can support the project, it is zoned R-3, is a narrow lot, do not see how it could be developed any other way, there is a need for more rental residential units and this is an ideal area for it. Comments in opposition/concerns: many properties were zoned R-3 in anticipation of lot combinations, think this is a duplex lot, understand people wanting the maximum from their investment, the project is creative but it is too much for the lot, parking is a problem and won't get better, concerned about parking variances in this area; when dealing with the general plan and zoning of this area the hope was the property owners would combine lots to meet the intent of the general plan for that area, for this reason cannot support the application; have a problem with too much building on a lot that is to small for it, would prefer a duplex. C. Galligan moved for approval of the application with the conditions as outlined in the staff report and with findings that the lot itself is extremely narrow, the proposal will add parking spaces which presently do not exist, the addition of the spaces will substantially positively affect the neighborhood in proportion to the additional units which will be added. Motion to approve was seconded by C. Ellis and failed on a 2-4-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs, Kelly, Mink and Graham voting no, C. Deal abstaining. C. Kelly moved to deny the application, seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 4-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Galligan voting no, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 16 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1495, 1497 AND 1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 5/14/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, negative declaration, study meeting questions, Planning Commission action. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 14, 1990 Staff responded to questions: if the finished structure was taller than 35' probably applicant would be back for a variance; final plans will show 351, building inspector checks building under construction, goes floor to floor, measurement usually accurate within inches; slope in the garage which runs perpendicular to parking stalls is within city allowances; because of the slope of the land and the fact that height is measured from El Camino Real the structure will be more than 35' tall on Oak Grove. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Takuo Kanno, applicant and property owner, was present. He discussed this four story proposal with underground parking, some of the units will be slightly lower than the street, first and second floors have 9' clear inside, he can reduce 9' to 81 if height becomes a problem during construction, they have 21 to use in case of any errors and the building can stay within the 35, height; regarding slope of the garage, it will travel 300, to 4% lower, the first ramp is a little steeper than the city requires, it is 3.2% of the general slope of the parking area; if that is too much he would probably start the slope farther from property line and reduce slope on garage floor. He noted the project meets open space requirements. The following members of the audience spoke. William Maroney, 1493 Oak Grove Avenue: he lives next door to the project site, concerned about an enormous hole next to his property line, drainage is not good at best, he has a dog in the backyard and would like assurance his fence is not broken (he was advised he should take this up with the developer). CE advised the Building Department does review shoring and excavation plans, the site will be shored at property line; regarding a previous question, slope on the garage floor is about 3.5%, CE stated he has been allowing 5%. Staff was asked if adjacent property owners were required to pay for the cost of shoring; staff responded there is a UBC provision regarding responsibility based on depth, usually it is a compromise between the adjacent property owner and developer, if they cannot reach agreement the city goes into details on that section. CA stated it is a statutory obligation when it gets below a certain depth, the city has no policy regarding an adjacent property owner being required to pay some of the cost of shoring and developer required to pay for the. balance. CE noted the city seldom has a problem in this regard. Continued audience comment. Angela Guglielmoni, 714 Paloma Avenue: stated she did not want this condominium in the neighborhood, it is basically a single family residential area, would like to keep it that way; it will be across the street from McKinley School, has anyone taken the school and the school children into consideration; the existing homes are a blight on the area but she was opposed to the proposed condominium. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 14, 1990 Valerie Heron, wife of the principal of McKinley School: she was concerned about safety of the school children and wanted to ensure their safety during excavation, a deep hole would be an attractive nuisance to them. (CA noted that is the contractors responsibility, in the R-3 zone an apartment building could be built without even coming to the Planning Commission.) Terrence Cain, 1491 Oak Grove Avenue: he was not opposed to the construction but had concern about the project exceeding the 35, height, if this was exceeded and they came back for a variance wouldnIt the city have to grant it; he did not want to lose any more light and sky. Applicant comment: he bought this property through an agent who has been contacting neighbors to tell them he will take care of any damage and repair costs in the neighborhood; they will rebuild the one car garage of neighbor on the property line, his attorney is working on the legal document. Applicant advised there will be individual storage areas about 5' x 5' for each unit; regarding assignment of parking spaces, some spaces must be for guest parking, therefore not every unit will have two spaces. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed. Comments in favor: the rest of Oak Grove on that side of the street is zoned R-3, project meets all the condominium guidelines, negative declaration states it does not cause a problem; the Planning Commission serves two functions, one as Planning Commission dealing with zoning and as a board of zoning control, applicant as met the general plan of the city and all zoning requirements, has done his best to maximize benefits and to provide an attractive building, Commission must be consistent and will support the application; architect has done a beautiful job, especially with the floor plans, it is a big building but well within city regulations, design is much more attractive than many other such projects in the city; have no problem with height of the building or its size; understand concern with the height to the rear of the proposed structure but it is adjacent to R-3, appreciate the fact that access is off Oak Grove, the parking issue always arises with condominiums, can support the project. Commission concerns: concern about McKinley School and the children's safety when excavating; project has too many units at a place that is not desirable, it will double or triple the number of people presently at this location, this is a busy intersection and the project will add traffic, it meets the 35' height in front but for the people living behind it will be 2' higher, project is too big, would prefer three stories with fewer units; it will look enormous, because of the slope and style of the building it is just a big square; two bedroom units may meet minimum code requirements Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 14, 1990 but there is no on -street parking in this area, with guest parking behind the gate it is unlikely guests will use it, with two bedroom units it is reasonable to assume each unit will use two parking spaces, guests will be forced to park elsewhere, with a mix of eight 1 -bedroom and eight 2 -bedroom units one could expect part of the on-site parking to be available to guests; possibility of reducing number of guest spaces. (There was Commission/staff discussion regarding guest parking policy, the reality of most two bedroom units having two drivers, assignment of parking spaces, perhaps this planning issue should be discussed.) With the finding that based on the initial study and comments received there is no substantial evidence this project will have a significant effect on the environment, C. Jacobs moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -438P, seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. With the statement this project meets all the condominium guidelines and code requirements of the city, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 23, 1990 and amended May 3, 1990; (2) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineers memo of May 2, 1990, the Fire Marshals memo of April 4, 1990 and the Chief Building Inspectors memo of April 6, 1990 shall be met; (4) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the designated guest parking in the garage; (5) that three guest parking stalls shall be designated and marked on the plans and tentative map and not assigned to a unit but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; (6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; and (7) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of a unit and the board of directors of the condominium association an owner - purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 14, 1990 10. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 16 UNITS, PORTION LOT 8, BLOCK 7, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME LAND CO. - 1495, 1497, 1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE Reference CE's 5/14/90 memo. CE Erbacher recommended this map be forwarded to Council for approval with one condition. C. Ellis moved to recommend the map to Council for approval with the following condition: (1) dedication of a 15' x 15' corner cutoff for street and utility purposes for future curb return widening. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Graham voting no. Staff will forward to Council. 11. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION, PORTIONS OF LOTS G AND F, BLOCK 10, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME LAND CO. - 1412 -1416 CHAPIN AVENUE Reference CE's 5/14/90 memo. CE Erbacher advised the map merging these two lots is complete and ready to go to City Council with one condition. C. Ellis moved to recommend the map to Council for approval with the following condition: (1) a condition of development shall be placed on the map requiring, upon issuance of a building permit on the combined site or within two (2) years, whichever comes first, that the owner shall design to city approval and shall remove and replace all curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting the site or enter into a bonded agreement to do same. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Staff will forward to Council. Recess 9:15 P.M.; reconvene 9:25 P.M. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT - RETAIL DRY CLEANING PLANT - 1501 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Item withdrawn at the request of the applicant, Dryclean USA (reference May 11, 1990 letter from Gary Cohn). 13. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR RESTAURANT AND SECOND FLOOR REAL ESTATE OFFICE USES AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 347 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 5/14/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letters, negative declaration, study meeting questions, Planning Commission action. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letters received after preparation of the staff report were noted: from Walter Kentzler, in business at 401 Primrose Road (in support) and from Jeff Silverman, Wanda's U. K. Hair, 1410 Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 14, 1990 Discussion: CBI's requirement to provide a parapet at the west wall; the status of the rear 10' of the lot (CP advised it was a private easement); appearance of a four hour wall; applicant would be required to get a use permit for a restaurant even if this were a new building on a vacant lot, 'restaurant' meets the definition of 'eating establishment' in the code; if a restaurant in Sub Area A were to expand they would be required to provide parking to code, all eating establishments in Sub Area B require parking to code; staff had assumed the patio area depicted on the plans might be used for restaurant purposes, suggest ask applicant. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Maurice Cohn, father of the applicants, Steve and Gary Cohn, addressed Commission: he has been in Burlingame for 35 years, he spoke of the pleasant character of the city and its downtown, in 1978 he developed Library Plaza at 401 Primrose Road, he is still there and takes pride in providing small service businesses in the area, his sons wish to do the same with this proposal. Gary and Steve Cohn were present. Steve Cohn addressed Commission: he discussed their purchase of this property, noted two alternatives for development considered and introduced their architect, Bob Sauvageau. Mr. Sauvageau discussed the extensive renovation which would be needed to use the existing building. Steve Cohn noted the excessive cost of restoration and the fact a that rental of the building would be insufficient to support the T restoration. They looked at alternatives: one, a new building which would cover the entire site rented to two or three tenants, this would be feasible economically and could be done without a permit from the Commission. They were approached by a restaurateur and determined from the city that one downtown restaurant slot was available. Citizens were concerned about removal of the building so they looked at a second alternative, the present application: remodel the old home and make an addition. With small street frontage and lack of foot traffic on Primrose at that location they felt retail rental would not warrant the addition and renovation, they did feel a high class restaurant could afford the rent. They have tried to obtain legal access to the rear, there is no legal or safe way to provide the parking for the second floor real estate office use. Therefore they need a special permit for a restaurant and for the real estate office on the second floor as well as a parking variance for the second floor use. The previous occupancy of the second floor was four people, their proposal is one business with only two employees; their real estate business is development oriented and they rarely meet clients in the office, have never hired another employee or office help. The ground floor of the existing house has good frontage and would be a good location for a retail store; they would want an upscale type restaurant for the ground floor restaurant use, have discussed the floor plan with two other restaurateurs, there will be no take-out Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 14, 1990 food. Mr. Cohn advised they are sensitive to the parking situation in downtown Burlingame; their parking study indicated that at the peak hour of 12:30 P.M. there were a large number of spaces available to the public in the downtown area, a retail oriented building would demand more spaces than a smaller restaurant. He concluded his remarks by noting benefits to the city from the proposed project: saving and restoring a part of the heritage of the city, renovation and addition would result in a smaller structure than a new building on this site, it will provide attractive landscaping in front rather than covering the whole site; an elegant evening restaurant instead of daytime stores would have lower impact on parking, city will have a restored building which it can be proud of. He pointed out that demolishing the building would be the easiest and most economical way to proceed. For the record, referring to applicant's figures on occupancy of the existing building, a Commissioner stated when it was occupied there were two full time and two part time people upstairs, one part time only came in on Saturday morning; there was no one upstairs after 5:00 P.M. and no one on Sunday; downstairs there was one full time employee, a total of three full time and two part time people; only the Pot Carrier was open on Saturdays except for occasional drop -ins; on weekends the number of visitors was probably no more than 25, on a big Saturday perhaps 35-40. Less than 18 months ago this Commissioner had discussed what could be done with the building with the owner of the Pot Carrier who was also a part owner of this property, they had arrived at a figure on the rental of $1.75 per square foot, they were aware of the renovation that would be required. Applicant responded to Commission questions: architect was trying to show the feel of the building with his illustration of tables in the patio area, they are not planning on having tables, the restaurant might be interested in this during the summer; he had no problem with CP's assessment of the number of people in the seating arrangement, would have a problem with the number of parking spaces needed. The upscale restaurant would be evening oriented, also open for lunch, bulk of their business would be evening, restaurateurs liked the Victorian building. Architect spoke to the construction of north wall to meet today's codes, visibility of that wall is negligible; regarding conditions in the staff report and April 30, 1990 memo of the CBI, they have every intention of meeting all applicable 1988 UBC requirements and city ordinances, would prefer not to be so specific, would like to have flexibility, they are not asking for anything that is not allowed in the code. Suzy Jackson, Stephens Real Estate, 405 Primrose Road stated she had this property listing, did check with the city regarding code regulations, she was told the building could be demolished and a structure built lot line to lot line; there was discussion about Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 14, 1990 keeping the existing building, if the Cohns are willing to work with the existing structure it will please a lot of people. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition. Joe Bergeron, 520 E1 Camino Real, San Mateo: he thought the Cohns were paying too much for the building and would not get the return they want, they need on-site parking because they want a real estate office upstairs, with the variance they are asking Commission to withdraw three downtown parking spaces; a restaurant is a use which can be placed there but Commission has the right to refuse to allow a restaurant, applicants are asking for the last available restaurant slot in this area without a commitment from an identified restaurant. (CA commented that is the way the city's restaurant allocation system works.) Mr. Bergeron continued: applicants' father indicated because this parcel is off the beaten path, not on Burlingame Avenue, it can't sustain itself without the proposed development yet his Library Plaza has been successful and is farther off the beaten path. Lack of street frontage has not hurt the Arcade and Fox Plaza each of which are successful. The configuration applicants proposed is a self-imposed problem if they put in real estate. There are inconsistencies in the text of the application, they indicate major use of the restaurant would be in the evening, not at lunch time, but projected number of visitors indicates a higher number at lunch time than after 5:00, most lunch people will be there from 12:00 to 2:00 P.M. Mr. Bergeron questioned their figures on maximum number of employees on site at one time, he has had some experience in the restaurant business, the numbers they have given are inadequate to support the application, no consideration has been given to people who are waiting to be seated; parking for the restaurant use will be compressed into two time frames, lunch and dinner, retail would be spread throughout the day. Regarding applicants' real estate business, although they may have no clients coming to their office there could be a stream of architects, engineers and financial people. In regard to the variance request, preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners is not applicable at this time, escrow has not closed so their obligation to buy this property is contingent on their getting what they want, it is not the responsibility of the city to bail them out. If the city is inclined to grant the request "upscale" restaurant should be defined. Lawrence Romani, 25 Santa Rosa Avenue, San Francisco: he owns the property immediately to the north, would Commission approve the project if the applicants were not using his property to get out of their property, he was amazed at the size of the project, the amount of traffic it would generate and size of the building; how can anyone assume that the 10' x 40' easement which he owns can be Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 May 14, 1990 used by someone else as a part of their business; this property has been in his family for 60 years, he was concerned about safety of his building during construction, his property is at 355 Primrose 100' x 40' with 10' easement behind which gives access to Chapin, he has not given permission to anyone to use his easement, could decrease the value of his property if there were access to the rear door of a restaurant; would the proposal be approved without his giving up his easement rights. Marina Torello, 1145 Drake Avenue: her family owns 359-363 Primrose, the brick building on the corner; they were approached by the applicants for nonexclusive easement rights without demand monetary or otherwise; her family has been in this area since the early 1900's and have never had problems with their neighbors; can applicants build this project which will affect her property without this easement, they will not grant them easement rights and will get an attorney to protect their right. CA,comment: there is a 10' private easement across the backs of properties from Chapin to the back of the subject property, this is not a matter that the city should get involved in. Mr. Bergeron presented a map illustrating the area being discussed and commented if no easement is granted at the rear trash will have to be put in the front part of the lot. CE stated if the easement is not forthcoming he would want modification of the plans to include good accommodation of trash. Kathy Crume, San Mateo, representing the five retail stores on the corner of Chapin and Primrose: this project would cut off foot traffic to these stores, in the past when they wanted to put in something other than retail stores they found they couldn't, concern these stores on the corner may be put out of business. Mr. Romani commented again: the deeds of property for Burlingame are on file in the Redwood City assessor's office, if there is any question as to who owns what it can be determined by checking those records. Valerie Heron, Fox & Carskadon, representing the Torello family: when they sold the Library Plaza site to the Cohns they had trouble selling because of the parking variance required, she questioned why one family'oan get parking variances when it is so difficult to find parking in downtown Burlingame, she was concerned about giving a variance to another real estate office. She stated the easement does belong to Mr. Romani, the Torello family did deed this to him for no fee, probably done on a handshake. Steve Cohn told her to inform her clients they should grant the easement to the Cohns, if they had to fight it in court it would be more expensive; they have of necessity hired an attorney, it is a concern for future development of adjacent properties. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 May 14, 1990 Speaking to Mr. Bergeron's comment that Library Plaza has been successful and why not do the same on this site, Steve Cohn noted the two buildings cannot be compared, they are different in square footage, Library Plaza is on a corner and very visible, this project has only a 10' structural property line frontage, cannot have retail and afford the renovation; they spent hours talking to restaurateurs discussing number of employees, customers and hours, etc., they know what will work as far as a restaurant is concerned, restaurateurs commented that the floor plan would work and they liked the concept of an open courtyard. They have $80,000 in escrow, think the proposed project will work and the community will like it; but if this project cannot be approved they will build a single story retail building which will not require any permits or variances; they would rather go with the proposed project. Regarding clarifying the easement, the Torellos own the easement which runs behind 347 Primrose, Mr. Romani has an easement over the alley, they are working on trying to get some access in the easement. If they can't gain this access they will provide a trash area under the front porch, it would not be visible and would be supplied with metal cans. Mr. Cohn addressed a speaker's concerns about isolation of the stores on the corner from foot traffic, he believed the restaurant would bring more people to these stores. Regarding variances, Library Plaza did not require a variance; he advised he and his brother will be leaving their office at Library Plaza and hope to move to the second floor of this project. There were a few further comments regarding the easement, CA reiterated that the city is not involved in this matter. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed. Concerns were expressed about parking, if a restaurant could be open weekends and evenings would not be concerned, parking problem will occur at noon, made an inspection of the area on Saturday and there was available parking then, how can the city give this much parking to this restaurant; care about the concern regarding the easement, would like to get that situation straightened out; not happy about the parking issue, project will take much of the available parking which won't be there that much longer, in another year the city will need another parking structure. Commission comment: it's a good looking building, would like to approve a nice restaurant downtown; applicant's request is for a three space parking variance for the real estate office upstairs, passed by the property this evening, there was parking available on street and the new parking structure was almost empty at 7:00 P.M., prime dinner hour; during the day there will always be parking problems whatever is put on this site, if there is a real problem the restaurant will not survive; applicant has done everything Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 May 14, 1990 possible to maintain the look of the old building, he could put up a structure which would destroy a beautiful piece of property; imagine Mr. Bergeron was representing one of the local restaurants, most other audience comments were concerned with the easement; do not believe. foot traffic will be taken away from the retail stores on the corner. CE proposed a 7th condition to address trash storage in the front; responding to a question, CP stated deliveries would be made to the front. Commission comments: would like a condition limiting number of employees in the real estate office on the second floor to two (note: this has been included in the suggested conditions), think the number of visitors projected for dinner are low with two seatings but there is no parking problem at that hour, the parking crunch is at lunch time, would feel uncomfortable mandating an 'upscale' restaurant as a condition, the proposal is a compromise to keep an historic building in a way that is compatible with the present economic circumstances; restaurant may not be the highest and best use but probably is the most lucrative, would like to see the facade of the old building retained, one will see it when driving down Donnelly; there has been discussion about the desire to save a little piece of Burlingame history but this can't be done without implementing legislation. Comments continued: like the appearance of the building, it fits in well with the street, is a good use for the property; agree that parking will be an issue but the city set a limit on number of restaurants in the downtown area and this is within that number, the restaurant it will be replacing had only nine seats, not an equal replacement, perhaps in five years a large restaurant will be replaced with a much smaller one; this project will be saving the openness of the property, not the building, in the architect's rendering one can see very little of the existing building; can live with the restaurant, there will be impacts, more concerned with limiting number of employees of the real estate office; in other parts of the city for other uses there are continued nonconforming uses, in this case there was a real estate office on the site and this would be swapping one realtor for another, when a nonconforming use is abandoned it is difficult to get it back (staff noted nonconforming uses can continue until a building is improved up to "50% of its value or the use leaves, this particular improvement exceeds that). Have not heard anyone say the building must be saved; it's a beautiful little building, like the approach of the applicants in keeping the open feeling; am not 100% pleased but the alternative pleases me even less, it is the nicest retail block in Burlingame, this would be a nice addition; since this is the last restaurant slot available there won't be any more immediately, the project will improve the atmosphere of the street, it has the potential to be better on parking than three retail stores. The Chair addressed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 May 14, 1990 those members of the audience who spoke about the easement to the rear, she hoped no one took offense but this is not a matter for the Commission, it is a private matter. C. Galligan moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -436P with findings and for approval of the application for two special permits for a restaurant and second floor real estate office uses and for a parking variance with the findings indicated in the staff report for the negative declaration, use permits and variance by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and an additional condition related to provision of a garbage storage area. He found exceptional circumstances for the variance in that office uses have existed on this site for a long period of time and by granting the variance for the real estate office it will actually reduce and mitigate the access impacts previously caused by the property. Conditions are as follows: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 23, 1990 with 3,000 SF of first floor area for restaurant use, 806 SF of second floor area for office use and 806 SF of first floor area for retail sales use; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's April 30, 1990 memo, the City Engineer's April 30, 1990 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 24, 1990 memo and the Director of Parks' April 16, 1990 memo shall be met and that prior to issuance of a building permit the Director of Parks shall approve the method for protecting the trees in the planter strip and shall inspect the work regularly to see that the provisions protecting the trees are maintained and that the trees are protected; (3) that the office and retail sales areas shall be open from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. seven days a week and the restaurant shall be open from 7:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight seven days a week; (4) that the use of the second floor office area shall be limited to one real estate business with a maximum number of two employees and no part of the second floor office area shall be used for dwelling purposes; (5) that there shall be no change in the uses or square footages of the floor area used by these uses in this building including the addition without amendment to this use permit; (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in two years (May, 1992) and each two years thereafter or..upon complaint; and (7) that an enclosed and ventilated garbage storage area be identified at the front of the site and that garbage cans shall be kept in the storage area until such time garbage is picked up; upon pick-up cans shall then be returned to the storage area. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 May 14, 1990 FROM THE FLOOR There were no audience comments. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 7, 1990 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles W. Mink Secretary