Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.04.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1988 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, April 11, 1988 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham (arrived 7:35 P.M.), S. Graham (arrived 7:37 P.M.), Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 28, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: page 4, item #3, last paragraph, first sentence should read: . . . . this proposal is too large for the lot AGENDA - Agenda was reorganized to take the .study items first. Item #3, action public hearing item,, was continued to the April 25, 1988 meeting. Order of the agenda was then unanimously approved. STUDY ITEMS 12. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A DETACHED OVERSIZED GARAGE WITH OFFICE/STORAGE AREA ABOVE AT 1417 BERNAL .AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: clarify proposal which states there will be no plumbing on the second floor but does include a sink at that location; is there a home occupation permit for the office use; will people come to this office; number of people living on the premises, number of cars, number of employees; why not use bedroom #3 as an office instead of the second floor of the garage. Item set for public hearing April 25, 1988. 13. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS AND TWO VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY - 1221 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-4 Requests: explanation of permits originally approved; letter from applicant discussing what is unique about this property to allow the variance; is there a need to update the traffic study which was Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 11, 1988 prepared at the time of the original application. Item set for public hearing April 25, 1988. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT - RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING DRY CLEANING PLANT - 741 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2 Requests: how long has the existing business :been in operation; will there be deliveries to this site from outside establishments; will applicant have delivery trucks himself:; will there be wholesaling of cleaning; where is parking for this use; why such a large increase in square footage; clarify plans showing a nonbearing wall 4' high at entrance. Item set for public hearing April 25, 1988. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A 45' TOWER WITH SUPPORTING ANTENNA AT THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, 1710 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 Requests: what are the immediately adjacent uses on both sides of the site and how high are those buildings; will this installation cause transmission interference for facilities at Peninsula Hospital; will there be an operator on site at all times; applicant's reason for wanting this installation; statement from City Attorney clarifying the ordinance regulating such installations. Item set for public hearing April 25, 1988. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONTINUED USE OF THE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED 'C-4 Director of Parks will submit memo regarding public access maintenance. Commission requests: general plan use for this area; how will access across those properties not a part of this application be attained; reason for only one address (615 Airport Boulevard). Item set for public hearing April 25, 1988. 17. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1100 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Requests: status of discussions on auto dealership signage; is pole sign in front of Mike Harvey Oldsmobile 35' high; why a 50' high sign at the corner of Broadway and Rollins; Sign F seems to face into the parking/storage area, why such a large sign to tell people how to get out of the lot; applicant's statement as to the need for so many signs, what is his definition of 'adequate'. Item set for public hearing April 25, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 11, 1988 ACTION ITEMS (NO PUBLIC HEARING REOUIREDI 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION FOR A FIVE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 1105 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (LOT B, BLOCK 19, EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME NO. 2) Reference City Engineers staff memo, 4/11/88. CE Erbacher advised this condominium project is under construction; staff recommended approval. C. Harrison moved for a one year extension of this tentative condominium map; seconded by C. S.Graham. In comment on the motion CE advised he prefers a one year extension as opposed to only six months. Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote. 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1209 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request, history of the site and variance approved in 1987, applicants reason for the request. C. Garcia moved to approve a one year extension of this parking variance to April 6, 1989; motion was seconded by C. Harrison. In comment on the motion it was determined no construction plans for the project have been received by staff; it Commissioner was concerned about granting an extension with no idea when construction might begin. Applicant was not present; it was suggested the item be tabled. C. H.Graham moved to table the item until the applicant can be contacted for information regarding commencement of construction. Second C. S . Graham. Motion to table the item failed on a 3-4 rol call vote, Cers Ellis, Garcia, Jacobs and Giomi dissenting. Motion to grant the request for extension to April 6, 1989 failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham, S.Gra.ham, Harrison and Jacobs dissenting. A Commissioner commented she did not vote for the original variance and will not vote yes for the extension. With the statement he thought Commission should know what the timetable will be for this project to improve the site, C. H.Graham moved to grant a six month extension of the parking variance to October 6, 1988. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no. ACTION ITEMS (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 3. PARKING VARIANCE - 745 PLYMOUTH WAY - ZONED R-1 Item continued to the meeting of April 25, 1988. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 11, 1988 4. VARIANCE FOR A DECK TO EXTEND 5' INTO THE REQUIRED 15' REAR YARD AT 1504 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's comments, findings necessary to grant a variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to Commissioner question, CE discussed Engineering's concerns about soil moisture under decks and their requirements for a soils report. Staff advised the square footage of the deck is a part of the 39% lot coverage. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Chris Foley, applicant, was present. She commented that the plans for the house addition have dors which would access the deck in the back, presently she does not use the rear property because there is no access except from the front yard, with the deck and stairs to grade she will get more use of the back of her property. Responding to Commissioner question, applicant stated she can see into her neighbor's property now from her bedroom window; she plans to install some screening on the deck. Bruce Bolinger, designer, stated the deck was designed with piers underneath; if further soils information is needed the CE will advise at building permit stage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances because of the slope of the lot so that the backyard is unusable, the house is situated in such a way it is difficult to get around the property, applicant will install screening for the wind on the neighbor's side of the deck which will also add privacy for the adjacent property; this site is next to Peninsula Hospital which has much vegetation, the project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the 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 February 29, 1988; and (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 10, 1988 memo shall be met. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A THREE BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1133 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, findings necessary to grant a variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 11, 1988 Comment: applicants will be required to build a 201 x 20' garage if this variance is not approved; possibility of incorporating the shed at the rear into parking area of the garage. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Christopher Borgeson, applicant and George Sinclair, architect were present. Architect discussed the shed, there is a complete wall between the garage and the shed, they could possibly break up that wall, they have concern about care and maintenance of the existing redwood tree, installation of a new slab in the shed might damage the tree, the applicants have an immediate need for additional bedrooms but do not wish to be disruptive to the existing architecture nor affect the character of the neighborhood; if the redwood tree were lost the character of the site would be less and it would restrict amount of rear yard use for family activities; the family has no plans for additional cars. Commission/applicant discussion: architect advised the redwood tree is immediately adjacent to the back of the garage on the property line, adjacent to the shed; requirement of a two car garage would result in loss of a heritage tree, loss of usable yard and limit maneuverability into and out of the garage. The distance between garage and house is about 241, building a garage to code would leave little space for landscaping and take away most usable yard space. Applicant told Commission a two car garage would cause problems getting in and out, it is difficult to back a car down the narrow driveway, with difficult access the garage probably would not be used for two cars; the driveway is 501+ long, in this case the code seems to say a two car garage is not required; regarding hardship, the issue is primarily financial, if required to build a two car garage they probably will not be able to remodel; with a growing family they need a three bedroom home; they have had pride in landscaping and work on the house and stressed to the architect that he keep the original integrity of the hou:se; with regard to on -street parking, there is never a problem in the area, there is always a parking space available, with their long driveway it will not be a problem. None of his neighbors have objected to his plans, their concern is only the health of the redwood tree and character of the neighborhood. A Commissioner commented this property is very nice, she understood there is room to park in the driveway, but the problem is the garage which is not a legal one car garage. Applicant responded that is true but one car can be parked in the existing garage. He stated there is a small shed at the rear of the garage and it is a separate structure. Richard Birch, 1137 Oxford Road spoke in favor: eight years ago he added to his house and was required to have two covered parking Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page 6 spaces, they do not use the garage for two cars because of the deep driveway; he felt it would create a hardship upon the applicants to require a two car garage since then they could not afford the addition to the house. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: what is unique about this property, applicants could park three cars without being seen from the street, but would like provision of a one carr garage to legal dimensions, at least in length, think the shed has to go; object to a two car garage, it would leave only about 10' between the house and garage and be detrimental to the property, since there is adequate room in the driveway to park cars would support the application, would also support getting rid of the shed; this property, like many others in the area, has at relatively large front yard and small back yard, a 20, x 20' garage would take up much of the back yard, not opposed to lengthening the garage to standard size if it could be done without damage to the redwood tree, it is a unique situation; also concerned about the tree, there are exceptional circumstances since it would be impossible to maneuver a second car into a 20' x 20► garage and it would mean loss of too much rear yard. Possibility of removing the partition separating the garage and storage shed was discussed. Architect advised there isn't a substantial structure underneath the shed to support an automobile, it would be better to acid to the front of the garage. C. H.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances with this property, the redwood tree, the large front setback and the placement of the garage on the lot; there is adequate space in the garage to park one car and with the long driveway space for 2-4 more cars; granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood nor affect the zoning plan of the city. C. H.Graham moved for approval of this parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving 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 25, 1988; (2) that the requirements of -the Chief Building Inspector (March 8, 1988 memo) shall be met; and (3) that if the existing garage ever needs replacement it shall be replaced with a standard sized one car garage. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham with the statement she would like to get rid of the shed but the expense to add 18" to a garage does not make sense. Comment on the motion: cannot vote for a project with this number of bedrooms without a legal one car garage. Motion was approved on a 4-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs dissenting, C. Garcia abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 11, 1988 6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIVE BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1120 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, findings necessary to grant a variance. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Nancy Williamson, applicant, stated she understood all the suggested conditions of approval and advised her husband did the work on the house, he is not a contractor. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she made a site inspection, this is one property that cannot put a two car garage in the back yard, there is a large hedge on top of the driveway, applicants have a legal one car garage, there is a large front yard but a very, small back yard. With these findings and the statement it would not be detrimental to the neighbors, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that a retroactive building permit shall be obtained, all penalty fees paid and the work done shall be corrected to meet all applicable city codes including Building and Electrical Code requirements; (2) that the second story remodel(*)hall be either brought up to all the cluding standards of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes or removed airway and removal inspected by the city within 45 days; and (3) that the cess requirements of the Chief .Building Inspector (March 21, 1988 memo) and Fire Marshal (March 29, 1988 memo) shall be met. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and S.Graham abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:50 P.M., reconvene 9:02 P.M. 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 113 ANITA ROAD, ;ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of original approval and permit extension, staff review, applicant's letter, findings necessary to grant a variance, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised this is a new application subject to extension requirements of a new approval. FM explained his; requirement for a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station, this central station would be a private security facility. Plans sent Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 11, 1988 Commission for review are the same plans of the original approval. It was noted Condition #3 will eliminate a security gate and intercom system to individual units. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Vincent Lee, property owner and applicant, discussed his purchase of the property, at that time he did not know the extension would expire, he discovered a building permit had not been approved and applied for the building permit; this process took a long time between the Building Department, his structural engineer and architect; the extension expired and he is now reapplying. Nothing has been changed in the plans except to try to improve them; these plans do not have a security gate, garage doors have been added for secured parking. Staff advised there is one space at the end for guest parking, Commission could require the garage door for this space be removed. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this application to be very much the same as the original; the variance is at the third floor level, not ground level; it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium permit and variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Planning Commission's action on this project on January 13, 1986 shall be met; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 8, 1988 memo and the City Engineer's March 10, 1988 memo shall be met; (3) that the project shall not include a remote controlled sliding security gate across the driveway or intercom system from the outside of. the gate to individual units; ( 4 ) that one parking space at the end shall be designated for guest parking with no garage door and be marked accordingly; (5) that no property line fence or wall and fence combination shall exceed the height of 6' from grade; and (6) that this permit and variance approval shall be valid for one year or until a building permit is issued and the project executed. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. S.Graham abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A SIX UNIT PROJECT AT 113 ANITA ROAD (LOT 3 AND PTN. LOT 4, BLOCK 20, LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION) Reference CE's memo, 4/11/88. CE Erbacher advised these maps are complete and may be recommended to Council. C. Harrison moved that the maps be recommended to City Council for approval. Second C. H.Graham. Motion was approved 6-0-1 on voice vote, C. S.Graham abstaining. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 11, 1988 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICE FOR AN EXISTING LIQUOR STORE AT 224 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUP AREA A Reference staff report, 4/11/88, 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. Nick Armanino, representing his father, William Armanino, was present. He stated they bought the business about a month ago and are in the process of upgrading the store. They, do not expect the business to increase to the point it will require 1-1/2 or 2 employees, they are merely improving a service, at their present business level they do not require another person; regarding signage, they will meet code requirements with. any new signage; there are several other businesses nearby which sell sandwiches, they plan to provide this service at a very competitive price; there will be an 8' work area behind and an 8' deli counter; they sell prepackaged foods now, will add a slicer and microwave; the 465 SF loft area is used for storage, there is only one access to that space now, they would need a front stair if it were used for sales space. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement she has no objection to this application, it is not very different from the present use of the site, at this particular location only two other sandwich places would compete, there is a nearby parking lot, it would be convenient for workers and people shopping in this area, C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 8, 1988 and Chief Building Inspector's March 8, 1988 memos shall be met; (2) that the deli/sandwich/food preparation area shall occupy 60 SF of the business premise at 224 Primrose Road, be operated seven days a week from 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. with no more than one full time and no part time employees on site; (3) that food sales shall be limited to take-out foods and no tables or chairs shall ever be added for customers; (4) that the deli operator shall provide a trash receptacle to a standard and at a location in front of the store acceptable to the City Engineer and shall be responsible for its daily maintenance; and (5) that if trash or refuse from this site becomes an identified problem in the Burlingame Avenue area, or any conditions of this permit are not met, this permit shall be reviewed for revocation by the Planning Commission. C. H.Graham seconded the motion, stating he had no objection, there is a big difference between this use and a restaurant which has seats. The Chair called applicant's attention to the conditions limiting hours of operation and number of employees and noted any change in the conditions would require amendment of the special Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 11, 1988 permit. A Commissioner also noted the condition regulating trash control. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR USE OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of the site, mitigated negative declaration ND -404P, staff review, applicants letters, study meeting questions. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussed present uses on this site, number of people living there now and applicant's request to allow three people of live on site, parking on the Hutnick easement, use of the amphitheater. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Lori Wider, attorney representing Shinnyo-En, California, applicant, addressed Commission. She noted their letter outlining the proposed use in detail; regarding the Hutnick easement, generally an easement would run with the property, she believed Shinnyo-En would have the right to use that easement; regarding use of the amphitheater, applicants intend to use it for choir practice three times a year maximum, on occasion for sketching or contemplation, very rarely would a class be held there. Ms. Wider introduced Makoto Kobayashi, secretary of Shinnyo-En, California as well as the project architect and consultants for the project. Mr. Kobayashi spoke to Commission: Shinnyo-En, California, a Buddhist sect, was established. as a nonprofit corporation in 1980, they have a branch in the ]Marina district of San Francisco, the parent branch is located in Tokyo, Shinnyo-En has been recognized by religious leaders around the world; members come from all over the Bay Area, they are quiet, unassuming, compassionate citizens of their communities. Shinnyo-En feels Burlingame would be a good place for their :sect, conveniently located with a responsive local government; the site itself, a lovely natural landscape, is suited to their needs. He introduced several members from the church who were present in the audience. Comission/applicant discussion: Attorney Wider advised that basically the use as proposed is for religious and educational purposes, services are not held on specified weekdays, classes are held only on weekends twice a month, these include art and flower arranging with no more than 30 people; the exterior of the building will not be altered, the grounds will not be altered but rather the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 11, 1988 landscaping will be upgraded, the amphitheater will be cleaned up and the entire property maintained. Church services do not include a lot of singing, they sing at three services per year; there is no loud noise, it is similar to a Catholic service, with prayers and meditation; when the choir does sing they sing only for a few moments. Mr. Kobayashi confirmed choir use of the amphitheater on only three occasions during the year was an acceptable condition. Commission/applicant discussion continued: regarding the nature trail on the site and continued use by the public, Ms. Wider said applicants would not want to actively exclude people from the trail but there would be potential liability of an owner, this use might be somewhat more limited than it is now, she felt their attorney might recommend excluding people from the property, particularly large groups at night, but did not think applicants would take active measures to exclude people from the nature trail. Further comments: have no objection to this group, but would prefer to see the property go back to residential use; would like to see a residential atmosphere here, no signs, no parking on street, with the site under private ownership this kind of thing could impact the area making it look like a public use. Attorney advised the facility in San Francisco is in a single family home in a residential area, it is subject to a conditional use permit, they have good neighbors in the Marina district and she did not believe the church had any impact on the residential neighborhood, the church maintained the property and were quiet. A Commissioner stated he was interested in a subdued use of this site, attorney assured him it would.be., it might be less intensive than the childcare center and less noisy; she was not aware of any complaints from people in the San Francisco neighborhood. Regarding church services, they will be held on specific days of the month, it is estimated no more than 30-40 people at the start, in two years perhaps 40-55 and in five years up to 75 people; since the San Francisco facility may remain open some members may attend there rather than come to Burlingame. Responding to a question as to why such a large site for a relatively small number of people, Ms. Wider stated Shinnyo-En was shown this site and were very interested because of its open space character and the natural vegetation; if they should develop a much larger membership from another part of the Bay Area they would open another facility in a community near these people, they do not intend to expand their operation here, the site is what appeals to them; they will use a relatively small number of people to maintain the building and landscaping. Mr. Kobayashi stated they receive financial help from their headquarters in Tokyo. Applicant's architect advised the fence on the southerly portion of the property does run up the hill, he did not know how far; CE stated it disappears about 100" or so above the parking lot, there Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 11, 1988 is some private fencing there also; architect commented they are concentrating on the lower portion of the property which is actually being used, if there is a problem in the future they will consider continuing the fence. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Waldo Perry, 2804 Easton Drive: lie lives below the site, this site was always for a school, certainly not for a church, with new homes in the area traffic is increasing, Easton is becoming an arterial, a church use and a kindergarten bring in more people which the area doesn't need, three to four homes on the site would be the best use, this church could grow. George Heckert, 15 Kenmar Way: he lives above the site, not convinced this is a good use, area is known as 95 dBA canyon, noise would be a real problem, with this amount of temporary traffic there will be congestion, could need a traffic light at the intersection, this use would deteriorate and negatively affect the whole area, when the school was built it was on the edge of developed Burlingame, now it is surrounded by homes. There were no further audience comments. In response Attorney Wider stated one of the conditions required Shinnyo-En to comply with the mitigation measures proposed by the transportation planner one of which was to encourage traffic off Easton and onto Hillside; regarding regular services, a traffic survey of the San Francisco facility showed 2.5 passengers per car, carpooling is heavily used, Shinnyo-En does own a van; at the annual celebration members will be transported from their hotel by vanpool. Discussion continued: the San Francisco site is small, a single family home; there are 30-40 members at present, they project the same figures for Burlingame; San Francisco is their only location at present in the Bay Area; it would be the same membership but with two facilities open. A Commissioner noted the Burlingame site is a more remote location, in San Francisco members could use mass transit; encouraging people to use Hillside is somewhat different than actually doing so. Attorney advised they have no plans to use street parking, they believe the on-site parking will be more than adequate and they will use only 20 parking spaces on site. Shinnyo-En would agree not to use the seven spaces on the Hutnick easement as a condition of approval, they do not plan on any significant signage on the property; between services and classes only the three staff members would be on the site. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a concern, normally when public school propoerty is taken off the public roll it is returned to R-1 and it should resemble residential area in all respects even if the seven spaces on the Hutnick easement are legal; this has not been a school for over eight years, think it would be restrictive to take away the seven spaces and this is a matter between the applicant Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 April 11, 1988 and the property owner of the easement; this is probably the best use, conditions require maintaining the property and correcting drainage problems, the property will be better taken care of than it is now; live near a temple but would never take away their parking spaces in front, all of us have lived near churches. There was a concern expressed about the findings in the negative declaration and the fact that if a parking lot is allowed in a residential area there is an impact. Further Commission comment: think this use will be more beneficial to the neighbors than any other use, it could be developed with a large number of houses, rock music and noise is a, known quantity in residential areas, if there are changes in the proposal the special permit can be reviewed, would like to add a condition for review one year from date of occupancy; can understand the concern about parking on the easement, it will have an effect, but can accept the response in the negative declaration document, have no problem with the mitigated negative declaration. A Commissioner pointed out that when the school was there there were always cars parked in the seven spaces on the easement. C. Jacobs found that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a negative environmental effect and moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND-404P to City Council for approval. Second C. Garcia; motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the 13 conditions in the staff report and a condition addressing review in one year. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. In discussion on the motion it was suggested condition #6 be made more specific to require implementation of a traffic management program. C. Jacobs accepted a more specific condition #6 as phrased by the City Planner, this was accepted b;y the seconder, C. S.Graham. Conditions of approval follow: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's March 21, 1988 and April 4, 1988, Fire Marshal.'s March 21, 1988 and April 4, 1988 and City Engineer's March 10, 1988 and April 4, 1988 memos shall be met and all. the standards of the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code required by the use and remodeling shall be met; 2. that improvements on the site shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 30, 1988; 3. that the Shinnyo-En use shall be consistent with the letters of their representatives dated March 1, 1988, March 21, 1988 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page 14 and March 31, 1988 including that religious services would occur eight times each month in the hours of 10:00 A.M. to Noon, 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. with a maximum attendance of 75 people, that classes for a maximum of 30 members of the religious community shall be held on weekends two times each month., that an annual meeting attended by a maximum of 420 people for about two hours shall be held once each year in the month of July or August, and that the amphitheater shall be used by the choir on three occasions during the year during daylight hours only; 4. that the use permit of Hoover Children's Center shall be continued on this site as approved on November 4, 1980 until this type of operation has ceased at this location for six months; 5. that none of the facilities on the site, including the amphitheater, shall be leased or rented for use by those other than Shinnyo-En without an amendment to this use permit; 6. that Shinnyo-En shall be responsible for preparing and implementing a traffic management program as approved by the City Engineer addressing the traffic and parking problems of the annual meeting and failure to do so will result in review of this use permit; 7. that the location, soil stabilityp design and sight lines of the driveway widened to 18' shall be approved by the City Engineer and the driveway shall be posted as a fire lane with no parking allowed; 8. that the property owner shall take appropriate action, as recommended by a licensed soils/hydrolic engineer and approved by the City Engineer, to correct the drainage problems on site including those contributing to the surficial slides, the drainage on the southerly side of the site in the swale and resulting from the driveway widening, the property owner shall be responsible for regular long term maintenance of all of these improvements; 9. that the drainage improvements in the swale area shall be completed before October 1, 1988; 10. that the property owner shall provide 63 improved and striped parking spaces on site and shall maintain these spaces in suitable condition for safe, off-street parking use; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page 15 11. that the portion of the visitor parking improvements designated adjacent to the Hutnick property and on the easement shall be maintained; 12. that a survey by a city approved licensed expert shall be made of the buildings on the site to identify the presence of toxic materials, the report should identify the nature of the problem, the items to be removed consistent with the legal requirements for the proposed uses within the building and on the site as approved by the Burlingame Fire Department, the methods to be used in. removal and the disposal site, in all of these activities the property owner shall coordinate with and be approved by the city's Fire Department; 13. 14. that any change in the use of facilities or the site beyond those as described in these conditions shall require an amendment to this permit; and that this special permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions one year following occupancy of the site. The Chair spoke to the audience noting Commission is aware of the concerns of residents; these concerns have been addressed by the conditions of approval. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND -405P FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC PARKING LOT A BETWEEN BELLEVUE AND DONNELLEY AVENUES, ZONED C-1 AND R-4 Reference staff report, 4/11/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed her staff memo: Council's study of providing additional public parking in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, its recent examination of alternatives for design of a parking structure on Lot A and Council's request that an environmental review be completed. Staff completed an initial study of the environmental impacts of a parking structure, identified possible areas of concern and determined there will be no sign'Lficant (negative) environmental impacts from this project should it be built and a negative declaration was appropriate. Staff responses to environmental issues identified are attached to the negative declaration/initial study. CP advised the Planning Commission should act this evening on the completeness of the negative declaration as a disclosure document; the appropriateness of any project is not an issue at this time. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 April 11, 1988 C. S.Graham stated she would abstain from discussion and action since clients of the law firm in which she works own property adjacent to the site. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The following members of the audience spoke. Arthur Bredenbeck, resident and president of the homeowners association of the condominium at 1233 Bellevue Avenue: he stated his remarks were related solely to the addition of a two deck parking structure, if the project was only with one deck he would not be here and the negative declaration was adequate. He discussed four items in the environmental document which he felt have not been fully addressed for the two deck alternative: substantial air emissions, exhaust fumes would carry to properties to the east; movement of noise to the east through open sides of the structure; traffic, document should respond to the area around the traffic circle, there is poor traffic circulation now and the impact will increase; aesthetics, multifamily units look onto the parking lot now, seven of these units look across the lot, a two story structure would block air and light; the walls of a two story structure would cut off views to the hills to the west. Carroll Schmitz, 1237 Bellevue Avenue: he lives next door to the site, an open two deck structure next to the bedrooms in his house will have extreme noise impact; one plan shows at stairway from the top deck next to his bedroom, people using the stairway would enter path of the cars, he thought this stairway should be next to the library where there is a walkway, the design ignores the environment of his property. He stated he could accept a one-half up/one-half below grade plan for this lot but starting at grade level and going up will impact those living next door; the city should have chosen for the first parking structure in the city a lot closer to the businesses which will use it; his lot will lose all light on that side, his property will be devalued. Lannis Lewis, 1219 Bellevue Avenue: he was opposed on the basis of health, effects of carbon monoxide and soot, and thought there should be an EIR report on the health hazards of carbon monoxide. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: hours of operation and management of a parking structure have not been discussed by Council at this point, therefore the document does not address this; noise was a concern, staff asked if Commission wanted additional information on existing ambient noise levels. Commission comment: this is a residential neighborhood on one side, feel noise levels should be investigated, perhaps measured on the lot line in the R-4 areas on Bellevue; regarding aesthetics, the condominium across the street will be impacted, with a two deck structure there will be a significant Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 April 11, 1988 negative impact; it is difficult to cover a one deck and two deck structure in one environmental document, some or all of the effects may be different. Staff commented that each effect was evaluated for a two deck and one deck alternative, perhaps these could have been called out more clearly in the organization of the report. Further comment: have a problem with the design but realize this is not part of Commission's action this evening, have no problem with the environmental document as a sufficient disclosure document; will not vote to recommend the negative declaration to Council, it might be adequate for a one level structure, riot for a two deck structure. It was noted air emissions have been identified in the document and discussed in the responses to environmental issues. The organization of the negative declaration was discussed briefly including that the initial study was identification of the potential issues and the evaluation of each issue identified was in the pages at the back, together they compose the negative declaration. A Commissioner felt a two level structure might have substantial impact on existing transportation systems and requested that peak hour impact be addressed. C. H.Graham found there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a negative effect on the environment and moved to recommend ND -405P to City Council for approval. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison. Comment on the motion: transportation/circulation is not covered adequately because traffic volumes for a two story structure are not clearly addressed and peak hour traffic impact on the Bellevue - Primrose intersection is not included. Motion passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Jacobs dissenting, C. S.Graham abstaining. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PLANNER REPORTS - REVISION TO PROVISIONS OF THE M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS AS THEY ADDRESS ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE RETAIL OF FOOD OR BEVERAGES CP Monroe referred to her staff memo, 4/11/88, with attachments. CA advised this will clarify the code. C. S.Graham moved to direct staff to prepare the text of the code change in ordinance form and forward it to Council. Second C.Ellis. Motion was approved on unanimous voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 April 11, 1988 C. Ellis reviewed Council actions at its April 4, 1988 regular meeting. C. Garcia distributed copies of technical reports received at the Planning Commissioners Institute in March, 1988. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:23 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham, Secretary