Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.03.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 27, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, March 27, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, H. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioners Giomi, S. Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos, Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Ed Williams, Deputy Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 13, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #13, Negative Declaration, Special Permit for restaurant use and two Variances for floor area ratio and parking at 1461 Bayshore Highway, was continued to the meeting of April 10, 1989 at the request of the applicant. The remaining order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A FAMILY RECREATION ROOM/STUDY AT 301 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: who installed the bathroom; is covering on patio included in lot coverage; regarding 7th item of CBI's review, would waterproof membrane require a retrofit or a new slab; were bathroom in the accessory structure as well as his options discussed with applicant. Item set for public hearing April 10, 1989. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO LEGALIZE 12 LODGING ROOMS CONVERTED TO SIX ONE -BEDROOM UNITS AT 250 MYRTLE ROAD, ZONED R-3 Requests: when were the 12 units converted to six, why did they not apply for a permit at that time; count of parking usage in the garage weekdays and weekends; are the owners who made this change the same owners who built the project, who is the present owner; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 27, 1989 would any new owner be advised of limitations on the property; do the owners intend to continue this use as a senior care facility with upgraded accommodations or do they anticipate doing something else with the building. Item set for public hearing April 10, 1989. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ENGLISH GIFT SHOP AND TEA ROOM AT 1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Requests: how will trash be taken care of, particularly from the restaurant; where will people park; will this be an intensification of use. Item set for public hearing April 10, 1989. 4. AMENDMENT TO CONDITION OF REZONING ALLOWING BUSINESSES TO EXTEND THEIR HOURS AT 1508 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED C-1 Requests: explanation of the request to change a condition of the rezoning and need for all businesses to request an amendment of their use permits individually; how many of the people who signed the petition in support were from the neighborhood. Item set for public hearing April 10, 1989. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CLASSES AT 111 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: does this building meet current parking requirements; during the hours of the school, 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM and 1:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M., number of people in the morning and number in the afternoon; amount of parking on site, how much of this is now in use; could this use be limited to a certain length of time. Item set for public hearing April 10, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS AT 125 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Terrence Freethy, applicant, was present. His comments: the existing nonconforming studio apartment was built as a part of the building which was constructed in 1930, the original plans show a one bedroom house designed on the main level with a sun porch and den which are now counted as bedrooms, the people who originally designed this house apparently had no children, applicants need more bedrooms; they would like to have a two car garage but there is no way to achieve this; a drive-through might work for the cars but his truck is too Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 27, 1989 large; to remove the existing garage which is attached to the house would require substantial remodeling; they have a long driveway and could park two cars behind the front setback; they are willing to remove the extra unit by eliminating the kitchen, applicant thought that unit would generate more parking concern than a fourth bedroom. A Commissioner noted cars could be driven through an open carport. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Freethy said they need one of the rooms for an office, in the original design it was a den; to incorporate the unit into the flow they added a stairway at the rear, they cannot incorporate the studio apartment without doing other additions. They have considered a carport in front of the garage, there is a basement for storage, the stair at the rear is interior to the house. Vaughn Janssen, 121 Crescent Avenue spoke in favor of the application: he has lived there for 20 years and never had a parking problem caused by the studio unit, he saw no problem with this change. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Harrison found it commendable the applicants wish to remove an existing nonconforming unit, in order to enjoy their property they would not be able to put in a two car garage or even a drive- through because of what it would do to the appearance of the house; granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the applicants, it will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements of the neighbors and the use of the property would be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. C. Harrison moved for approval of the variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: there is space on this property for a tandem garage by expansion to the rear so will vote no. C. Harrison added a finding: that there is a long driveway and two cars can be parked behind the front setback. Further comment: this is a large house, they are spending a considerable amount of money and realize a two car garage would be another expense, but a drive-through would not change the house so much, think they should provide a standard two car garage; it is a small lot with a large house but there is room at the rear for a standard garage. Motion for approval failed on a 2-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, H. Graham and Jacobs voting no, Cers Giomi and S. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 27, 1989 7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A THIRD BEDROOM AT 409 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, CE's suggested options for reducing the variance request, applicant's letter. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: a 20' x 21' (interior dimensions) garage is proposed, a parking variance is required because there is not enough room for a second vehicle to maneuver into the garage; if garage were moved 2' to the side property line and a wider garage door installed a compact to mid-sized second car would be able to use the second space in the garage. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Kelly Randall, property owner, was present. His comments: in the process of planning a third bedroom they found a two car garage was required, they wanted a two car garage; they intend to relocate the back stairs to provide more clearance and better access; they would prefer the garage be located 2' from property line with a gable roof so there is storage above the cars with interior dimensions of 21' x 24' and an 18' garage door for better access; applicant felt locating the garage 2' from property line would be better aesthetically and provide access for repair and maintenance. Commission asked if this request would solve the maneuverability problem, applicant said he was trying to alleviate it. It was noted there is a long driveway on this site and room to park a vehicle behind the front setback. Applicant stated the plans call for addition of a third bedroom and. bath upstairs and remodeled kitchen area, in that process they would relocate the stairs. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: concerned about applicant's reluctance to move the garage over 2' to the property line, it does give better access, would be willing to support the request if garage were located on the side property line; it is a narrow lot and the house is set back 7' further than the 15' setback, heard applicant's reasons for not moving to the side property line but was not convinced it shouldn't be done or couldn't be done rather easily, was willing to support the request until heard applicant's amendment; why is 2' so important; staff commented it has to do with ability to move a car around the rear corner of the structure and then make a turning movement to get into the garage, with garage on property line there would be 2' more clearance at that corner, also the 18' door would help. Further comment: if putting the garage on property line would remove the variance would be in favor of putting it over but access Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 27, 1989 will not be easy even with relocation to property line; concern about a gable roof, this might look better moved in 21; CE advised it could be set back 6" from property line to allow drainage, with 0" setback there would be no drainage on that side, the roof however could be designed to drain properly. Based on the fact that the only way to make it legal would take up the entire back yard, the variance would not affect the neighborhood or the zoning of the city, it would not be detrimental to either, there is a very long driveway, C. H.Graham moved for approval of the 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 1, 1989 and there shall be no sewer or water connections to this structure; (2) that the garage shall be placed on the side property line as noted in the City Engineer's memo of March 22, 1989; ( 3 ) that the three conditions of the City Engineer's memo of March 22, 1989 regarding moving the garage to the side property line, installing an 18' wide garage door and relocating the rear stairs on the house with any future bedroom addition shall be met; (4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshalls March 13, 1989 memo and the Chief Building Inspector'.s March 8, 1989 memo shall be met; (5) that a building permit for the proposed 580 SF third bedroom/bath second story addition shall be obtained within a year of the parking variance approval and shall be designed to meet all code requirements; and (6) that the garage shall have minimum interior dimensions of 21, x 241, set on property line. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 5' HIGH FENCE ON A CORNER LOT AT 1304 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Kristine Cannon, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: this property is unique, the back yard is really the side yard and fronts on Easton, see no problem. C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances, a large planting area in the front, need for training and control of the oleanders so they will not spill over into the public walkway, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 27, 1989 there will be no public hazard, neighboring properties will not be materially damaged, the regulations do cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. C. Harrison moved for approval of the fence exception and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Fence Exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 16, 1989 except that an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Council before the fence may be placed on the outside of the property line; and (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 7, 1989 memo shall be met. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 10' HIGH FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1536 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, letter from adjacent neighbor (Carolyn D. Stubbs, 1532 Vancouver Avenue) in support of the project, letter in support from James E. Shypertt, 1540 Vancouver Avenue; letter in opposition from Virginia Daphne, 1552 Vancouver Avenue; study meeting questions and applicant's letter in response. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, CP advised if the adjacent neighbor at 1532 Vancouver had made application for the fence on the common property line no fence exception would have been required since with the difference in grade the fence would only measure 6' on her side. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Robert Metzler, applicant, was present. He advised this has been a long construction project, the rear yard was a stepped terrace with fieldstone wall, overgrowth was more than they could take care of, on his side he has gained 7'-7.5' usable back yard; a building permit was received for a 4' retaining wall, staff overlooked the notation for a 6' fence on the Engineering portion of the plans, this was discovered at final inspection. Louis Arata, Civil Engineer, Millbrae addressed Commission: the fence along the rear property line is a little high, top soil will be put back and legalize this fence at 61; with reference to the condition about a patio cover, there is no cover proposed over the patio at this time; if the side property line fence were to conform to 6' the neighbor would have a fence only 2'-3' high. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: next door neighbor could have received a counter permit for this fence, it is basically a 6' fence. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 27, 1989 With the statement there is a problem with the definition of whose fence it is, C. Ellis found there were exceptional circumstances in the difference in grade between the two properties, there is no public hazard, neighboring properties will not be materially damaged, in fact the adjacent neighbor will benefit by having a standard fence for privacy, the regulations limiting a fence to 6' would cause hardship on the applicant and neighbor because of the difference in grade. C. Ellis moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that a building permit shall be obtained for the proposed patio cover in the rear yard and the structure shall be designed to meet all code requirements; and (2) that new top soil 1' deep shall be put back along the rear property line fence so that this fence does not exceed 6' in height from grade to top of fence and along the side property line fence so that this fence does not exceed 9.5' in height. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:58 P.M.; reconvene 9:10 P.M. 10. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A THIRD BEDROOM AT 961 CHULA VISTA .AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Legal owners of record were noted. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Thuan duc Tran, applicant, was present.. His comments: to build a code standard garage at the rear of the property it would be necessary to narrow the size of the house to gain access, it would interfere with the major structure; they would like to use the existing driveway and add a carport in front of the existing garage for a second car. A Commissioner commented there appears to be a post in the middle of the front wall of the garage, looks like only a compact car could get in. CE commented that with the addition to the house built as proposed no matter what is done with the garage in the future there will never be an accessible two car garage. If the garage is moved to the rear they should narrow the house now so it doesn't block access in the future. Further Commission comment: is 17'-6" adequate backup; CE stated a full sized vehicle would need 181; concern about a future owner wanting an addition which would need a two car garage, can one regular sized car get in the present garage. Boris Usanoff, property owner, 961 Chula Vista, stated he needed the addition to keep his family under the same roof, he wants to build a standard 20' x 20' garage in the future but right now he can't afford it, a small compact goes in the existing garage easily, it is about 19' Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 27, 1989 deep; addressing exceptional circumstances, applicant said he has two grandchildren who need to live with him, the cost is so much less than each having their own place, therefore he wants to make the house larger. Olga Chase, one of the grandchildren, stated there is no beam in the garage, there is a post at the door which holds the doors together. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission again expressed concern about granting a variance for the addition to the house which creates a situation where a garage in the rear couldn't be used; possibility of putting a garage in the rear, reducing the size of the house and granting a variance for lot coverage; if house addition were reduced by 85 SF a variance for lot coverage would not be needed. C. H.Graham moved to deny the parking variance without prejudice with direction to the applicant that the garage be relocated to the rear and be an accessible standard two car garage, 20' x 20' interior dimensions, and that 85 SF of the addition to the house be relocated. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD AND OPERATE A GROCERY STORE WHICH ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 814 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the. request, staff review, applicant's letter, negative declaration prepared for this project, study meeting questions.Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: it was suggested that Condition #3 also include a requirement that the stairway from the garage to grade be restricted when the business is closed; CP confirmed that if a permitted use went in and met all requirements access to Edgehill could be allowed without any variance or special permit, such a use could get a building permit and put in a driveway all the way through the site. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Shuji Suruki, applicant, was present. She stated she had checked with their suppliers and semi trucks will not be used, they use a 20' truck and it would fit into a regular parking stall, this 20' truck would park on site; they have tried to give the side of the building facing Edgehill a facade that looks more residential than commercial, the exterior will be stucco; a Commissioner commented the elevation on Edgehill looks like a schoolhouse, he would prefer it looked more like a house with trim, there is no room for landscaping. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 March 27, 1989 There were no audience comments in support. The following spoke in opposition. John Jones, 810 Edgehill Drive: Edgehill is mostly residential even though California Drive is at the rear of this site, concern about the 251-6" height of the building, it is a massive structure which will have an impact; he has two children, will not be able to see them as they go up the street; concern about noise, increase of traffic on California; will delivery trucks be restricted to 20' vehicles, sometimes delivery hours vary, they might park on Edgehill even if it is a violation; exhaust fumes from the underground garage, vent is 8' from his patio; concern about use of the building if this business fails, it would be suitable for fast food or some similar use; the proposed building does not look like any of the houses in the area, it is all residential even though it is zoned C-2. Responding to a Commissioner question, Mr. Jones said he has lived there since 1980, he knew it was zoned C-2 when he purchased the property and was aware of the zoning regulations for height and setback and that this project also has to meet certain other criteria. Mr. Jones presented a petition in opposition signed by 30 near neighbors and said everyone on Edgehill without exception has signed. Letter in opposition was presented from Philip Acker, 820 Edgehill Drive, owner of the building next to the proposed site. Sharon Cheek, 824 Edgehill Drive: the frontage on Edgehill is residential, the only property remotely commercial is a carport shared by a resident and a shop which fronts on California, this is the first attempt to have a commercial building with frontage on the Edgehill side; there are a lot of apartments in this area and fourplexes; children play on the sidewalks and ride their bikes down the hill; a building so close to the sidewalk will be a safety hazard, children could run right into the building; building will block view down the street, she will not be able to see her child 20, away; property line is 21 inside sidewalk, 12, from the curb; she felt that the zoning was inappropriate; no commercial buildings on California have parking on site, the lots are too small; this project does not fit in with the area visually; as a resident she wants to be able to look down the street, the building will be too bulky, concern about the underground parking garage, the ramp going down would be an attractive nuisance to children on bikes or skateboards when open during the day; she was concerned about the sale of beer, wine and sake since there is a nearby public walkway. Leroy Friebel, 815 Edgehill Drive: lives across the street from the site, has lived there since 1945, will have to look at the front of this new building, he thought it would hurt his property value. Jim Baleix, 831 Edgehill Drive: has lived there two years, disappointed to hear this is an area in transition, it is an area of improved residential uses, why allow an increase in lot coverage over 50%; it is short sighted to think the trees in the parking Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 March 27, 1989 strip are going to be there forever somewhat covering this building, elms have had real problems and may not hide it for long; this is a flood zone, what precautions will be taken for the underground garage; this project will not enhance the residential neighborhood. Frank Gandolfi, 825 Edgehill Drive: concerned about children going to school, they have to cross Carolan, the railroad tracks and California Drive now, the driveway to this building will be another hazard; there is an emergency door on Edgehill, what about the second story access in case of an emergency; concern about water in the underground garage; if applicants do move from their present location there will still be congestion on Broadway. Warren Wickliffe, 808 Edgehill Drive: when he bought in 1969 he thought it was a residential area and was zoned for that; in 1974 he applied for an addition in the front of his house with small patio in front and was told he could not get any closer to the sidewalk or the street than the plans allowed, this was farther back than 21; he had to put sump pumps under his house, there is no place for water to go except maybe onto California Drive and then to the storm sewers; with their underground garage the storm sewers and drainage systems that have been put in will take care of things as they are but during the rainy season this project could have a swimming pool instead of a garage. Applicant discussed delivery trucks, presently they have one on Wednesday, one on Thursday, two on Friday and one every other Monday for a total of five during the morning hours. CP read letter in opposition from John Ward, 792 Willborough Place suggesting conditions should this application be approved. A customer of the applicants' present store on Broadway spoke in favor, he noted there is an old apartment building on this site now, the new site for the store will be more convenient for customers than the present store on Broadway. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion: the proposed use fails to comply with four of the criteria for grocery stores which abut residential; staff advised Commission should have reasons for waiving any of the criteria and the Commission is voting on this use on the site, not on the structure; the building could be put up immediately if a permitted use were proposed; an office building could be built lot line to lot line on four sides with a building permit. Further Commission comment: think this is a good interim use; on the Edgehill side the project could have been set back a little more with minor facade change and some other minor changes which might make it more acceptable to the neighbors, trip ends will Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 March 27, 1989 increase compared to a 9:00 to 5:00 office building; this is an area of transition, sympathize with the people who live in that area, it is zoned C-2 and once the project is built to code it's too late, could request rezoning but would reduce the value of their property, it's a situation where no one is going to be happy no matter what happens. Addressing the negative declaration, think the project does have a negative aesthetic effect, it is bulky; concerned about what could happen on that site as far as use is concerned, if the facade could be toned down the effect could be much less than other uses; this will always be a grocery store, it could grow in the future; staff commented the conditions set limits on number of employees, hours, etc., whoever owns the store would have to come back for a permit amendment in order to expand the business. Commission comment: like certain aspects of this project, particularly the 120% of the parking being provided; it will look different from the Edgehill side, am not sure whether it would be a demonstrable negative effect; doubt if anything but a 15' setback would satisfy the neighbors; there have been some engineering questions raised which Engineering will take care of in construction plan review; applicant has addressed the delivery issue and proposes no access off Edgehill, tend to support the project; this is a more acceptable proposal than what could go in on that site; this project could be reduced and changed somewhat to make it more acceptable; am in favor except for no setback on Edgehill. C. Garcia moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND -422P to City Council for. approval and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Negative Declaration. Findings were that the initial study and comments received have been addressed, the mitigations are adequate and will be implemented and monitored through the normal review process of issuing the building permit and monitoring the use permit, therefore there is no significant environmental impact. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 4-i roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the two special permits. He found these permits were necessary to comply with the grocery store height and lot coverage requirements, it is a very slight amount over allowed lot coverage and the height is well below the 35' allowed in C-2, this is a good interim use between residential and true C-2; C-2 zoning would allow much more intensive and noisier businesses. Motion was made with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's February 28, 1989 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 1, 1989 memo and City Engineer's March 17, 1989 memo shall be met; (2) that the project as built shall conform with the plans submitted to the Planning Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 March 27, 1989 Department and date stamped March 7, 1989; (3) that the floor area of the new 6,086 SF building shall be divided into 2,786 SF of retail sales area, 3,180 SF of storage area and 120 SF of office area with three at -grade parking stalls and 11 parking stalls in a parking garage below grade, and access to the below grade parking by driveway and stair shall be restricted when the business is closed; (4) that the hours of operation of this business shall be Monday through Saturday 9:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. and Sunday 11:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with four on-site employees including the business owners; (5) that the rear exit to this building shall be designed for emergency exit only and shall not be used for deliveries, office access or access to any other portion of the building; (6) that all deliveries to this site shall occur between 7:30 A.M. and 9:30 A.M. and there shall be no deliveries on Sunday; (7) that any change to the project or business as described in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit and any change to the use of the property shall also require an amendment or new use permit; and (8) that this use shall be reviewed in one year (April, 1990) for compliance with the conditions of this permit and each two years thereafter or upon complaint. C. Garcia seconded the motion. C. Harrison moved to amend the motion to require that the maximum height on the Edgehill side be 181. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion to approve the special permits passed on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised.. 12. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO USE A WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING FOR BATTING CAGES WITH CLASSES AND RETAIL SALES AT 1872 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning Department comment, applicant's letter, letters of support from immediately adjacent businesses, negative declaration prepared by staff, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Terry Whitfield and Larry Herndon, applicants, were present. They had with them a bat and helmet of the type to be used in the batting cages. Their comments: they try to educate the parents and children about their knowledge of the game, give strategy tips, educate coaches; they plan on four to five classes only on weekends; it is hoped parents will leave to help take pressure off the children. Use of the batting cages was explained: a fee is paid, then a helmet is put on and with a bat the customer goes to the batting cage; instruction is specialized, a fee is paid for this separately. Pop -a -Shot, one Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 March 27, 1989 of the games provided, is designed for eye and hand coordination. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND -423P to City Council for approval and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Negative Declaration. Findings were that the negative declaration indicates the proposed use has the same or fewer environmental effects as a permitted use in the same zone and there were no public comments identifying any additional environmental effects; in fact, the adjacent property owners supported this use as being less intensive than a permitted use; implementation of the conditions proposed for the use will ensure that there are no environmental effects from this project. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances, there is no way to provide more on-site parking, hours of operation of the proposed use are off peak, granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and to prevent unnecessary hardship, it will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and since there is no change in the exterior will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk of existing and potential uses of properties in the area. C. Harrison moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 17, 1989 and the Chief Building Inspector's February 23, 1989 and March 8, 1989 memos shall be met; (2) that the 16,425 SF warehouse/office building shall be used for a maximum of 10 batting and soft toss cages, 788 SF of retail area, a snack bar/game area and office for the use of the employees on site with 26 on-site parking spaces striped and maintained including no more than 23% of the parking stalls as compact stalls as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 16, 1989; (3) that the business shall be operated from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. for private instruction or practice for no more than five people daily and open to the public from 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. daily, with two full time and one part time employee; (4) that on-site instruction shall be one-on-one or in classes not to exceed 15 individuals plus instructors; (5) that the snack bar shall have no direct outside entrance and be designed and used to serve only those on site to use the batting cages, participate in group instruction or to purchase retail items available; (6) that any change in the physical layout, number of batting cages, size of use areas, parking layout, size of classes, hours of operation or any other item addressed in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and (7) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all of its conditions in one year's time (April, 1990) and each four years Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 March 27, 1989 thereafter except in the event of a complaint which shall automatically require review for compliance with the conditions. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: usually vote against instructional classes held in the M-1 zone but find this proposal has a good purpose and will be good for the young people; this will be a good environment for the many baseball players in Burlingame. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and S.Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT, TWO VARIANCES FOR RESTAURANT USE AT 1461 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Item continued to the meeting of April 10, 1989 at applicant's request. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its regular meeting of March 20, 1989 and study meeting of March 22, 1989. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary