Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.01.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, January 23, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: Commissioner Giomi Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Adriana Garefalos, Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 9, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Item #4, special permit, 840 Cowan Road was continued. Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS TO USE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR STORAGE PURPOSES AT 824 ALPINE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: clarify why the walls will be sheetrocked if the structure is only for storage; why is the present structure unusable for storage; where is the garage on the property; is it better to remove or plug the pipes. Item set for public hearing February 14, 1989. 2. TWO VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 825 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: is garage in the rear 30% of the lot; letter from applicant addressing why his lot is unique; clarify overall depth of the garage; clarify distance from house to the garage; response from applicant to CE's comment that space A cannot be used; is there a fence in front of the garage between garage and street. Item set for public hearing February 14, 198q. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 23, 1989 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE, LEFTY'S BASEBALL PARADISE, 857 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: street parking demand in the area; what other businesses are in this building; clarify CBI's requirement for handicapped parking; is this a professional or merely game type operation; could it be considered a school in any sense; will they hold tournaments or any type of contests; is it similar to miniature golf or a driving range; are there any plans to sell alcohol in the future; what is unique about this property; staff contacts with similar businesses in other cities, types of tenants adjacent to these other operations. Item set for public hearing February 14, 1989. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT - 840 COWAN ROAD - ZONED M-1 Item continued. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 INTO TWO PARCELS AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND 810 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: will there be an impact on parking and landscaping of the existing lot; more information on the intended uses; criteria for consideration of this resubdivision; additional information on grease traps, gas pumps and curb cuts. Item set for public hearing February 14, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 8, 9, 12 AND 13, BLOCK 17, 270 EAST LANE AND 255/257 MYRTLE ROAD Reference Engineering staff report, 1/23/89, with attachments. CE Erbacher reviewed this request to combine four lots into one lot in order to allow construction on the combined site. Area is zoned C-2 and is currently vacant. Staff recommended the map be forwarded to Council for approval. Responding to Commissioner question, CE advised this lot is not supporting any other businesses. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Stephen Cohn, property owner, 401 Primrose Road (business address) was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearina was closed. C. Garcia moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Glomi absent. Staff will forward to Council. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 23, 1989 7. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 7' AND 6'-9" PROPERTY LINE FENCE AT 1152 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussion: land under the fence is fairly flat, there is a slight slope to the lot; easement area to the rear of this property. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael Ballenger, applicant, was present. His comments: Robert Lehto who built his house has built several fences in the city and told applicant he had never been asked for a building permit; the 21-6" measurement between the sidewalk and the fence is his own measurement; regarding findings for the fence exception, he could see no public hazard, the only neighboring property which could be affected would be 1150 Cabrillo (now vacant with a home under construction), there is a fence of similar height between 1140 and 1150 Cabrillo which was constructed by Mr. Lehto; it would be very helpful to have a fence of this nature; on the Broadway side he has planted some jasmine which will completely cover the fence in two or three years; between Carmelita and Hillside there are a number of fences/hedges of the same height. Applicant/Commission discussion: on a site inspection lady across the street had asked a Commissioner why this fence is so high; applicant responded they have been welcomed to the neighborhood,. the only comment to him about the height came from someone who lives three blocks away; a Commissioner noted in the summer all the fences in the near neighborhood were the same height, they now are lower than this fence; applicant said to his knowledge nothing had been done to any of the fences after he moved into this property, they started moving in the middle of May; he stated the fence was part of the house plan and contract and built toward the end of the construction period, he did not question the height at that time. A Commissioner commented that with the existing 1/2" spaces between the slats of the fence applicant may not achieve the privacy he desires; applicant said he has picked up trash thrown over this fence, he was concerned about more trash being thrown over with a lower fence. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement he could not find there were exceptional circumstances or that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner, C. Harrison moved to deny the fence exception. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: there are other ways to gain privacy such as foliage; it will be a simple matter to cut this fence down; people will throw debris over a fence no matter how tall it is. Motion to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 23, 1989 deny was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. THREE VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK, DORMER SPACE OUTSIDE THE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND AMOUNT OF DORMER AREA PROPOSED IN ORDER TO ADD ON TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 143 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. CP noted unsigned letter in opposition dated January 23, 1989 from three neighbors within 150 feet of the project site. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP also noted for the record home occupation permit issued for this property in 1984. Plans for the building permit issued September 12, 1988 and for the present request were displayed for comparison and clarification on the overhead projector. A Commissioner asked the size of the proposed study and if the second floor addition which was approved in the building permit had dormers. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. John Barnes, applicant, was present. His comments: this house was built in 1902, original owner kept adding on to property line, he wants to continue the first floor line, downstairs study is very small, greenhouse will be moved into the front yard or if there are complaints he will remove it, there is nothing he can do about moving the house, the house itself is unique, built on the property line, this plan with dormers will appear as if it was originally built that way, there is 18' of open space between his house and the house next door, if property line were where it should be there would be no problem. Responding to questions applicant stated business machinery is stored in the garage, he uses the driveway for the truck, there are two trucks out front now, one will be sold, he will have only two vehicles later; if dormers were not extended into the side setback a bath tub and walk-in closet would be eliminated. Commission comment: could design bathroom to put tub at another location; concern that the findings for variance have not been adequately addressed by the applicant, there is a need to find exceptional circumstances exist on this property, applicants response was not factual. Applicant stated the biggest hardship :is the house being on property line, they have a 3' easement into the adjoining property at 503 Howard. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement City Council adopted the declining height envelope for second floor setback for foul reasons, a building permit has been issued to add a second story to this house which meets code, cannot make findings to support these variances, C. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 23, 1989 Harrison moved for denial of the three variances. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: believe there are reasons for granting this request, house is on property line, if it were placed with normal setback applicant would not have to ask for a variance, it is most unusual to have a house set on the property line; the way the house is sited on this narrow lot and with the large garage on the other side of the lot, it is a unique situation, applicant does not have much of a choice, am not concerned about building back to the property line, perhaps dormers could be redesigned; if dormers are removed it will destroy the appearance of the house, with a normal setback dormers would not be a problem; dormers on the second floor would be an intrusion; would like to see the first floor study addition set back and the dormers on the second floor moved in, could tub be moved, think dormers make sense architecturally. Motion to deny failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, H.Graham, S.Graham and Jacobs voting no, C. Giomi absent. C. S.Graham moved to deny this application without prejudice. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: have a problem with the findings, no exceptional circumstances, will vote to deny without prejudice; do not want study built to property line, would like dormers pulled in, think bath tub could be relocated; agree with reducing size of dormers, have no problem with addition to the property line; have no problem with side yard setback since it is Of with existing house, think there are exceptional circumstances with this corner lot, plans are well laid out with what they have to work with, if they had a side yard then the dormers as they are would not need a variance under declining height envelope, dormers add to the appearance of the house and are proportioned right for the roof; plans are attractive but this addition could be designed within code. Letter in support presented this evening by the applicant was noted for the record from the following neighbors: 132 Dwight Road, 409 Howard Avenue, 505 Howard Avenue, 503 Howard Avenue, 417 Howard Avenue and 504 & 508 Howard Avenue. Motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham voting no, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:00 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 23, 1989 9. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1532 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 1/23/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, initial study and negative declaration, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CA advised he is researching the possibility of requiring a warranties manual for condominium projects but has no recommendation this evening. CP stated the 24 initial study items were reviewed for this negative declaration. PLR advised applicant is willing to place the architectural feature which exceeds the 35' height limit up against the wall, at most it would be 11 from the face of the building, not 41 as present plans show. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Alex Fisherman, property owner, was present. He had no additional comments and there were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Conrad Blaschczyk, 1516 Floribunda Avenue: he stated he owns a single family home in this area ana tnis neignnornooa is at Lne saturation point ror Lrazric, parking provided for this project will not address the issue; the single family house directly adjacent will lose all its light, sunlight will not reach the garden; the proposed development will change the character of Floribunda in this area; his side of the. street has been kept primarily single family residences, putting six units on essentially one of the smaller lots on the block is totally out of scale with existing buildings on the block; he has seen the plans, they meet only minimum setback and the building is a rectangular box, this is not an attractive development as are some other recent condominium developments on the street; a row of fir trees will be cut down; he has owned his home for 10 years, others in the block for 15 years, all have remodeled; this proposed structure will have a negative impact on the value of their property as single family houses, they are not out of town developers concerned with maximum use but are concerned about maintaining existing use, all have spent money in remodeling which will be wasted if this tvpe of develovment continues to infrinae. Commission/staff/Blaschczyk discussion: area is zoned R-3 for multiple family development, Burlingame has no architectural review, project meets parking requirements and the condominium guidelines, Commission has no tool with which to deny this application. Mr. Blaschczyk thought there w -is a tool in a negative environmental impact. CP discussed 1,us.Lble actions by the Commission on the negative declaration and requests for further environmental review which would delay a project decision until final City Council environmental determination; she discussed the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 23, 1989 fact that the entire area was zoned R-3 and shown as multifamily development at this density in the general plan and also discussed the prior parking requirements and present parking code, this proposal meets the parking requirement of the present code so there is a presumption there is no environmental impact from this source. Mr. Blaschczyk noted there is a special circumstance in parking in this area, the site is one lot from El Camino Real, across E1 Camino is the Hillsborough police station, all parking overflowing from this project will be on Floribunda in the direction of their single family homes. CA commented a condominium permit is not a discretionary decision in the sense that a variance or special permit is, there are certain requirements for a condominium, if they are met the project would have to be approved, the only questions raised would be in environmental review, this project is proposed in an R-3 zone. CP stated if the negative declaration is approved Commission will be saying there is no significant negative environmental impact from this project, not that there is absolutely no impact from the project. A Commissioner commented Commission must review the project in terms of the R-3 zone, the single family homes predate the R-3 zoning designation which has been in place for 50 years; if it were R-1 Commission would be looking at different criteria. Mr. Blaschczyk commented he disagreed with the findings of the negative declaration and felt the project does have a good sized environmental impact on the area. CP found a Commissioner statement correct, that the special permit is for the 38' height, for that special permit Commission must make findings that the additional height will be consistent with the findings required in the code, if the project were proposed at a 35' height Commission would not have to make that finding. Jose Pannitto, 1528 Floribunda Avenue also spoke in opposition: his house is next door to the project, he will have to move out of Burlingame if the project is built; this development will greatly affect the single family homes on Floribunda. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: ha daylight mentioned by one of t concerned about this also, it w declining height envelope was adopt and R-2 zones, this appears to be with single family dwellings where to them, existing buildings across parking, this project conforms, granted to other lots in the area; traffic problem, will not be declaration in that there are neighboring buildings which are a given the relationship of this sit ve a concern about the loss of he speakers, Council has been as one of, the big reasons the ed, but that applies only to R-1 a reverse nonconforming situation three stories can be built next the street are nonconforming in condominium permits could be all new buildings will cause a able t- .upport the negative special circumstances of the lready nonconforming in parking, e and the property next door the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 23, 1989 next door property will not have daylight and everyone from the condo will be able to look into that backyard, is Commission being fair to everybody, would like more information on it. A Commissioner noted some areas of the city do not have an R-2 buffer and staff commented on this, the R-3 zoning has been in place in this area for some 50 years, the general plan is consistent, the majority of parcels are developed in the use assigned by the zoning, the city is now getting the infill of leftover parcels. Further Commission comment: cannot be fair to everybody, the buyer of this lot got information on what he could put in an R-3 zone, it would be unfair to the developer to deny the application, if someone bought a single family house in that area he should have noted it was zoned R-3, have no problem with the negative declaration since it is in an R-3 zone; it's a real problem, wish there was an easy solution, the R-3 zoning was probably in effect in 1954/55, it was reconfirmed in 1969 in the general plan, it was a matter of time until this would happen, will have to support the application; with a recent condominium there was concern about impact, especially parking, think Commission should be looking into what is happening with infill, the city may not be requiring enough parking, should possibly reevaluate off- street parking; the condominium concept provides the best type of parking, condominium tenants park inside; single family homes often have cars parked on the street. C. H.Graham moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND-416P to City Council for approval and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Negative Declaration. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent. With the statement the 38' height is primarily to screen things on the roof and improve the appearance, it will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity, it will enhance the area, C. H.Graham moved for approval of the condominium permit and the special permit for height and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permit and Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 22, 1988 with corrected elevation drawings date stamped January 13, 1989, except that the architectural feature shown on the front of the building shall be laid flat against the wall of the building; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's December 5, 1988 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors December 19, 1988 memo and the City Engineer's January 4, 1989 memo shall be met; (3) that detailed landscape and irri-cation plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the L-irks Director before a building permit may be issued for the project, and that this landscaping shall comply with the water conservation guidelines adopted by the city; (4) that final inspection shall be completed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 23, 1989 and certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (5) that at least three parking spaces in the underground garage shall be designated for guest parking and that an intercom system shall be provided at the entry to the driveway to allow guests to contact the appropriate condominium unit in order to gain access to the parking on the other side of the security gate; (6) that detailed elevation drawings shall be submitted before a building permit may be issued, showing that only the architectural feature at the front of the building will exceed the 35' height limit (measured from average top of curb) by a maximum of 3' and shall not extend more than 11 from the face of the building; (7) that the plans submitted for a building permit shall show the location of any dumpsters as well as details on the location and height of any fences and that no fence shall exceed 6' in height along the side and rear of the lot or 5' in height within the front setback; and (8) that the roof area shall never be used for recreation purposes of any kind. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison and approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A SIX UNIT PROJECT AT 1532 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference CE's agenda memo, 1/23/89. CE Erbacher reviewed the item. Staff recommended the map be forwarded to City Council for approval. C. H.Graham moved to recommend this tentative condominium map to City Council for approval, seconded by C. Garcia and approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers S.Graham and Jacobs dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Staff will forward to Council. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF MEZZANINE AREA TO THE EXISTING GROCERY STORE AT 1399 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 1/23/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, parking requirements and off-site parking provided, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. PLR advised the cooler on the property at the rear was approved in 1978 together with 10 parking spaces. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Hinckle, applicant, was present. He responded to Commission questions: the purpose of the additional space is to serve his currenr customers better; he would hope this might increase his L,usine-,s; if moving herbs to the second floor disadvantages his Senior citizen customers, he and his employees will be there to assist them. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 January 23, 1989 Commission discussion/comment: have no problem with this request, the area being developed is inside, it will allow expansion of the business, applicant does not have enough space to properly store and display his products, his letter of January 16, 1989 adequately addresses the necessary findings; have a concern about parking, there may once have been 10 parking spaces at the rear but with storage, dumpsters, etc. there is not space for 10 employees to park there now; the area is severely impacted with parking; applicant has indicated expected growth in five years, cannot support the mezzanine addition in this area; believe there are unusual circumstances in that the mezzanine is really a part of the first floor business, it could never be a separate business, the number of personnel required will not increase, if the business grows it will not be because of the added square footage; a large store with more selection will create more business and more customers, there is a parking problem in that area now; the existing conditions are exceptional circumstances, there is a city parking lot across the street. With the statement findings can be made for the special permit in that this proposal will not have a negative impact and findings have been made to support the variance as stated in the applicants letter and Commission comments this evening, C. Harrison moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance and adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance and Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the 480 SF mezzanine area shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 16, 1988 and shall be used for retail grocery store space only and not for additional office space; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspectors December 19, 1988 memo shall be met; (3) that a minimum head clearance of 71 shall be maintained under the mezzanine; (4) that the business shall operate with a maximum of seven employees on the premises, Monday - Saturday from 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. and Sundays from 11:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; and (5) that the business shall maintain a lease on the property at 1158/1160 Capuchino concurrently with the property at 1399 Broadway and shall provide at least 10 parking spaces on the 1158/1160 Capuchino property as shown on the plans approved by the Building Department in 1978. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: if this store were on Burlingame Avenue it would have first floor exclusion for parking requirements, even though this exclusion is not applicable to Broadway, Broadway is a similar section of the city and applicant is providing parking. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Jacobs voting no, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 January 23, 1989 12. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE AT 869 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 1/23/89, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff responded to questions: both porches will be enclosed; residential use in a C zone must meet appropriate residential zoning. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. William Rinnander, applicant, was present. Responding to Commissioner question, he advised the new roof will be one-half the height of the existing roof. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham found this project would not be detrimental or injurious to neighboring properties, it is in accordance with the general plan, there are exceptional circumstances in that there was a serious fire and the applicant had to do something, he will make the surrounding properties more valuable by improving the appearance of the structure, it will not harm any neighboring properties, there will not be significant additional bulk which could be a problem to adjacent properties. C. S. Graham moved for approval of the special permit and variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit and Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 9, 1988; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of December 20, 1988 and the City Engineer's memo of January 3, 1989 shall be met; and ( 3 ) that the second story entryway to be enclosed shall not include any kind of closet, shall remain open to the hallway and shall never be used as a bedroom. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LARGE LEASED VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE AND VEHICLE LEASING AND RENTAL AT 1360 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/23/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, environmental review, staff comments, applicant's letters, study m —ting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consi(leratiun oL the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Peck King, Rollins Leasing Corp., applicant, was present. He stated he was familiar with the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 January 23, 1989 suggested conditions and had no problem with them. He requested Commission consider a change in proposed hours as follows: Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.; Saturday, 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; closed Sunday. There would be the same number of customers, they are requesting these hours to accommodate their customers; for security purposes they will have a fence and feel the increased operating hours will increase security. Frank Walch, 575 Alvarado Street, Brisbane, owner of 1346 Marsten and part owner of 1380 Marsten, was concerned about the problem of dust over the last 10-15 years, it clogs the air conditioning of buildings at these locations; in the past it has been controlled by watering, with water conservation they cannot water down twice a day any more; he had no objection to the operation provided the area were paved or dust controlled in some other manner; the prevailing winds usually go in the direction of 1346 Marsten, this dust is very fine, people must cover their cars, he would be happy to work with all parties. Commission/Walch/King discussion: a Commissioner asked Mr. Walch if he had seen applicant's paving plans; Mr. Walch suggested paving the whole area or oiling substantially so that it retains the dust when there is a disturbance. Mr. King advised all traffic areas would be paved, they did not plan to pave the storage areas. A Commissioner suggested a condition be added to pave the entire area. Following some discussion Mr. King agreed to pave the entire area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement that given the fact that the applicant will pave the entire area this use will not be injurious to surrounding properties, it is consistent with the general plan, C. S.Graham moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND -417P to City Council for approval and for approval of the special permit and adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Negative Declaration and Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the proposed business would be limited to the maintenance of leased freight transportation equipment to a total of 20 vehicles a day by six employees, Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., Saturday, 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., closed Sunday, with on-site employee parking and on-site storage for 8-10 pieces of transportation equipment; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 3, 1989 and January 16, 1989 memos shall be met except that the entire site shall be paved; (3) that short term leasing of equipment (leasing for less than four months) from this site shall be limited to less than 5% of the gross receipts of the portion of this corporation's business on This site; (4) that no vehicles shall be loaded or unloaded for dt-Iivery to or from this site in the public right-of-way nor repaired or otherwise maintained in the public right-of-way; and (5) that all site drainage shall be collected and treated on site as required by the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 January 23, 1989 City Engineer and to the standards required by the sewer treatment plant operator and members of the Fire Department responsible for hazardous material handling. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: do not feel that side of Bayshore is an appropriate place for vehicle leasing so will vote no. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Planner memo re: update on parking variance request for a mezzanine addition at 1031 California Drive. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its January 14, 1989 study meeting and January 18, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary