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