Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.05.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, May 11, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the April 27, 15192 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item 110 (1720 Sherman Avenue), page 10, fourth paragraph, indicate the motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. ENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS C. Ellis nominated C. Mink for Chairman, the nominations were closed and C. Mink elected Chairman unanimously. C. Jacobs nominated C. Deal for Vice Chairman, the nominations were closed and C. Deal elected Vice Chairman unanimously. C. Graham nominated C. Galligan for Secretary, the nominations were closed and C. Galligan elected Secretary unanimously. Chairman Kelly passed the gavel to newly elected Chairman Mink. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR: A FOUR STORY 17 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 812 AND 820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Requests: comment from CE on traffic impact on E1 Camino Real; does applicant intend to remove the 84" redwood tree; condominium landscape requirements and their intent as understood by staff; confirm backup for parking stalls 1, 2 and 3, shown as 24' but appears to be 221; address CBI's comment that the exits in the garage are placed too close together; parking stall 124 should be 10' wide since it is enclosed on one side; verify that backup for stall J27 'is :241; common wall construction between the exercise room and Unit 1-L, Building Department requirements for sound attenuation; on Sheet A-5 is the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 11, 1992 90'-9" dimension to face of stud or to exterior face of building, if to face of stud does this allow full setback as required; roof plan shows rise of 1/4" per foot, ridge extends to the side wall and will be roughly 20" above 35' height limit, how does applicant plan to deal with this vertical wall; floor assembly is 11" deep, how will this depth comply with sound attenuation and structural requirements; what is clear ceiling height of the garage, how will 7' minimum clear height be handled with low sloping pipes; is it standard for garbage collectors to have access to a security gate and down the ramp; what will happen to the 84" redwood tree, could it be incorporated into the plans; applicant address CE's comments under parking layout (11, 12, 03, 14, 05, 110, ill, 112), general comments (14 and 15), tentative map (13); would like another solution to driveway access; common open space on side and rear varies from 10' to 15' wide, clarify use of this; describe amount of storage area inside each unit and amount for each unit of shared storage area; what is planned with respect to guest parking, number assigned and method of assignment. 2. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 6, BURLINGAME TERRACE NO. 2, 812 AND 820 EL CAMINO REAL Items 1 and 2 were set for public hearing as soon as answers to all questions are received and when a complete application can be brought forward. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AT -1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, #2, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA B1 Requests: whose determination was it that this was not an intensification of use of parking; explain parking calculations; is there any other tenant in this building, what type of business; why is a special permit required for this particular use along the frontage of Chapin; what business is now operating on site; explain Bruin Realty's reference to a 3.0 FAR; is former parking configuration being changed, will this affect number of available spaces, the building used to have 12 tandem, it appears with present layout they will lose a minimum of three spaces, is this part of the application. Item set for public hearing May 26, 1992. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A FOUR STORY 38 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 530 EL CAMINO :REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 5/11/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted letters/petition in opposition from residents of Sandpiper West, a condominium development at 525 Almer Road. CP distributed revised elevations received after preparation of the staff report and confirmed maximum elevation of the building would be 74.89'. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 11, 1992 There was some discussion of roof height, ridge line and CE's recommendation that all sump pump drainage go to Almer Road. Alex Mortazavi, architect representing the property owners, was present and discussed the project with Commission: need for a fire door into the storage area in the garage; a condition was' -suggested that individual storage areas be protected by a one hour door; interior and exterior drains; soundproofing will meet or exceed state requirements; applicant has not communicated with the neighbors about this project; there will be 17,000 SF of open space and landscaping between this project and the neighboring building on Almer; there, will be a pathway to Almer; traffic flow to Almer will be cut off,, the building is oriented to E1 Camino Real. Architect said the project will not take light, air or privacy away from condominium projects nearby since applicants have chosen to leave so much open space between; he believed these luxury units would be purchased by adults, not families with children. The oak tree in the rear right corner will remain, garage wall is approximately 10' away from this tree; a condition requiring the oak tree.be retained was suggested. There are no assigned parking stalls; one of the reasons for no assignments was people perhaps not wanting to park near the swimming pool. If a tentative map is approved whether there will be a swimming pool in the atrium should be decided first, CE stated he, would not recommend any map which does not have at least one parking space assigned per unit. There is self contained storage in. each unit and a large room in the garage for storage, tenants will rent storage space from the association. Building height, ceiling height, slope on the roof were discussed. If the swimming pool is not put in they will use that area for a courtyard, not more units. How can parking be regulated without assigned spaces; architect thought the CC&R's could handle this. If the swimming pool is eliminated they may need to resubmit and perhaps restructure the parking layout„ Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. The following members of the audience spoke. Julia Foley, 525 Almer Road: she thanked Commissioners who took the time to see what was bothering the residents of 525 Almer; after reading all the material she would like to sell her condominium and move to this new one; she thanked everyone for addressing their problems. Don Vowel, 525 Almer Road: he was concerned about configuration and density of the project; he thought: there might be a utility easement between this property and Sandpiper West on Almer (CE did not believe there was a city recorded utility easement there); Mr. Vowel thought this design was used to get the last square foot from the lot, and -stated a submerged garage would not be permitted across an easement; he also hoped landscaping would be a condition of granting the permit, the landscape plans include redwood trees which he did not believe would grow well in the space where they are shown; he wanted to meet with the developer and Planning Commission to find a suitable tree which would grow well and serve the purpose of screening; a little less density and more open space would make a better project for everyone; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 11, 1992 how will the submerged garage be ventilated. He commented there will soon be rapid transit on the Peninsula and it might be a good idea for the city to review zoning and planning regulations to provide more space between highrise development. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Responding to Mr. Vowel's questions, architect advised the garage will be mechanically ventilated, a shaft rising to the roof will be placed next to the staircase, a vent will also be installed; they will be working with the Director of Parks regarding the redwood trees and other landscaping. Commission comments: memo from Engineering says there would be a 50% reduction in trips generated from the site with the residential use, that assumes all access to the existing medical building came through E1 Camino Real, this is not the case as much traffic came or went through Almer; am concerned about egress onto El Camino, bend in the road at that point and the eucalyptus trees on E1 Camino impede vision and present a safety problem; coming off E1 Camino is not as difficult as getting back on which is very difficult, if the road were straight might feel differently. Speaking to the negative declaration, C. Galligan concurred there is } a safety factor but E1 Camino Real traffic will not be adversely affected, in fact trips from this site will be reduced, he found there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment, it is in keeping with policies of the general plan and zoning, there is no need to require a full environmental impact report. C. Galligan moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND - 453P, seconded by C. Kelly and approved 5-2 on roll call vote, Cers Graham and Jacobs dissenting. Commission discussion/ comment: basic concept of the project is O.K. but the plan is not ready for processing, it will have 'to come back to be amended if only for parking because of the swimming pool issue; owners of three or four cars are a basic problem which exists with any condominium project, it should be required in the CC&R's that an owner shall not park more than two vehicles on association property, this can be enforced by the association; the only other protection available would be assigning one space per unit; these will be luxury units and there could be a problem with lack of storage space; would prefer second ingress/egress off A1mer Road, curve in roadway on E1 Camino creates a dangerous situation; question the need for additional luxury condominiums in the city, do see a lot of "for sale'" signs for luxury units; looking at the plans can see a lawsuit waiting to happen; sound is a primary problem, noise transmission through hardwood floors and marble is a problem, a lot of money has to be spent on sound transmission mitigation in order to just meet code:; when people buy luxury condos they do not expect to be able to hear their neighbor; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 11, 1992 cannot support the addition of 38 units when there does not seem to be a need, it would be against sound principles of planning for the Planning Commission to grant this request. Further comment: it is not the job of the Planning Commission to decide what the need of an unknown population is as far as purchasing condominium units, nor is it the Planning Commission's position to try to interpret law that is not being evaded or misused,; this building is being built to code, if the code is not right then it should be changed; do have a problem with plans that we are told will change; am concerned about what we will see on this site, but do not have a problem with an apartment house or condominium; would suggest strongly that most access be off Almer; project does meet zoning requirements, it is what is supposed to be built there; reluctant to deal with this project tonight after hearing there may or may not be a pool, there may or may not be individual storage, support the concept in general; agree access must be improved, am concerned about floor assemblies and sound, would like to see detail on the floors, would not want to see a building 3' below grade; am not concerned about 38 units but it is important to have entrance on Almer and more construction details to be sure it can be built according to the plans approved. A Commissioner read Code Sec. 26.30.060 Condominium Subdivision Standards and commented: the applicant has not tried to fit into the neighborhood, this is an established neighborhood, with redesign everyone in the block could live better and safety, aesthetics and essentials of the community could be provided. C. Graham moved to deny the condominium permit without prejudice based on the statements during discussion. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, PARCEL 2, PARCEL MAP VOL. 31/15, 530 EL CAMINO REAL C. Galligan moved that this tentative condominium map not be recommended to City Council, seconded by C. Ellis, approved unanimously on voice vote. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN OUTPATIENT COUNSELING OFFICE AT 345 LORTON AVENUE, UNIT 1104, ZONED C:-2 SUB AREA B Reference staff report, 5/11/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's statements in the application, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Applicant's proposal to use one space in the CalTrans parking lot for employee parking was discussed. C. Graham advised she would abstain from discussion and voting. Ignasius Tsang, architect representing the applicant, the Menninger Clinic and property owner of Unit 1104, Bob A. Tessler, was present. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 11, 1992 It was noted the applicant states most patients will come by public transportation and a Commissioner inquired what would keep patients from driving their own cars. Dr. Donald Newman, representing the Menninger Clinic at Peninsula Hospital, stated there is no reason patients could not drive their own cars, this is an outpatient phase of this program, counseling/psychiatric services do not require the same type of buildings/space improvements as medical services, the proposed site seemed to 'be a good location between Mills and Peninsula Hospitals. Dr. Newman/Commission discussed number of employees, counselors and patients expected; it was determined the maximum number of employees would be three, two counselors and a support employee, eight clients per day for each counselor; they expect to start with 1.5 counselors. To support the variance request it was found there were exceptional circumstances in the 15,000 SF exemption from providing on-site parking which existed at the time this building was constructed, there is no more space in the building or on the site in which to add on-site parking, it is built out. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found there were enough parking spaces at the time this building was built and it met the then code requirements for parking, it is located between the two hospitals in the area and on a public transit corridor, there is one designated on-site parking space for this use, the clinic will be an asset to the community. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the health service use shall be limited to a counseling service with a maximum of three employees on site, two counselors and a support employee, each counselor shall see a maximum of eight clients a day, and the office shall be open from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Monday through Friday; (2) that the project shall only occupy the area shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 26, 1992 and the use shall be limited to this 944 SF of office area as shown; (3) that this unit shall have one parking space on site designated to its unit and this space shall be used by an employee: in this unit and shall not be leased, loaned or dedicated in any way to any other tenant or person on or off the site; and (4) that this use shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of this permit in six months (November, 1992) and/or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Graham abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:20 P.M.; reconvene 9:30 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 11, 1992 7. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AND SHUTTLE SERVICE AT 350 BEACH ROAD/ 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 5/11/92, with attachments. CP reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter/special permit form, study meeting questions, required findings. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Peter Callander, Callander Associates, representing the applicant and property owner, Golden Crown Land & Investment (S.F.), Inc., was present. He advised there was a drafting error, cars will enter the site on the right hand side next to the booth, there will be a van lane to the right (Commission asked that this be added to the conditions). Commission/Callander discussed the requested reduction in landscaping. Mr. Callander stated the variance is basically for the interior of the lot, applicant felt more landscaping would be inappropriate since this is an interim (five year) use and all landscaping within the site would be eliminated when a permanent development occurs; there is a 20' landscaped strip between existing curb at the street: and the property line and a 30' strip of landscaping on the property, which provides a 50' buffer; the variance is for the interior portion of the project which will not be seen from the street; they are providing significantly more square footage of landscaping than the total required; vines will be allowed to grow along the chain link fence on the entire perimeter, three sides, of the parking- area; the old concession stand will be a central control- point, lobby, restrooms; there will be no restaurant. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found, after looking at the suggested conditions of approval for the project and noting it is an interim (five: year) use, this project would not be detrimental to the neighboring uses. C. Jacobs moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -454P and the two special permits by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 261 1992 with cars entering the site on the right hand side as approved by the City Engineer; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo (April 3, 1992), the Park Director's memo (April 17, 1992) and the Cite Engineer's memo (April 14, 1992) shall be met; (3) that prior to receiving a building permit from the City of Burlingame the applicants shall have received a permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation. and Development Commission; (4) that all four movie screens on the parcel map shall be removed before building permits for the long term airport parking facility are finalized; (5) that an amendment to this use permit shall be required if this operation is extended to any other portion of the parcels on which this site is located; (6) that no portion of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 11, 1992 site shall be used by automobile dealers for car storage or car rental businesses for fleet storage or for any other kind of storage of rental vehicles; (7) that this use shall operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day with 493 parking spaces (six reserved for employees), and that no maintenance, repair or washing of vehicles shall take place on site; (8) that the property owners shall agree to assume all "responsibility for flooding or storm drainage problems and shall hold the city harmless from any claims arising from such problems; (9) that all demolition and construction work shall occur between May and September only, and that all grading, paving and other construction shall occur only during the hours set by Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.08.035; (10) that all areas subject to grading shall be sprinkled continuously with reclaimed water in sufficient amounts to reduce particulate matter and visible emissions during construction; stockpiled debris, construction materials, soil and trucks hauling materials shall be covered; trucks shall have their wheels rinsed before entering onto a public street and driveway and street(s) shall be swept of debris; (11) that lighting of the proposed facility shall be provided at the minimum intensities required for safety of the people and property and shall be installed so light is focused on the site, with shielded fixtures to reduce glare on adjacent properties, and if lighting is intrusive to uses on adjacent properties lumens and/or luminaires shall be adjusted; (12) that service areas such as trash containers for the parking facility shall be screened from public view; (13) that signs shall be provided as required by BCDC clearly delineating public access areas and all signage shall conform with Title 22 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Signs); (14) that the applicant shall obtain appropriate demolition permits before construction and that the project as built shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (15) that this use permit shall expire in five years on May 18, 1997; (16) that this operation is subject to a gross receipt airport parking business license tax approved by the Burlingame City Council; and (17) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions, including public access and landscaping maintenance, in one year (May, 1993) and each two years thereafter or upon complaint including maintenance of .public access areas, landscaping and operation of the facility. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN AUTO BROKERAGE, WHOLESALE AUTO DETAILING AND RETAIL AUTO DETAILING USE AT 1368 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/11/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's_ letter, required findings, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised plans submitted May 6, 1992 show nine parking spaces provided (14 spacers required) for a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 11, 1992 five space parking variance. Commission questioned who would enforce the requirement for the auto brokerage that only one car be sold each month; staff said the reason for setting a limit on number of cars sold was that this permit will run with the land, staff is concerned that auto brokerage could become the major portion of this --business in the future. Firoz Mohammed, applicant, was present. He stated .it was his plan to keep an inventory of one car per month on the lot, all other sales would be done off premise, all paper work would be done in the office on site; in order to get a used car dealer's license he is required to show he has a lot with office and telephone; he does not plan to advertise heavily, will probably sell no more than two cars per month. This is an open lot with some carports, now there are no designated parking stalls; they do have enough space to park the number of vehicles they have indicated on the site plan. A Commissioner asked why not count the detail area as required parking. Applicant advised he has been in business at this site since February 1, 1992. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff noted it has been past practice not to count service area as part of the required parking, with three activities permitted on site it has been staff's experience that over time there will be changes in proportion and impact of the activities, the conditions need to provide adequate control; one aspect of this particular use is pickup and delivery. Commissioners commented: applicant can get 14 parking spaces on this site, some will be in the car detailing area but do not see the need for a parking variance, suggest a condition allowing 14 cars on the lot at any one time; would rather limit the number of vehicles for sale instead of number of sales and condition to one► vehicle maximum available for sale on site; with maximum growth conditions of the approval are important; concern about number of cars for retail detailing being parked on site before they can be delivered; the parking requirement of 14 spaces was reached by what applicant told staff he wanted to do on the site; many car rental agencies use tandem parking, why can't applicant do the same; suggest adding a condition to ensure business is conducted on the site, not off site or on the street; since this business is pickup and delivery detailing the public does not have -to worry about moving vehicles, therefore how cars are parked on the site does not matter as long as they are kept off the street; site needs to provide six legitimate spaces, cars being detailed can be moved around; concerned about the area marked "customer parking", will it be used, once cars enter the property they are no longer vehicles but part of the business, number of customers is limited; would like to limit what can be done to detail work only; brokerage business can create problems, possible flags and banners; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 11, 1992 this is not the right area for auto sales, it will increase traffic to the site and is an inappropriate use for this small site. C. Graham moved that the Planning Commission determine a parking variance is not required for wholesale and retail detailing on this site and moved for approval of a special permit: for retail auto detailing by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the business shall include wholesale and retail auto detailing, no repairs, with a maximum of 12 cars per day all of which shall be picked up and delivered from the site, shall operate six days a week, Monday through Saturday from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. with a maximum of three employees on the site at one time; (2) that 14 vehicles shall be allowed on the site at any one time, no off-site parking shall be allowed and six parking spaces shall be provided on site for employees and customers; (3) that the requirements of the City Engineer's April 13, 1992 memo shall be met and the drainage problems shall be corrected and approved by EOS by May 30, 1992; (4) that all the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame shall be met on the site; and (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed in six months (November, 1992) and upon complaint thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. C. Graham moved to deny the special permit for -an- auto brokerage business for the reasons stated, seconded by C. Jacobs. During discussion on the motion staff advised in the past there have been problems with car rental operations and other businesses going into car sales which result in more cars on a site and on -street parking, it is a use that is easily expandable and very hard to control. Motion to deny the special permit for an auto brokerage on this site failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Galligan and Kelly dissenting. C. Kelly moved to approve the special permit for an auto brokerage use by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that auto sales may operate from this site with a maximum of one vehicle for sale at one time, this vehicle must be on site, not on the street; and (2) that this use permit shall be reviewed in six months (November, 1992) and upon complaint thereafter. Motion was seconded b;y C. Galligan and approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Graham, Jacobs and Mink dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THE U. S. POSTAL SERVICE AT 1625 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/11/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, tentative map action dividing this parcel, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page it May 11, 1992 questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letter (May 5, 1992) from Richard Lavenstein, owner of the property across the street, was noted. This letter suggested there be no reduction in required front landscaping and the front service area be screened from Rollins Road. Commission commented there appears to be a constant problem with large trucks parking at the curb on Rollins Road in this area. Pierson Forbes, Simeon Properties, representing the U. S. Postal Service, his proposed tenant, was present. He stated the trucks parked on Rollins Road were not those of his tenants and discussed the Postal Service's requirements for truck maneuverability at the loading docks in front of the building; they plan a block wall perpendicular to the building, aesthetically pleasing to protect the privacy of the manufacturing use in the other part of the building; they are eliminating some landscaping and adding some, there will be a net gain but it will be redistributed; because of the configuration of the building the loading docks are in front and the Postal Service needs them; the only way they can make use of the docks is to have their trailers parked in front in a secure location; they will be changing their approved tentative map which allowed a 1.7 acre parcel on the south end of the property, this 1.7 acre portion of the site will not be divided off, and will be used for Postal Service parking. Regarding compatibility, Mr. Forbes stated by adding the wall, with new plant material on the front fence, and reconfiguring the trees to better screen the storage area they will continue to improve the property, they are sensitive to the letter received from the property owner across the street. With reference to the special permits, a 10' fence will better screen the docks, they agree to an opaque fence, would suggest slats in this fence with plant material growing on it. Responding to questions, Mr. Forbes said all the trucks will be in the secured areas; 14 or 15 trucks will be parked close to the front fence. Mike Smith, with the Postal Service, advised the airline containers are two different sizes, most will be stored at the rear, three to five may be stored in the front area. Applicant advised the one way driveway at the rear of the property is used by Metropolitan Furniture for deliveries, the Postal Service will not load at the rear; 5,900 SF of landscaping will be replaced with 4,400 SF, losing 1,500 SF immediately in front of the wall/fence, they will add pockets of .landscaping on the sides totaling 6,500 SF, will have a net gain of about 5,000 SF of landscaping. Alternative for fencing if 10' not approved would be an 8' fence with wire on top for security. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have no problem with this request, at the peak time of the year there might be a parking problem; the Postal Service's peak hours are not those of most businesses in the area. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 11, 1992 C. Graham found the variance is necessary because of the unique nature of this use and the need for security. C. Graham moved for approval of the front setback variance and four special permits by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 5, 1992 with a 28,840 SF enclosed storage area at the front of the site and 30,050 SF enclosed storage area at the rear of the site, 142 paved and marked on-site parking spaces and further improvements as shown on Sheets A-2.1, A3.1 and LA1.1 date stamped March 23, 1992; (2) that this facility shall operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with a maximum of 140 employees on site at one time; (3) that no trucks, trailers, air cargo containers or equipment intended for the operation or use of this business shall be stored in the required parking; (4) that the required parking area shall be paved and maintained so that it is safely accessible and usable for parking and fire access at all times; ( 5 ) that the 10' high fencing used to enclose all the outdoor storage areas shall be opaque and that this fencing shall be continually maintained by the property owner; and (6) that this site shall be inspected for conformance with these conditions in three months (September, 1992) and every three years thereafter or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT FOR THE HYATT REGENCY,- 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 5/11/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised a 6,000 SF tent was approved by City Council for this hotel in an area next to the swimming pool from July 15, 1991 to November 1, 1991; this proposed tent is considerably larger, 13,000 SF. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the temporary tent permit with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Graham. Commission comment: applicant states in his letter this temporary tent will be used for overflow exhibit space which has outgrown the hotel's existing meeting space; if approved Commission is actually saying it is all right for the hotel to intensify the use of their property and at the same time reduce parking on the site; would like a 7th condition added for site inspection of available parking on the property during this week (maker of the motion and seconder accepted this condition). Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 May 11, 1992 8, 1992 Exhibit and Site Plans (both 8-1/2" x 11"); (2) that the temporary tent shall be removed by May 30, 1992 and the parking spaces shall be restored to their original use; (3) that while the tent is in place the parking lot at 1338/1340 Bayshore Highway shall be available for employees, maintaining a total of 41 spaces for employee use during that time at that location; (4) that while the tent is in place, valet parking shall occur in the surface parking lot in the northeast corner of the site in front of the parking garage; (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; (6) that the site shall be inspected for removal of the tent in June, 1992; and (7) that a site inspection shall be made of available parking on the property during use of this tent. Motion was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A RECREATION ROOM AT 1524 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 Continued to the meeting of May 26, 1992. 12. LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1645 MCDONALD WAY, ZONED R-1 Continued to the meeting of June 8, 1992. 13. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR NEW WELL AND.STORAGE FACILITIES AT 1000 BURLINGAME AVENUE, WASHINGTON PARK, AND TO ABANDON TWO WELLS AT BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL, 400 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED LAND C. Jacobs, finding that on the basis of the initial study there is no evidence that this project would have a significant effect on the environment, and in fact in the event of an emergency would benefit the community, moved to accept Negative Declaration ND -456P, seconded by C. Ellis and approved unanimously on voice vote. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 May 11, 1992 CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 4, 1992 regular meeting. - ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary