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