Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.01.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of -Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, January 27, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly Absent: Commissioner Mink Staff Present: Jane Gomery, Planner; Sheri Saisi, ;mooning Technician; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 13, 3.992 meeting were approved with the following addition prior to the action items: "The Chair noted there were only five Commissioners present, approval of an application requires four affirmative votes and applicants have the option of a continuance. All applicants wished to be heard this evening." AGENDA - Item 110, special permit and parking variance at 1524 Rollins Road, will be heard following Item #6. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Requests: clarify of people on site the afternoon; is relocating where w previous locatio experience with th support the varian 1992. if meals will be served; if at any one time; will they this a new business for as he located previously, is n, information from that e operation; what are the ce request. Item set for pu so, what meals and number I serving dinner late in this applicant, if he is size consistent with his city regarding their unusual circumstances to blic hearing February 10, 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL CLINIC. AT 1541 BAY5HORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 13, 1992) Requests: what services are provided; clarify number of parking spaces; extent of the emergency services, will they be offered to people outside the industrial area; will this business be operated in • • 4 . Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 27, 1992 conjunction with Sports Therapy located next door or separately; how will patients be transported; explain the need for such a facility with three medical treatment centers in the area, what need is there in the industrial area and what statistics were used to conclude an operation at this location would be successful. Item set for public hearing February 10, 1992. ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS AND A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DECK AT 2005 DEVEREUX DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 1/27/92, with attachments. Z -T Saisi reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's forms/letter, study meeting questions, :required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussed this application for a recently built accessory structure deck: voiding of the building permit, note in file regarding the need for a geological survey, engineered plans are a building code requirement, cost of a building permit and penalty fees, content of a soils engineer's evaluation. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. James Smiley, applicant and property owner, was present. He stated he had hived a carpenter to help in building the deck and assumed this person would take care of all permits necessary, he was not trying to do anything without building permits; at his previous home he had received permits for everything they did, they wanted to be sure that this deck was a safe structure and that a permit was on file with the city; he had received a building permit for the deck at his other house. Responding to a concern about the building permit being voided a month after the deck was built, applicant said he was under the impression they needed a geological survey; building inspectors had been to the property at least three times apparently to inspect the fence which was being built at the same time, not the deck; he did not use a licensed contractor and his agreement with the carpenter was verbal, he thought the carpenter was obtaining permits from the city. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found this deck to be a novel way to get a back yard with the slope on the lot, it will not be detrimental to the neighbors, the lot is very large. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the four special permits and hillside area construction permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Gall:igan. Comment on the motion: applicant built his deck at his former home in compliance with city procedures, do not know what happened in this case but he does want to be sure the deck is safe; penalty fees can be assessed, would recommend a penalty fee of approximately $2,000, it's Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 27, 1992 a big deck and an attractive structure but the lack of adherence to city procedures is inexcusable; would rather not get into amount of penalty fees, this isn't a major structure and it will have to meet code requirements. Regarding penalty fees, CA advised Commission must decide whether this was taken out by a homeowner which.would be twice the building permit fee or a contractor which would be 10 times the building permit fee. Further comment: think it should be 10 times the building permit fee, this homeowner has taken the liability upon himself; :have problems with the deck, it is too large, there are ways to work with a slope such as this which would not be as obtrusive, if applicant had gone through permit processing procedures he would have found this out; will support the motion, it is a big deck and it does sit high off the creek, property owner might have built retaining walls, filled in the area and added grass, have a problem with procedures not being followed but do not have a problem with the deck; how can Planning Commission assess blame or determine what the penalties should be, Commission doesn't really know what happened; if neighbors were concerned complaints would have been received; no objections from the neighbors is a good criteria for approval, applicant had some knowledge of what was going on, think a penalty is warranted and 10 times the building permit fee up to $1,000 would be appropriate under the circumstances; from reading the staff report think penalties are justified, applicant knew there were requirements; if penalty fees are not required Commission would be sending the wrong message to property owners and if applicant relied on his unlicensed contractor the penalty fees should be 10 times the building permit fee. C. Jacobs commented she did not know the applicant and did not think Commission should levy fees unless it were a large problem but she would go along with fees not more than $1, 000 and amended her motion to include penalty fees 10 times the building permit fere up to a maximum of $1,000; this was accepted by the seconder. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that a retroactive building permit for this structure, with penalty fees assessed at 10 times the building permit fee not to exceed $1,000, shall be obtained and any construction required to bring the structure up to all codes shall be completed within 30 days; (2) that a geological study prepared and stamped by a licensed soils engineer or other appropriate professional shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the retroactive building permit; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Deal and Graham voting no, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 27, 1992 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT USE AT 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 1/27/92, with attachments. Z -T Saisi reviewed details of the request, applicant's letter, petition in support, required findings, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Helga Johnston, applicant, was present. - She commented that this expansion would be a nice addition to the city as well as to her business; she would like: to expand to the existing roof deck above her present establishment, they will serve people on this deck. The following members of the audience spoke :in favor of the application: Carolyn Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, Burlingame and Susan Rangitsch, 1036 Whitwell Road, Hillsborough. They felt this business is an asset to the city with fine food and a convenient location, the proposed expansion would be good for the city as well as for the business operator. There were no further audience comments •and the public hearing was closed. With the comment this is an existing business, expanding to the roof deck which is already there would not be detrimental to the area, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall :be carried out as outlined in the description and plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 26, 1991 and January 17, 1992; (2) that no food preparation or food and drink sales shall occur on the roof deck; (3) that the use of the roof area shall be limited to eight tables and a maximum of 32 people, use of any kind of sun shade which extends above the tables shall require review of the Building, Fire and Planning Departments and possibly an amendment of this permit; and (4) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA AND NUMBER OF SIGNS AT FIRST INTERSTATE BANK, 1435 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 1/27/92, with attachments. Z -T Saisi reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's forms/letter, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Richard Smith, architect, was present. He noted the automatic teller machine (ATM) which applicants are adding is located on the front of the building on Burlingame Avenue, the proposed signage is typical 9" x 5' ATM signage, the ATM Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 27, 1992 itself does not extend over the property line, the small counter does extend about one foot. If there is a problem extending over the public right-of-way they will reduce the size of the counter. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed,. C. Graham had no problems with this request, she noted the ATM is not located right next to the entrance of the bank, and moved for approval of this sign exception by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plan's submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 12, 1991; (2) that the. location of the ATM in relationship to the front property line shall be established prior to the issuance of a building permit and a special encroachment permit shall be obtained if necessary; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Ellis seconded the motion which was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER AT 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1 Reference staff report, 1/27/92, with attachments. PLR Gomery reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, required findings, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A letter from Archie Offield (January 23, 1992) expressing concern with hours of operation and noise level of this business was noted; it was determined this letter did not specify which hours. CA stated he had received two or three complaints about early morning noise over a period of four or five months within the last year, he believed these were from residents of apartments on Floribunda located behind this operation. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Dena Williams, applicant, was present. Her comments: they have been in business here for six years, the makeup of members has changed, women are joining the work force and need to work out early in the morning, after work or on weekends; to her knowledge there was only one noise complaint which was received this past August during a heat wave when all their doors were open; since then doors are not opened early in the morning, they have a sound meter to comply with OSHA standards. Ms. Williams felt their business is a positive influence on the community and helps bring business to downtown Burlingame. They are not asking for any classes after 8:00 P.M. but would like to be open until 9:00 P.M. for members to use the equipment; they do need to have classes at 6:00 A.M.. Responding to the noise complaint in August, they asked everyone not to open the back doors until 7:00 A.M.; if other measures such as installing air conditioning become necessary they will do so but they hope this will not be the case. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 ` January 27, 1992 There was considerable discussion about loudness of the music and instructors during early morning aerobics classes, the possibility of reducing the noise and/or replacing these early morning classes with quieter activities. One Commissioner noted she works in the office building to the rear of 1208 Donnelly and has noticed the noise. The following spoke in support of the application. Carol Tanzi, 1520 Columbus Avenue: she works in downtown Burlingame and attends the 6:00 A.M. classes, Monday through Friday, the fitness center is an asset to downtown business and to the entire community, it fills a physical and psychological need for women. Julie Arvan, 220 Glen Aulin Lane, Burlingame: she is a working woman and works out early in the morning or late in the evening, the applicants will do everything they can to mitigate noise problems and help the neighbors. Speaking in opposition, Estee Coldwell, 219 Avila Road, San Mateo: she is the owner of the apartment building at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, thinks 6:00 A.M. is too early for the aerobics music and has had complaints from two of her tenants. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: concerned about amplified music and instruction at 6:00 A.M., would be much more comfortable with this proposal if amplified music could be eliminated prior to 7:OO A.M.; it doesn't make sense to let the center open at 6:00 A.M. but not let them do anything; have no objection to opening at 6:00 A.M., do have a problem with overamplified music, the owners are on notice of the noise complaints and the need to tone down activities in the early mornings. Further discussion ensued regarding conditioning for amplified music, the fact that this operation is an asset to the community, requiring the back door closed at all times. One final comment: there is no point in considering further conditions, Condition 13 will make this use permit subject to review in six months or upon complaint. With the statement that the requirement for review upon complaint will take care of everyone's concerns, this business i:; a credit to the city, the applicant has shown her willingness to respond to the neighborhood's concerns, C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that Conditions 1-6 of the July 1, 1985 use permit as amended by Conditions 1 and 2 of the May 6 „ 1986 permit amendment shall be in effect except that the hours of operation shall be changed to 6:00 A. M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Saturday and Sunday, with no amplified music or instruction used on the site after 8:00 P.M. daily; (2) that this use permit shall be amended if any aspect of the business changes including but not limited to location of support activities such as office area, child care area, retail area within the leased area, hours of operation, scheduling and size of classes particularly at midday (11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.); number of employees and/or instructors; and total area leased; and (3) that this use permit Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 27, 1992 shall be subject to review for conformance with its conditions in six months (August, 1992) or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A GYMNASTICS SCHOOL AT 1524 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 1/27/92, with attachments. PLR Gomery reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, staff discussed number of parking spaces provided. A Commissioner found the plans inaccurate, that there were not 38 spaces, outside equipment takes up two spaces, part of the parking is on the side of the building and some are not legal spaces; he was concerned about a gas connection and fire connection being located in parking spaces. Staff confirmed all parking spaces are standard size and noted the CBI had indicated they will have to provide a handicapped stall. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Michael Coffey, representing the property owner and tenant/ applicant, was present. His comments: the plans submitted were the plans used when Probat, Inc., a coffee roasting equipment sales and service business, took over the building and remodeled inside; Probat's focus of business has changed and they are vacating a 6,600 SF portion of the building, this area is fully sprinklered and meets all building code requirements. At one time there was a gymnastics studio on Rollins Road which :had no parking and no on -street parking available, the location for this proposed gymnastics school is much better, there is only one other commercial building on David Road and a PG&E easement across from the parking lot where no habitable structures are allowed under the power lines, therefore there would not be a greater traffic impact in the future. Probat meets their parking requirements, it is a national company with 14 local employees, very rarely are all 14 of these people on site at one time. The proposed gymnastics school is a drop off/pick up type of operation, this is a noncongested street with no cross traffic:, people can drop off children safely, the school will not impact the business community. The requirement to provide a handicapped stall will be no problem, drainage has been improved, the PG&E area has been regraded for drainage, in the last rainstorm no buildup of water occurred. The equipment presently in the parking lot was a necessity while vacating the 6,600 SF area, this equipment will be shipped out of the country. The applicant would request that the requirement in Condition 13 not allowing gymnastics competitions or meets be removed, she feels it r Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 27, 1992 might inhibit the school and its students, such meets are held on Sundays and would have no impact on businesses in the area. Responding to questions, Mr. Coffey advised Probat's present lease expires in November, 1994; applicant was agreeable to limiting competitive meets to two per year and only on Saturday or Sunday; there are outside lights in the parking lot and on the building. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham had no problem with this application; regarding competitive meets she saw no reason to limit such events to two a year and preferred the condition to state "no competitions Monday through Friday". C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit and parking variance by resolution with the conditions suggested in the staff report as amended. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. In discussion on the motion an 8th condition was suggested for protection of the gas connection, Fire Department standpipe and water main in the parking lot. This condition was accepted by.the maker of the motion and the seconder as well as the elimination of the word "occasional" in Condition 14. Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 12, 1991 Gymnastics Equipment Layout (8-1/2" x 3.111) and Sheet A2 Roof/Site Plan (11" x 17"); December 23, 1991 Building Plan (8-1/2" x 1111) and Building Uses Plan (8-1/2" x 11"); (2) that: the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 6, 1992 memo (provide one handicap parking space) shall be met; (3) that the gymnastics school shall operate 3:30 - 8:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday, 3:30 to 7:30 P.M. Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Saturday, and no gymnastics competitions or meets shall be held on this site Monday through Friday; (4) that the class enrollment shall be limited to a maximum of 12 students, two instructors and parents; (5) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame; (6) that the parking lot shall not be used for storage and shall be cleared of all equipment and debris within 30 days (March 1, 1992) so that all the parking.stalls are available including the posted no parking stall in the southeast corner by the gate; (7) that bollards shall be placed around the gas connection, Fire Department standpipe and other utility connections located in the parking lot off David Road; and (8) that this special permit shall be reviewed for compliance in one year's time (January, 1993) and/or upon complaint. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess.9:20 P.M., reconvene 9:28 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 27, 1992 7. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AT 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONE16 C-4 Reference staff report, 1/27/92, with attachments. PLR Gomery reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, revised median and entrance design in response to a meeting with the City Engineer (distributed to Commission this evening), required findings. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/ staff discussed Condition 17 addressing construction work requirements; this permit is for five years, when that time has elapsed applicant could come back to the Commission and apply again. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Kurt Scholz, civil engineer representing the property owners, was present. He noted he had answered the study meeting questions in his letter of January 16, 1992. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal was happy with the revised landscape plans and found there was adequate screening along the perimeter of this parking lot. He then moved to approve negative declaration ND -448P, finding that on the basis of the initial study and any comments received there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. C. Deal moved for approval of the 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 January 16, 1992 Sheets L-1, P2, and December 19, 1991 Sheets A-1, C-2 except the entry/exit gate shall be moved from Parcel B Map Volume 50/92 (APN 026-344-120) to the parcel identified as Block 5, Lot 8 (APN 026- 344-040) opposite the existing median opening as described in the City Engineer's January 15, 1992 memo and the landscaping shall be replaced 'where the original driveway was shown so the total landscaping outside of the 100' shoreline band remains at 15%; 2. that the three conditions of the City Engineer's November 25, 1991 memo and the two conditions of his January 15, 1992 memo, the one condition of the Chief Building Inspector's December 19, 1991 memo and the three conditions of the Parks Director's December 24, 1991 memo shall be'met; 3. that this use permit shall include only the parcels identified as Block 5, Lot 8 and Parcel B Map Vol. 50/92, these lots shall be operated as a single facility with one entrance/exit at the designated airport parking gate identified as 765 Airport Boulevard, and that should any portion of the lots become severed from the rest by a change in use of intervening property then neither that portion or the other portion shall. be eligible to be used for airport parking under this use permit since the three acre minimum will no longer be met; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 January 27, 1992 4. that the use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with 327 total parking spaces (two reserved for employees, three reserved for vans), a maximum of two employees, and no auto maintenance, or repair, or washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site; 5. that the two 18' gates between this parcel and the adjacent existing Metropolitan Parking facility at 731 Airport Boulevard shall provide access between the two facilities: only if this use permit is amended to address the specifics of the joint operation, the use permit of the adjacent airport parking lot is amended to address the corresponding changes needed on that site, and the conditions of the City Engineer's January 15, 1992 memo (entrance to be relocated opposite the existing median opening and. a northbound left turn lane installed in the existing median) are met; 6. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the city harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 7. that all construction work shall occur only between May and September, with areas subject to grading to be sprinkled continuously and in sufficient amounts to control dust during construction using reclaimed water. Stockpile debris, construction materials, soil and trucks hauling 'materials shall be covered. Trucks shall have their wheels washed before entering onto a public street and driveway and the street shall be swept of debris at regular intervals as required by the city; 8. all grading, paving and other construction shall be done during the hours set by the Uniform Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9. that lighting of the lot shall be provided at intensities required for safety of people and property and shall be :installed so light is focused on the site shielded for glare and does not extend onto adjacent properties; 10. that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11. that this use permit shall expire in five years on March 1, 1997; and 12. that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all its conditions, including public access and landscaping maintenance, in one year (March, 1993) and each two years thereafter or upon complaint including maintenance of public; access areas, landscaping and operation of the facility. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 January 27, 1992 For the record CA Coleman advised this operation cannot be used in conjunction with the adjacent Metropolitan Parking lot, the gates must remain closed unless the permit is amended. These motions were seconded by C. Graham and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR. CAR RENTAL AUTO STORAGE AT 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 1/27/92., with attachments. PLR Gomery reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, required findings, study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Public access from Bayshore Highway to the shoreline beside the One Bay Plaza office building at 1350 Bayshore was noted. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. George Corey, attorney representing Alamo Rent-A-Car, applicant and property owner, was present. He advised they have worked very closely with staff, all of the suggested conditions have been accepted by Alamo. This company has acquired almost all the land in that area, there are two parcels it doesn't own but it appears they will be able to acquire these in the future and put together enough land for some meaningful development. They will not join the parcels at this time. The proposed interim use will be far better than what now exists. He noted the substantial cost of asbestos removal and demolition of the AMFAC hotel. This interim use will provide better access to the bay, the view will be improved, it will give the city the option to control the growth Alamo will plan in the future. This is a growing company and one of the top generators of revenue for the city. They try to move autos at 'times which do not impede regular business traffic, this lot will greatly reduce traffic to the site. Commission and applicant's representative discussed landscaping. Commission wanted something to hide the sea of cars,, perhaps a hedge. Mr. Corey stated their architect and landscape architect advised this plan will do just that; the existing Burlway site has the best landscaping along Bayshore, it is well maintained, he fully expected the same on this site. If Commission wishes to hold Alamo to such a condition that would be acceptable but they would like to stay with the existing plan unless there is a need for something else. Responding to a question, attorney stated Alamo will continue to use as storage the sites at 1755 Bayshore, 1470 Bayshore and 778 Burlway Road. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: concerns about land banking have been satisfied with responses from the applicant's representative; basically have no objections to the landscape plan, would prefer more landscaping next to the shoreline, 20' rather than 10', but would not vote against this proposal because of that; agree with this comment, Alamo is doing Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 January 27, 1992 the city a service in demolition of the AMFAC, believe applicant understands Commission would like to see more landscaping out there; this is an interim use, when it comes back the city can get what it wants. Commission made findings: the city will be getting :rid of an eyesore, the building is falling apart, asbestos is a problem, the site will be going back to a ground level situation which is much less intense, the proposal will have a positive significant effect. C. Graham moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -449P, finding that on the basis of the initial study and any comments received there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. She then moved for approval of the special permits by resolution with the following conditions: 1. that the site shall be developed in conformity with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 21, 1992, with a strip 20 feet deep from property line inward along Bayshore Highway fully landscaped and the driveways and curb cuts shall be removed to be replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk as approved by the City Engineer; 2. that this site shall be used for car storage only in association with the car rental business at 1470 Bayshore Highway and 778 Burlway Road; 3. that the only access to and from this site, as long as it is used for car rental storage, shall be on Burlway Road; 4. that no automobiles shall be repaired, maintained, detailed or washed on this site; 5. that the applicant shall receive a BCDC permit prior to receiving a building permit for any site improvements; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of January 21, 1992 shall be met; 7. that this storage lot shall house a maximum of 785 cars so long as this number can be accommodated along with adequate space on site to load and unload automobile transport trucks and shall be available for storage or removal of vehicles 24 hours a day, no employees shall be specifically assigned to this site, employee parking shall be provided on the adjacent site at 778 Burlway Road; 8. that the auto storage area shall be fenced for security and only safety lighting which is confined to the site shall be provided; 1 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 January 27, 1992 9. that all deliveries and/or pickup of cars at 'this site shall be made on the site, no offloading/loading shall occur on any public right-of-way including public access areas, and no auto carrying trucks shall arrive or depart between 7:00 A.M.. and 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.; 10. that this use shall be reviewed for consistency with the conditions of the use permit in 18 months time (August, 1993) or upon complaint; and 11. that the project shall obtain a demolition permit with all required agency reviews and approvals before construction of the automobile storage lot and that the entire project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. These motions were seconded by C. Ellis and approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL FACILITY AT 1470 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY/778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 1/27/92, with attachments. PLR Gomery reviewed details of the request, required findings, study meeting questions. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. George: Corey, attorney representing Alamo Rent-A-Car, applicant/property owner, was present. He advised all suggested conditions are acceptable to the applicant. Leasing of car phones is a very minor part of this operation, one person handles this service. Responding to a question, Mr. Corey did not know if the limit of 15,000 car rental contracts per month would be sufficient for some time, Alamo has grown very fast, they believe the 15,000 car limit would give them some leeway in time, if there is a significant increase they will come back to the Planning Commission. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham noted this special permit amendment ties; up several loose ends in view of approval of the AMFAC site for storage. She moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May 24, 1983, the Fire Marshal's memo of May 18, 1983 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of May 17, 1983 shall be met; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 January 27, 1992 2. that no trucks delivering or picking up cars at these sites shall arrive or depart between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. or 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. daily; 3. that employee parking for 40 cars shall be provided and designated on site (1470 Bayshore Highway/778 Burlway Road) - and employees shall be required to park in the employee parking while on site; 4. that the loss of the use for auto storage of the sites at 1755 Bayshore Highway and/or 1380 Bayshore Highway shall cause the use permit for car rental use at 1470 Bayshore Highway/778 Burlway Road to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 5. that access to the site shall be provided only from Burlway Road; 6. that all car rental lease agreements shall be written in the City of Burlingame; 7. that the decorative wall shall be extended and maintained to enclose at a height of 6' the rear of the 1470 Bayshore Highway property, that the City Planner shall participate. in the decisions on the design of the wall and that the City Council shall review the final design of the wall; S. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of January 21, 1992 shall be met; 9. that no more than 15,000 car rental contracts per month shall be written from this site each year, that auto storage for 4,700 cars shall total 4,700 for all three locations (1470 Bayshore Highway/778 Burlway Road, 1380 Bayshore Highway and 1755 Bayshore Highway) and that the leasing operation shall be confined to the premise at 1470 Bayshore Highway/778 Burlway Road and operated as outlined in Mr..Nesbitt's letter of April 29, 1983 with attached plans date stamped May 18, 1983; 10. that the special permit for car rental use to write contracts, do minor maintenance and repairs, wash cars and store cars shall be granted only to this site with supplemental auto storage only at 1755 Bayshore Highway and 1380 Bayshore Highway, no rental contracts shall be written nor rental cars picked up by customers at these supplemental storage sites; 11. that no cars shall be loaded, unloaded or stored on any public street or in any public access area; 12. that portable car telephones shall be leased only from the transaction counter so long as no more than one employee is engaged in this activity and the leasing of these instruments is limited to those renting cars from this site and the contracts for these transactions are written in the City of Burlingame; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 January 27, 1992 13. that any change to the number of employees, average number of cars rented from the site each month, use of the two peripheral lots for auto storage, amount of auto storage, addition of services or secondary businesses to the site, or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this- location shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 14. that the project shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions every three years or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Site review - special permit for instruction/clinic facility for dentistry, 1633 Bayshore Highway, zoned M-1. Site review - special permit for conference center, 1240 Bayshore Highway, zoned C-4. PLANNER REPORT PLR Gomery and CA Coleman reviewed City Council actions at its January 22, 1992 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary