Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.12.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, December 12, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commississioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the November 28, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Agenda unanimously approved with the addition of Planning Commission Resolutions #3-83 and #4-83 under actions following Item #11. ITEMS•FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 360 SF GARAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AT 1612 HOWARD AVENUE, BY PAULA POOR CP Monroe reviewed this request for a variance to the required 5' side yard in order to relocate the detached garage. Ref. staff report dated 12/5/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/16/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (11/21/83), City Engineer (11/29/83) and Chief Building Inspector (12/1/83); Design & Engineering Systems, Inc. 11/4/83 letter to Pete Kriner, Building Department; applicant's letter dated November 14, 1983; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped November 15, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, location of the lot on Easton Creek, staff review, letter from the structural engineering company, applicant's justification for the variance. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. The applicants were present and stated their desire not to interrupt the flow of the creek or to create an eyesore for their neighbors. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: CE's requirement that the driveway to the new garage be paved. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances in the location of this lot on Easton Creek, that the new garage was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owners, that granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners, and that it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Schwalm then moved to grant this variance. Second C. Taylor; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING OFFICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1214 DONNELLY AVENUE IN SUB -AREA B (CONTINUED FROM 11/28/83) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 12, 1983 CP Monroe reviewed this request. Ref. staff report dated 11/21/83 with attachments aslisted in the November 28, 1983 minutes; Planning Commission minutes of 11/28/83; and Monroe letter to Robert L. Miller, applicant, dated December 1, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, staff review,.code requirements for parking and available on-site spaces, study meeting concerns. Three conditions were suggested for consider- ation at the public hearing. Discussion: Parking requirements and availability of parking in the area; staff's reasons for bringing this item to the Commission because of its similarity in operation to a medical facility. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing, Robert Miller, applicant, told Commission staff's suggested conditions were acceptable to the property owner and the proposed counseling tenant; Nor Pen Investment & Loan will leave the premises when the counseling office is in operation. John Kowalski, owner of Kay's Launderette, 333 Lorton Avenue, inquired whether the counseling patients would be transients or residents and expressed concern about transients in the area. Mr. Miller advised the counseling doctor has been a member of the Burlingame community for a number of years, that it was not appropriate for him to identify himself at this time and that it is not a new practice which would bring in patients from out of the area. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: Wish to know the identity of the counseling doctor; the issue is the appropriateness of this use in the area, the permit could be conditioned for the use and for review; a special permit runs with the land, not an individual; reluctant to grant a use permit to someone whose identity is not known. Commission expressed varied opinions as to whether this use could be considered as a medical office, as a standard office use, or a professional office with medical inclinations; parking requirements for each use were noted. Applicant advised he felt the traffic generated from the counseling use would be less than presently generated and that the business would be on a referral basis or with on-going patients. It was suggested the conditions be clarified to identify the business as a marriage and family counseling service, and that the permit be reviewed in six months time. Further comment: based on information available this evening, have no idea whether the use is compatible with other uses in the area or whether it would fall within the category of professional services; without the doctor's testimony it was felt the application was premature; would like to know the doctor's credentials/qualif- ications. C. Giomi moved to grant this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of October 24, 1983 and the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 4, 1983 be met; (2) that this family and marriage counseling business operate within the following limitations: three full time and one part time employee; no more than four clients on the site at any one time; continue to provide five parking spaces on site; no more than 10 people on the second floor at one time; and (3) that this use permit be reviewed in six months time. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Commissioners Cistulli, Taylor and Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW A 15 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 30 LORTON AVENUE BY BRIAN CASSIDY CONSTRUCTION, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 15 unit residential condominium. Ref. staff report dated 12/5/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/2/83; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (November 28, 1983), City Engineer (November 22, 1983), Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 12, 1983 Fire Marshal (November 8, 1983 and June 24, 1981), Director of Parks (August 14, 1981 and November 18, 1983) and City Attorney 11/4/83); study meeting minutes, 11/28/83; ,and photograph; letter from the applicant, Brian Cassidy, dated December 6, 1983 received after preparation of staff report; and plans date stamped November 2, 1983. CP discussed details of the request and code requirement; staff review; study meeting request. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission policy regarding provision for unsecured guest parking was noted; CP circulated letter received today from the applicant's lender. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. William Heijn, applicant's architect, advised the conditions suggested by staff were acceptable, no substantial changes in the final plans are proposed, size of some windows may be reduced to meet Title 24 requirements. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Robert Lingaas, 1115 Bayswater Avenue, expressed concern about the number of condominiums being constructed, loss of rentals and affordable housing, traffic and parking problems. Mr. Heijn addressed parking: all of the parking for the project will be underground, project provides the full two cars per unit, allocation for guest parking will be made at the city's request. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: the property is zoned R-4, property owner is entitled to the rights that go with this zoning and to build as proposed; project meets all requirements of the code; concern about parking; don't think there will be a problem, project is close to down- town and people could walk, think apartments would generate more traffic; city policy and standard requirementfor Park Department's review of final landscaping and irrigation plans; applicant advised the CBI's courtyard requirements will be complied with. C. Leahy moved to approve this condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 28, 1983, City Engineer's memo of November 22, 1983, the Fire Marshal's memos of November 8, 1983 and June 24, 1981 and the Director of Parks' memos of November 18, 1983 and August 14, 1981 be met; (2) that the final working drawings for this condominium project be consistent with the plans filed with this application and date stamped November 2, 1983; and (3) that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the Park Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A 15 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 30 LORTON AVENUE Reference CE Erbacher's November 22, 1983 memo and attached map dated 11/2/83. In his memo CE recommended approval and recommendation to City Council. C. Garcia moved for approval and recommendation to Council of this tentative condominium map and tentative and final parcel map. Second: C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. 5. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ALLOW AN 11 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE, BY TED FARLEY FOR ASIA PENINSULA PROPERTIES 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PROJECT TO EXCEED 35' IN HEIGHT CP Monroe reviewed this revised submittal for an 11 unit residential condominium project. Ref. staff report dated 12/5/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment dated 10/24/83; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (11/23/83), Fire Marshal 11/8/83), City Engineer (11/22/83) and Director of Parks 11/18/83); letter dated November 30, 1983 from Jerry Deal, applicant's representative; Planning Commission minutes of September 26, 1983 when the previous submittal was denied; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped October 24, 1983. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, previous submittal as compared to the proposed project, staff review, applicant's justification for the height exception. "Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP advised a flat roof would reduce the height of the project by about 3'. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer for Asia Peninsula Properties, discussed the redesign and their attempts to address Commission concerns; this project is in the R-4 zone and in keeping with the zoning ordinance; applicant's preference is for a sloped roof; do not believe this height will be a detriment to the neighborhood as compared with 35'; applicant finds the suggested conditions acceptable. There were no audience comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition: Lannis Lewis, owner of the property at 1219 Bellevue - tenants there are retired people at home all day and the proposed project would cast shadows on the site, area is conducive to senior citizens who cannot afford condominiums, it is a convenient location, close to downtown; Carrol Schmitz, owner of 1237 Bellevue - objects to any extra height, would like to see the regulation for 35' height enforced for everyone, if this height is allowed others will ask the same or higher and the whole area will become taller; Juliette Lenkert, 1137 Douglas Avenue - live just down the street from the condo on the corner, water from that building sits on Douglas and on Bellevue, how much water will this proposed building be pumping out onto the street, mosquitos breed there. Ted Farley, developer of the condo on the corner, advised that no water goes to the street other than surface water; Engineering Department requested that water be pumped directly into the storm drain and this has been done. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: CE advised the water problem is a city wide, he requested that the proposed project be required to direct its sump pump to the city storm drain; concern that this project may be too big for the property and concern about the proposed height; think architect and owners have done a good job in reducing this project within the requirement of the code. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of November 8, 1983, the City Engineer's memo of November 22, 1983 and the Director of Parks' memo of November 18, 1983 be met; (2) that the sump pump go directly into the storm sewer; (3) that the project be built according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 24, 1983; and (4) that in areas where soil is to be placed on the top of the garage slab be treated with a water impermeable material and that the soil placed on the top of the garage be properly irrigated and drained to ensure that no seepage occur in the underground garage. Second: C. Cistulli. Discussion on the motion: find the sloped roof more aesthetic, flat roof is unattractive; concern about the long corridors between units (Fire Marshal advised the plans as presented meet the Fire Code); height is up to the developer, it is his creativity to market his project, if he needs so many units the flat roof is his problem. Motion to approve the condominium permit passed on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. C. Garcia moved to approve the special permit for height. Second: C. Cistulli; motion approved 6-1 on voice vote, C. Giomi dissenting. 7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR AN 11 UNIT PROJECT AT 1233 BELLEVUE AVENUE Ref. CE Erbacher's December 7, 1983 memo and attached map date stamped December 6, 1983. CE's memo recommended the map be referred to Council for approval should Commission approve the project. C. Leahy moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative condominium map. Second: C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 12, 1983 i8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW SALES DEMONSTRATIONS AND CLASSES IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 875 MAHLER ROAD, BY INSURANCE SYSTEM INC. CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a classroom use within an office at 875 Mahler Road. Ref. staff report dated 12/5/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/28/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (11/7/83), Chief Building Inspector (11/17/83), City Engineer (11/7/83); Towber letter to applicant dated September 23, 1983; applicant's letters of October 26 and October 31, 1983; site drawings date stamped November 2 and October 28, 1983; November 1, 1983 letter to Towber from Management, The Crown Building; study meeting minutes, 11/28/83; aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's description of the business, parking for this site. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Carol Scaparro, representing the applicant, addressed Commission. She presented a letter (12/12/83) from the Management/Leasing office of The Crown Building, 875 Mahler Road, advising the applicants are allowed six full time employees and parking spaces and a reasonable number of visitors. Ms. Scaparro discussed their business: after initial training meetings all business occurs at customers' sites; when sales aren't good there are few training meetings, now less than two per month. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: there were no clerical employees, all work out of their homes; would the property manager be willing to designate parking for the business; CP advised this building does meet the current parking requirement for a building of this size; there was a desire to require designated parking spaces for the business and for review in one year. C. Giomi moved to approve this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions in the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 17, 1983 and the City Engineer's memo of November 7, 1983 be met; (2) that the demonstration and training portion of the business be operated as described in the applicant's letters of October 26, 1983 and October 31, 1983; (3) that six designated parking spaces be assigned by the Management/Leasing office of the Crown Building to this use permit; and (4) that this permit be reviewed in one years time. Second: C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 850 MAHLER ROAD, BY TNT SKYPAK INC. CP Monroe reviewed this request to operate a courier service in the M-1 District, Ref. staff report dated 12/5/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/3/83; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (11/17/83), Fire Marshal (11/8/83), City Engineer (11/14/83); November 2, 1983 letter from the applicant; TNT Skypak, Inc. Staff Activity Record dated November 1, 1983; November 2, 1983 letter of consent and approval from the property owner; site drawings; actual parking layout, 850 Mahler, November 1983, prepared by Planning staff; study meeting minutes, 11/28/83; November 16, 1983 letter from the property owner; and aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, Planning staff concerns. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The following letters were noted: November 16, 1983 from the property owners indicating a willingness to assign 20 parking spaces to this business; two letters dated December 9, 1983 from Joan Chase, property owner of 860 Mahler Road expressing concerns about parking and traffic in the area and opposition to planting of trees in the planters along the property line abutting in her property, the trees will remove parking spaces Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 at 850 and cause damage to her properties. Planning staff concerns about the planters and future expansion of this business were discussed by CP Monroe. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Robin Hunter of TNT Skypak addressed Commission: will comply with the Fire Marshal's requirement that all vehicles be parked outside; most of the growth of the company will be taking place at other sites; owner has designated 20 parking spaces for this business; regarding people using two spaces because of the planters, people tend to be lazy when there are plenty of spaces; believe owner will change the planters to Commission's specifications; Skypak's present location has been purchased and they are under pressure to move. Dave Black, Coldwell Banker, on behalf of the owners, spoke in favor: wanted to landscape to enhance the value of the property; the spaces were measured off; property owner wanted to break up the expanse of concrete. There were no comments in opposition and the hearing was closed. Discussion/determinations: anticipated expansion of the company will not take place at this site; there are three tenants on the site presently who have a total of 13 employees and there are 40 parking spaces on site; Skypak has been in business at its present location for approximately eight months; on-site parking meets present code requirements, there are no limitations on the other businesses and the number of people they employ; concern about too many courier businesses in a traffic impacted area; Skypak drivers leave the site at 7:30 A.M. and do not return until 6:30-7:00 P.M., thus are off site for extensive periods of time; outside security is contracted for on-site trucks at night; they are radio dispatched; concern about parking with 22 employees and eight drivers located at this site and plans for expansion of the business; this is not the best location for this business or for the neighbors; believe parking on -and off-site would be a problem; applicant stated the spaces available to them would be more than adequate, they use less than that number now; present lessees of this building could change in number of employees and need for parking; Mr. Black advised new three year leases have been executed with two of the businesses; applicant had no objection to review of the permit in one year; it was noted that a total of 30 employees would be the limit under the permit if approved, with even one additional employee the applicant must come back to Commission for an amendment to his permit; have no objection to the use but do have objection to the use at this location, proposal seems far in excess of the cap- acity of the property, we would be compounding an existing traffic problem. C. Taylor moved that this application be rejected. Second C. Schwalm; motion to deny approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:40 P.M.; reconvene 9:50 P.M. 10. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW A 114 ROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOTEL FACILITIES AT 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, BY ROBINSON MILLS & WILLIAMS FOR RAMADA INNS, INC. 11. VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ABOVE ADDITION AND PROVIDE 248 PARKING SPACES RATHER THAN THE 258 REQUIRED CP Monroe reviewed this revised proposal for a 114 room expansion -of the existing Ramada Inn. Ref. staff report, 12/12/83, Items #10 & #11; Project Application & CEQA Assess- ment received 11/1/83; Monroe letter of action to William Birdsall, Ramada Inns, Inc. dated August 18, 1983; staff comparison of the current and former proposals with code requirements, dated 11/18/83; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (11/18/83), Fire Marshal (11/22/83), City Engineer (12/1/83), Park Director (11/18/83); Glenn Bauer (architect) letter to Monroe dated November 14, 1983; study meeting minutes, 11/28/83; August 15, 1983 City Council minutes denying the previous application without prejudice; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 12, 1983 Planning Commission minutes of July 25, 1983; Planning Commission Staff Report, 7/25/83, Items #3 & #4; and plans date stamped December 6, 1983. CP discussed details of the current proposal and code requirements; history of Ramada's request for expansion; staff's comparison of the two proposals; staff review; applicant's letter discussing the revised design; Commission study meeting requests; Planning staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. David Carr, attorney representing the applicant, addressed Commission: believe all suggestions for revision of the project have been met, a reduction in the size of the meeting rooms, bulk of the project and view corridors; the new proposal is a dramatic change from the previous project, a 90 degree turn of the tower creating an entirely different aspect of the planned addition. It is not economically possible to tear down the old building which violates a number of the Design Guidelines. New plan has been vastly improved, applicants would like the parking variance for aesthetic reasons. Attorney Carr addressed findings for approval of the parking variance: there are exceptional circumstances in this unusual lot, the applicant must work with an existing structure which was built prior to the city's Design Guidelines and within BCDC require- ments which have taken away a tremendous amount of space in the rear and which will be devoted to landscaping, walks, etc. There will be no detriment to the public welfare or an adverse impact on the zoning plan of the city if this proposal is accepted. Glenn Bauer, Robinson Mills & Williams, Architects, addressed details of the revised project; a reduction in the overall program for the site has been made; number of rooms and public area have been reduced; this is a total redesign of the project; tower has been reoriented 90 degrees, basic orientation is now east/west; by turning the tower and reducing the length, size and bulk have been mitigated; with the use of renderings and photographs Mr. Bauer stated the new project will have less impact on the skyline than most of its recent neighbors; size has been mitigated by incorporating terraces to break up the mass and reduce it as it gets higher, building has been designed as a number of components - base, hotel tower, elevator tower - which result in a number of parts rather than one solid mass. The facade includes a series of projecting bay windows for relief, adding shade and shadow; architectural screens at the lower floor provide sun shade and screen the parking; large scale planters lend some softness. The footprint of the tower has been reduced to 74% of the previous design, moved back on the lot; paved area in front has been reduced leaving more area.for landscaping, there is more landscaping in front and on the south side of the building. The whole site has been renewed, part- icularly with life safety improvements. Cornice on the old building will be removed and replaced to tie in with the addition, planter$ have been added on the old building similar to those on the new. Traffic and parking will be reduced since smaller meeting rooms sill serve only hotel guests; almost 50% of the rear area by the Bay will be landscaped; Ramada has renewed agreement for funding improvements to Easton Creek; and have expanded the area which will take heavy equipment loading along the creek. Feel the new design is a substantial improvement, will be visually attractive and a benefit to Burlingame. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: impressed with the redesign, not happy with the apparent width but with this irregular lot feel design is the best possible, in favor of the project; commend you on this redesign, reluctant to approve the width and height but it is a vast improvement over the previous design; exceptional circumstances for the variance could Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 be an existing building constructed prior to the Design Guidelines; pleased with the action taken on the tower, with the landscaping and the reduction of meeting room area; wonderful job in revamping the building, it will not take anything away from the bay. Seating capacity of the restaurant and meeting rooms was discussed. George Gervin, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey, landscape architects, discussed the species and size of plants selected indicating 15 gallon trees were selected because they are more adaptable than larger trees. Fire Marshal advised Fire Department has no problems with access as it is proposed, there is complete access around all the buildings. One further Commission comment: I like it. C. Taylor moved that the two special permits be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of December 1, 1983 and the Director of Parks' memo of November 18, 1983 be met; 2. that Ramada Inns, Inc. or any future operator on the site maintain the required landscaping including that landscaping within the BCDC jurisdiction; 3. that all landscaping in the front setback and within the parking area of the front and sides of the building be completed before occupancy of the new structure, and that a cash bond equal to the cost of the installation of the landscaping be posted at the time the occupancy permit is issued to ensure landscaping within the parking areas and at the rear of the building be installed within four months of occupancy of the tower; 4. that the project be developed consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped December 6, 1983 including the general notes on page A-0.0; 5. that the project receive all necessary permits from regulatory agencies including BCDC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and that the time limit on the city's planning approval will not commence until a BCDC permit is issued; 6. that the applicant will provide 117 on-site parking spaces for hotel guests and employees during the construction of the new building and 171 parking spaces on site during construction of the public access ways, swimming pool and creek bank improvements; 7. that construction worker parking will be provided according to a plan approved by the city Public Works Department, off-site off-street parking will be provided for construction workers if they cannot be accommodated within the construction area on the site, and that it be stipulated that the allocated areas on the construction site or off-site be used by workers as a condition of each construction contract; 8. that the service area be screened with landscaping from public view along the pedestrian access on the south property line; 9. that on-site pretreatment be provided for all wastewater from areas where food is prepared in all buildings; 10. that the project will be developed within the following frame: Month from BCDC Approval Item Completed 6 Submit drawings for building permit Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Month from BCDC Approval 8 12 18 28 Page 9 December 12, 1983 Item Completed Pick up building permit/begin foundations Final foundation inspection Final framing inspection Complete construction/occupancy permit 11. that on-site security will include patrol of the public access area as well as the building; 12. that ground response spectra for the site as identified in the geotechnical report shall be incorporated and the final tower design shall reduce potential seismically induced ground shaking effects to meet the City Engineer's requirement; 13. that new high energy efficiency equipment shall be used for both existing and proposed buildings including variable air volume HVAC systems with economizer cycles, automatic temperature control system, installation of distribution piping systems, use of high engergy light sources wherever possible, controlling lighting with a local manual switch; 14. that no room in the hotel be rented to a person or business for a period exceeding 29 days; Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. CP advised signage proposals will come to Commission as a separate item. Ramp to the garage area was questioned, architect advised it is a two way ramp. Comment: exiting from garage is poor with sharp left turns to get out, this could be improved, landscape median should be adjusted to help exiting. C. Taylor found the applicant's attorney had described conditions applicable to this property to establish there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances so that denial would result in undue property loss; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner; that it would not be detrimentalto the public health, safety or welfare and it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. The landscaping, in fact, would be a benefit to the community as well as the project. C. Taylor then moved for approval of the parking variance with the same 14 conditions as listed above and with an added condition: (15) that, at the city's request, Ramada Inns or any future operator of the site will remove the landscaping in the parking areas for which the parking variance was granted as shown on page C-1.1 of the plans, and in- stall TO parking sapces to the standards shown on the plans. Motion was seconded by C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3-83 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN - ADELINE DRIVE - EL CAMINO REAL VICINITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4-83 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING NORTHWEST CORNER OF ADELINE DRIVE AND EL CAMINO REAL CP referred to Planning Commission action at its November 28, 1983 meeting rejecting a request for General Plan amendment and rezoning of lands at 1508 Adeline Drive and 1501 El Camino Real. Commission was requested to take action on these resolutions Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 recommending denial to the City Council. C. Taylor moved for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-83; second C. Leahy. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. C. Taylor moved for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4-83; second C. Cistulli. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Staff will forward to Council. ITEMS FOR STUDY 12. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY LYNAE FOLKS It was determined the three dimensional bow is still a part of the application. Item set for hearing January 9, 1984. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SAVINGS AND LOAN OFFICE AT 1174 BROADWAY, BY PORTOLA VALLEY SAVING AND LOAN 14. VARIANCE FOR THE ABOVE WHICH -DOES NOT COMPLY WITH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Requests: clarification of the proposed parking and of the access rights to that area. Item set for hearing January 9, 1984. 15. AMENDMENT OF 11/9/81 SIGN EXCEPTION TO RELOCATE A WALL SIGN AT 777 AIRPORT BLVD., BY JAMES FLATHMANN, ARCHITECT FOR DAYS INNS OF AMERICA, INC. Item set for hearing January 9, 1984. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE OF PROPERTY AT 333 LORTON AVENUE, BY JOHN KOWALSKI 17. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 333 LORTON AVE., IN SUB -AREA B OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Requests: provide the applicant with a copy of Code Sec. 25.54 listing findings necessary for variance approval and request a letter from him addressing these legal findings; clarify turning radius at rear of the parking lot and safety of the side entrance on the driveway into the laundromat; request applicant provide an explanation of his statement that the unit is being built for "security reasons". Item set for hearing on January 9, 1984. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its December 5, 1983 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary