Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1983.02.14CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, February 14, 1983 at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Mink Absent: Commissioner Giomi (ill and excused) Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the January 24, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted with the following correction: change third sentence under Item #3, page 3 to read, "As a result of this discussion an amendment was made to the permit to allow ." AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES AT BURLINGAME SEWER TREATMENT PLANT, AIRPORT BOULEVARD Reference staff report dated 2/8/83 with attached negative declaration amendment posted January 13, 1983. CP Monroe discussed the previous proposal for improvements and the Regional Water Quality Control Board's request that the city install both the third and fourth set of aeration basin and clarifier at this time. A Supplement to the Environmental Assessment, dated January, 1983, had been prepared by the consultant, George S. Nolte and Associates and circulated in the packet. Ms. Kim Erickson, representing this firm, was present. CP also noted comments received from the State Office of Historic Preservation which could be addressed by adding a mitigation stating that if any material of historic or archeological significance is found when excavating, the project will be stopped until it is analyzed and appropriate procedures for further work determined. The Chair requested this mitigation be added to the mitigations in the amended negative declaration before transmittal to Council. He then opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was declared closed. C. Graham moved that Commission find the concerns of the public have been addressed in the amended negative declaration and recommend Amended Negative Declaration, ND -324P, to the City Council for action. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TWO STORY ADDITION WHICH EXCEEDS MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE TO THE HOME AT 701 BAYSWATER AVENUE. BY NICOLAS LAPCHUK CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow an 1,120 SF addition including garage, bedroom and second floor deck to this single family home. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 14, 1983 Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/19/83; aerial photograph; applicant's justification for variance dated January 17, 1983; plans date stamped January 18, 1983; ''January 28, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; "no comments/no requirements" memos from the City Engineer (1/31/83) and Fire Marshal (1/25/83); letters/phone call in support of the application from Lloyd C. Fleming, 712 Bayswater Avenue; Maria Loebel, 716 Bayswater Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. G. Umili, 708 Bayswater Avenue and Charles S. and Marguerite Worsley, 17 Bloomfield Road. CP discussed details of the proposal, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, physical characteristics of this property. One condition was suggested as listed in the staff report. The applicant, Nicolas Lapchuk, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: request included the addition of a third bedroom; clarification of lot coverage measurements, the addition would exceed the maximum permitted by approximately one percent; dimensions of the parking provided; complete, detailed plans will be required for the building permit. C. Graham found there were exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in that this two bedroom home was below the standard size for a 5,000 SF lot; that the proposed changes will make the house compatible to other homes in the neighborhood, that is, three bedrooms and a two car garage; that a one percent increase over permitted lot coverage was negligible; that the proposal was necessary for the preservation of the applicant's property rights in order to allow him more enjoyment of his home; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare since it would still be a standard R-1 home with improvements; and that it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. The Chair added findings: that it was the policy of the city to make every attempt to upgrade existing housing and this proposal is a very real attempt to do this; and that favorable comments received from close neighbors support the finding this addition would not affect their enjoyment of their property. C. Graham moved to grant this variance with the following condition: (1) that the addition be built according to the plans submitted and date stamped January 18, 1983. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX FOOT FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AREA AT 143 DWIGHT ROAD, BY JOHN E. BARNES CP Monroe reviewed this application. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/17/83; applicant's reasons for this request received January 17, 1983; January 28, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; January 20, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; February 1, 1983 memo from the City Engineer; October 26, 1981 Planning Commission minutes covering a fence exception application at 500 Howard Avenue; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped January 17, 1983. CP discussed code requirements; applicant's reasons for his request; Planning staff review; details of the proposal and site factors affecting the request. John Barnes, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. The Chair cited exceptional circumstances: house is situated on the lot so that useable outdoor area faces on Howard Avenue; there is no typical backyard because of the placement of the house; applicant has made every attempt to protect visual impacts and hazards to pedestrians. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1983 Discussion: location of the fence, visual impact on automobiles and pedestrians, fence has been designed to meet the height requirements for a corner lot, location of the gates, materials proposed for gates and .fence, lattice work proposed for the top foot of the fence will not give privacy asked for by the applicant, the extra foot was requested to match existing fence on neighbor's property. Commission could not find exceptional circumstances for this 6' fence and there was a feeling expressed that a 6' fence on Howard was too high and might set a precedent. C. Leahy stated he could find no exceptional circumstances in this property and moved to deny this fence exception. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny passed on a 5-1 roll call vote, Chm. Mink dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. FENCE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX FOOT FENCE ON EL CAMINO REAL, BY THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, 1443 HOWARD AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed this application to allow replacement of a 5' fence with a 6' fence along the El Camino Real frontage of 1443 Howard Avenue. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/19/83; aerial photograph; plans date stamped January 19, 1983; letter dated January 12, 1983 from Richard E. Bruner, Minister of Education, Administrator U.M.C. of Burlingame Co -Op Nursery, supporting the application; January 31, 1983 memo from the City Engineer; January 20, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; January 28, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; photographs of the site received January 19, 1983; Planning Commission minutes of May 24, 1982 covering a fence exception application for 119 E1 Camino Real, two properties south of the church. CP discussed details of the proposed fence which would enclose a playground area; code requirements; staff review and comments; applicant's concerns and reasons for this request; and Planning staff comments. If approved,one condition was suggested as listed in the staff report. DeWayne Moore, representing the church, was present and commented that due to the grade differential the height of the present fence is only 4' on the inside which would allow older children to climb over. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: exception needed because the fence is within 20' of a driveway on E1 Camino Real; is this considered a private fence or a school type playground fence which normally would be higher; one Commissioner stated his difficulty in finding exceptional circumstances if this were considered a private fence. It was noted the nursery school came before the Commission for a permit and is designated as a school as far as the city is concerned. Mr. Moore confirmed it is a licensed day care center. There was an objection expressed to a solid board fence; Mr. Moore stated that the church felt the board fence would be safer and more aesthetic along E1 Camino. He also commented on the large eucalyptus trees in the parking strip which have the major visual impact on cars driving by, only pedestrians would notice the fence. C. Schwalm found there were exceptional circumstances, that the children needed protection and security; that there would be no public hazard; and that neighboring properties would not be materially damaged. C. Schwalm then moved to grant this fence exception with the following condition: (1) that the fence be built at the location and to the specifi- cations and with the materials as specified in the submitted plans date stamped January 19, 1983. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 14, 1983 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CLASSES IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 810 BURLWAY ROAD, BY JIM BERGREN FOR IDENTIGUARD SYSTEMS CP Monroe reviewed this application which had been referred back from the City Council after the applicant withdrew his previous request to allow retail sales. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; City Planner's letter to the applicant dated January 20, 1983; City Council minutes of January 17, 1983; City Planner's staff report to City Council for its 1/17/83 meeting; appeal letter from Mr. Bergren dated December 28, 1982; December 13, 1982 Planning Commission minutes denying the previous application; and Planning Commission staff report (12/13/82, Item #7) with attachments. CP advised the applicant's sales seminars will now be held off -premise, he is requesting use of the classroom area for company meetings only; sales from the site would be an occasional walk-in customer, less than 5% of the business gross each year. CP noted staff comments and concern about availability of parking. If approved, seven conditions were suggested by staff. Jim Bergren, the applicant, was present and confirmed he had withdrawn his request for sales activity on this site, and would like to use the facility for training company people. He did not believe there would be a parking impact since training programs would be scheduled in the evening. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: suggested permit review time had been changed by the CP to nine months rather than six months as recommended in the December 13 staff report; the maximum occupancy figure of 25 is that allowed by the Fire Department; applicant confirmed his agreement with the conditions in the staff report. C. Schwalm moved that this special permit be granted subject to the following conditions: (1) that daytime seminars on the site be limited to business meetings of company employees; (2) that employee training or employee sales seminars in the evenings be limited to the total number of employees of the business, not to exceed 25, Monday through Friday, 7:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.; (3) that no employee meetings on this site would be publicly advertised; (4) that no installation of alarms occur on this site; (5) that five (5) parking spaces be identified specifically for the use of this business; (6) that this permit be reviewed in nine months time; and (7) that the operation of this business comply with Mr. Bergren's letter of December 28, 1982. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A SECURITY GATE TO REMAIN WHICH ENCLOSES THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AREA AT 733 FAIRFIELD ROAD, BY ZEV BEN-SIMON FOR TALDAN INVESTMENT CO. CP Monroe reviewed this request for amendment of the April, 1980 condominium permit to allow the gate at its present location and to allow one substandard parking space created by the installation of this gate. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/4/83; City Attorney's December 30, 1982 letter to Gilco Construction Company re: security gate - 733 Fairfield Road; Zev Ben -Simon, Gilco Construction Company's letter of January 3, 1983 to the City Planner; Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 17, 1983; "no requirements" memo from the Fire Marshal (January 6, 1983); City Engineer's memo of January 24, 1983; Planning Commission study meeting minutes of January 24, 1983; City Engineer's January 31, 1983 memo; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped January 4, 1983. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1983 CP discussed the April, 1980 approved condominium permit; the final subdivision map which shows half the required spaces outside the gate, the other half and storage area inside the gate; recent installation of a gate which encloses all the required off-street parking; the impact of this gate on the size of one parking space; applicant's reasons for his request; answers to study meeting questions; CE's suggestions regarding the gate. One condition for consideration was suggested in the staff report with regard to providing an unobstructed 9' width for the parking space immediately adjacent to the gate. Zev Ben -Simon, the applicant, was present. He advised that the previous gate was installed and in place until a series of vandalism incidents caused it to be moved, and that the substandard parking space could be easily used by a compact car. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: the grade on the driveway into the garage is approximately 15%; there are three on -street parking spaces in front of this building and 30+ on -street spaces in the area, most in the adjacent R-1 zone. Applicant commented on the incidents of vandalism which occurred after occupancy of the building when open off-street guest parking was available including ripping out overhead lights, theft from cars and gathering of children in the daytime; and that the current gate is operated from residents' cars. Further Commission discussion: service companies are provided a key to gain entrance; most incidents of vandalism occur at night; the difficulty of moving the gate to an alternate position between parking spaces 5 and 6 because of the overhead sewer plumbing. Commissioners could not find exceptional circumstances with regard to the gate as installed: there is visibility into this garage; the three on -street spaces available are not enough for guest parking; suggest post sign indicating guest parking inside; this street is badly congested with parking now; concern that installation without city permits had occurred twice recently; suggest the developer return with a new plan to provide more accessible guest parking. C. Graham moved to deny this amendment to the condominium permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny passed on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO RENTALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING AUTO LEASING USE AT 1409 ROLLINS ROAD, BY E. E. BOOTH FOR MC CULLAGH LEASING, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this application for an amendment to the December, 1970 use permit. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/19/83; applicant's project description received January 19, 1983; Rent-A-Car Questionnaire dated 12/29/80; site drawings received January 19, 1983; aerial photograph; January 24, 1983 letter from T. L. Unternahrer, Operations Manager, McCullagh Leasing, Inc.; January 6, 1971 letter of action from the City Clerk for operation of a new truck and car leasing facility at 1409 Rollins Road; December 28, 1970 Planning Commission minutes covering this approval; 1/28/83 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; 1/27/83 memo from the Fire Marshal; February 1, 1983 memo from the City Engineer. CP discussed details of this proposal; staff review and comments; applicant's project description; Planning staff concerns about maintenance of landscaping and protection of the available on -street parking. If approved, three conditions were suggested in the staff report. E. E. Booth, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1983 Discussion: use permit goes with the site, not with the operator; is car rental an appropriate use in this district? The applicant was commended on his present leasing operation; concern was expressed about another car rental agency taking over use of this property in the future and in that context was car rental an appropriate use in M-1. Applicant explained his long term leasing business and plans for short term rental, 10-30 day periods; in short term rental, maintenance and insurance are provided by the rental agency. Mr. Booth further advised they do not re -lease their automobiles, but usually sell them; that they would like additional signage to identify the new company activity but that would be a separate application; that they had approximately 1,000 units per year under lease, rentals would be a maximum of 30 vehicles per day and incidental to their general operation. A fourth condition of approval was suggested regarding maintenance and washing of cars on-site. It was pointed out that the original permit covered concerns about maintenance of landscaping. C. Graham moved to approve this special permit amendment to allow auto rentals in conjunction with auto leasing with the following conditions: (1) that the car rental fleet operated from this site be limited to a maximum of 30 vehicles and operated between the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday; (2) that no off- loading or on -loading of vehicles from trucks take place on the street or public right- of-way; (3) that no parking of leased or rental vehicles be allowed on -street at any time; and (4) that there be no maintenance or washing of vehicles on the site until the drainage facilities meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF TWO SIGNS WHICH WILL EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE AND NUMBER OF PERMITTED SIGNS AT 101 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY ROBERT KNEZEVICH FOR BURLINGAME FORD CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; Sign Permit application filed 1/13/83; photographs, California Drive frontage; table indicating California Drive frontage existing signs and proposed sign; photographs and table for the Bayswater Avenue frontage signs; "no comments/requirements" memos from the City Engineer (1/17/83) and Fire Marshal (1/17/83); memo from the Chief Building Inspector (1/28/83); Sign Exception application filed 1/13/83; applicant's plans received with the application; aerial photograph; table comparing existing signage of Auto Row (California Drive) and Rollins Road auto uses to city code standards. CP discussed details of this sign exception request and existing signage; code requirements; applicant's justification; table comparing existing signage to code standards. Three conditions were suggested in the staff report for Commission consideration. Robert Knezevich, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: Sign C on the California Drive frontage; if the application were approved it would in essence approve a total signage program on this property. C. Schwalm found that this was not an unreasonable request nor a grant of special privilege in that the applicant is taking on a new dealership to sell Peugeot automobiles and needs this identification. C. Schwalm then moved to approve the Sign Exception. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Mink dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:12 P.M.; reconvene 9:22 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 14, 1983 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES, TO CONSTRUCT A 360 ROOM HOTEL AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, BY BLUNK ASSOCIATES FOR GRANADA ROYALE HOMETELS (APPLICANT) WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for construction of a 360 room hotel, a 9,000 SF free-standing restaurant and a shop area to serve the public access, fishing pier and 3.9 acre park area located in the Anza area of Burlingame. Reference staff report dated 2/8/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/5/82; sheet comparing the Design Guidelines with the project proposal; Exhibit A, Anza Public Access Plan; Exhibit B, Burlingame State Lands Master Plan; December 6, 1982 minutes of BCDC Design Review Board meeting; February 1, 1983 letter from James F. Trout, Assistant Executive Officer, State Lands Commission; Burlingame City Council Resolution No. 1-83 certifying Final EIR-57P for the proposed Granada Royale Hometel with Exhibit A attached listing significant effects, mitigations and findings; January 13, 1982 letter from Stephen B. Oveson, President, Hometels Management Company, Inc.; staff comments as follows: Chief Building Inspector (memo January 3, 1983), Fire Marshal (memo January 5, 1983) and City Engineer (memo January 5, 1983); Design Guidelines Annotated for the Granada Royale Hometel project and dated 2/4/83; February 1, 1983 letter from Paul G. Salisbury, AIA, Blunk Associates, Inc.; 1/20/83 memo from the Fire Marshal; view of site from Bay; Anza Area Development, height of completed and approved projects; January 10, 1983 letter from Thomas J. Clausen, TJKM, Transportation Consultants; Granada Royale Hometel Visual Analysis/Certified EIR date stamped January 20, 1983 and Visual Analysis/Revised Project date stamped January 20, 1983; Table I, Suite and Building Area Statistics, revised January 18, 1983; Granada Royale Hometel, Service Area Screening Plan; January 19, 1983 Planning Commission special study session minutes; and plans date stamped January 14, 1983. CP discussed details of the proposal and its design with all rooms opening onto a central atrium and a bell tower extending 40' above the top of parapet on the front of the building, making the total height 137'. She further discussed the height of the proposed free-standing restaurant (36') and the covered arcade (-17') connecting the two structures; review by BCDC's Design Review Board; comments from the State Lands Commission, the underlying property owner; Council certification of the Final EIR; the Hometel concept in which each room is a suite with sleeping area, sitting room and fully equipped kitchen; staff concerns and applicant's comments concerning the potential for more residential uses in this area; staff review and comments; Planning staff comments addressing the relationship of this project to the Special Area Plan and Design Guidelines including height, setback from street, view corridors and visual access to the shoreline, setbacks from shorelines in BCDC jurisdiction, landscaping, and parking requirements for mixed uses. CP also noted Commission study session concerns which were addressed in the staff report. Eighteen conditions for consideration were listed in the staff report and an amendment suggested to Condition #1 as well as a change to Condition #6. Discussion: applicant's submittal for a 38' roadway, preferring to put the additional 10' roadway width into landscaping; traffic consultant's study which showed 38' was the maximum width needed for peak hour requirements. Paul Salisbury, Blunk Associates, architect representing the applicant, introduced Carl Wahlquist of Hometels Development Corporation. Mr. Salisbury gave a brief presentation using a rendering of the project site as viewed from the lagoon and a modified site plan including modifications recommended by BCDC and screening of the loading dock. He commented on the 38' roadway request which it was felt would enhance the space between the two buildings and advised they planned to prohibit parking along the road. He said the change in the rear parking Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1983 lot would improve screening of the service area and increase landscaping within the parking area; 40% of the site is now landscaped. He discussed the parking variance indicating their willingness if necessary to provide more parking, the fact that they are exceeding the Design Guidelines and their efforts to minimize bulk, optimize views by clustering and provide amenities for the public. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no immediate comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition: Eric Cox (2720 Arguello Drive), vice president, Raiser Architectural Group, San Mateo and Harvey Chapman, Raiser Development Company, San Mateo. Both were familiar with Anza area development and thought hotel useage appropriate for this site but not this project. Mr. Cox discussed in detail three concerns: code questions, project concept and compatibility of design. He objected to the bulk and spoke in favor of requiring a 48' wide street as well as more parking than proposed. He asked, will this unique concept be compatible with local standards for the area? Mr. Chapman seconded Mr. Cox's remarks. He noted that presently this area is first rate with compatible development and view corridors being maintained. He expressed his concern about the impact of a structural design 500' wide by 137' high. Speaking in rebuttal and in favor of the project, David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, advised that at the time SeaBreeze was built the road was considered a private driveway. Apparent width and setbacks for SeaBreeze were not measured from Anza Boulevard at that time but from Airport Boulevard. He stated there was no formal agreement to build the other half of the roadway. When SeaBreeze received the easement they were requested not to build to city specifications; however, they decided to build half as a city street. He felt an airport oriented hotel does not require the amount of parking stipulated by the code; spoke in favor of the atrium design and Spanish architectural style and noted this project would serve Burlingame's needs, produce more income and, with the single exception of the 137' height, it meets the guidelines of the city. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commission discussion: two Commissioners immediately spoke in favor of granting the two special permits and the variance; they liked the Spanish architectural style and the unique design. It was pointed out that the special study meeting had been most effective in bringing out the issues. The Chair determined from the City Planner the veracity of David Keyston's statement regarding measurement of apparent width and setbacks for the SeaBreeze building. CP clarified the public/private status of Anza Boulevard. CA advised the bell tower would not be considered a sign. Mr. Wahlquist added the tower is not a logo of his company but an architectural feature used on most of their hotels, designed to fit the style of each. C. Graham found that the guidelines were set to review projects but not necessarily to limit height; that this is an area in which, in some instances, height is what the city is looking for; and that architectural compatibility would be enhanced by varying heights. C. Graham then moved to grant this special permit to exceed the maximum height limit with the following conditions: 1. that the final plans and construction of the project be consistent with the plans date stamped January 14, 1983 and amended for screening of the loading dock on February 4, 1983, and that no occupied area of any structure be below elevation 9'; 2. that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 3, 1983, the Fire Marshal's memo of January 5, 1983 and the City Engineer's memo of January 5, 1983 be met; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 14, 1983 3. that the applicant abide by a 30 months construction schedule to begin with BCDC approval; benchmark dates running consecutively from the date of BCDC approval would be as follows: six months to submit final plans, five months to pick up final plans and purchase building permit, two months to start foundation, four months to foundation inspection, six months to framing inspection and seven months to occupancy permit; 4. that a private security patrol be provided to regularly patrol the park area, public access area and buildings; 5. that a study be prepared to determine fire flow capacity of water main(s) and identify necessary improvements, make improvements including installation of fire hydrants and provide adequate emergency access built to the Fire Department's standards; 6. that the secondary sewer treatment facility improvements are completed before this project is connected and that this project contribute its proportional share of the one time cost to make the required sewer facility improvements; 7. that sewage pretreatment facilities for all areas where food is prepared are provided on site and facilities should meet the standards of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 8. that the developer would develop a seismic ground response spectra and incorporate its conclusions into the final design, surcharge fill areas to be used for parking and roadways to reduce settlement, and stabilize expansive areas under roadways and parking; 9. provide a storm water collection and pumping system to serve the project including oil separating traps at all drains and driveways and in parking areas and at collection points before drainage pumps; provide regular maintenance of all grease traps on a predetermined schedule established by the city; 10. that during construction measures will be followed to protect adjacent bodies of water from siltation; landscaped areas will be designed to prevent runoff water from entering the Anza Lagoon; hardy plants will be used which require a minimum of fertilization and pest and weed control; 11. develop final landscape plans which meet BCDC and the State Lands Commission's requirement for public access including public access walkways, a public fishing pier built on cement piles and a ±4 acre park, final plans of all facilities to be approved by the Burlingame Park Department and built, improved and maintained by the developer. 12. that the project include low flow water fixtures, drought resistant plants in landscaping; 13. that the project contribute its share to one time costs for expanding water mains; 14. that pile drivers be provided with noise shields and pile driving be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturdays; surround construction site with a fence which would attenuate ground level noise by 5 dBA, and select building materials which would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 14, 1983 15. receipt of all permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC, FAA, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; 16. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single person for more than 29 days and the rooms and buildings shall not be used for permanent residential purposes; 17.. that Anza Boulevard be improved to standards established by the City Engineer including concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, a bus pull -off area and driveway and intersection improvements as suggested by the TJKM letter of January 10, 1983; and 18. that one-half the Bayfront Development fee be paid at the time of final plan submittal with the other half paid at the time of final framing inspection. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. C. Graham found the unique configuration of this property made it necessary that certain guidelines not be met in order to design a better project. C. Graham then moved to approve the special permit to exceed the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development with the foregoing 18 conditions. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. C. Graham found exceptional circumstances in this mixed use of a free-standing restaurant on a site with a hotel which is airport oriented, that people will be arriving by public transit, that this variance is within the city's guidelines for hotel and restaurant combination uses; that it is a unique property since a substantial portion is within the jurisdiction of BCDC, and heavily regulated by several State agencies as well as the city, so that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner in developing the site; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare since the proposed parking would be sufficient for the uses and not spill over to adjacent sites; and that granting of this variance would not affect the comprehensive zoning of the city since it meets the city's Specific Area Plan for this area. C. Graham then moved to approve the variance from required number of off-street parking spaces with the foregoing 18 conditions. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR STUDY 10. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1205 BROADWAY Requests: need more explicit justification by the applicant; minutes of meetings at which similar applications for graphics were considered. Item set for hearing February 28, 1983. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO - 212 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Pointed out need for a condition addressing future film development and enlarging on site. Item set for hearing February 28, 1983. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF WAREHOUSE SPACE TO OFFICE SPACE - 840 MAHLER ROAD Requests: would prefer more landscaping; sprinkling requirements; handicapped access. Item set for hearing February 28, 1983. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1983 CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed actions at the City Council meeting of February 7, 1983. DISCUSSION OF REGULATION ALTERNATIVES FOR GROCERY AND DRUG USES IN THE C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 24, 1983) CP reviewed her memo dated 1/19/83 detailing two types of possible approaches: regulations to address general problems and regulations for grocery, drug and sundry uses specifically. Commission discussion: hour of operation after which a special permit should be required; establishment of minimum requirements beyond which a special permit would be required; required conditions which, if not met, would put the operator on notice that these would be reasons for revocation. Commission consensus was to draft an ordinance using the specific approach. A further specific was suggested: increase in off-street parking when adjacent to residential area. The Chair also requested comment from the Police Department. An.1ni 1RNMFNT The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette Giomi Secretary