Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.01.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, January 23, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman (arrived 11:00 P.M.) ,MINUTES - The minutes of the January 9, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - Items #7 and #8 withdrawn from the agenda by the applicants. Item #6 to be heard as Item 2(A) to accommodate the applicant. Revised agenda approved unanimously. ;PUBLIC FORUM 1. PUBLIC FORUM TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED 800 ROOM HYATT REGENCY HOTEL PROJECT AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CP Monroe discussed the public forum procedure which allows public input in the initial stages of environmental impact report (_EIR) preparation. The public and Planning Commissioners were encouraged to identify environmental issues of concern. CP briefly described the proposed project. Reference staff report dated 1/13/84 with attached Initial Study dated November 16, 1983. Chm. Graham opened the public forum. Mark Hornberger, architect and Michael Rice, consultant preparing the EIR were present. There were no audience comments. Commission comments/concerns: will on-ramp roadway improvements in the area be completed prior to completion of hotel construction; include detailed analysis of transportation impact, impact on fire protection; concern about localized flooding on the site, would like full study of the creek, bring levees to current standard heights and avoid future flooding; address landscaping along the creek edge; discuss soil capability; include statement from the Airline Pilots Association; clarify construction time frame, BCDC jurisdiction, on-ramp to 101 and how it will affect traffic impact; address soils and effect on performance of large, higher structures in the area, are they more hazardous when higher; discuss flood waters, Initial Study items 3c, f and g; discuss a possible satellite antenna addressing placement, screening, visibility to surrounding neighbors. There were no further Commission comments and the public forum was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ITEMS FOR ACTION Page 2 January 23, 1984 2. AMENDMENT OF USE PERMIT FOR CLASSROOM USE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 875 MAHLER ROAD, BY INSURANCE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED CP Monroe reviewed this request to amend the use permit granted by Commission on December 12, 1983 and eliminate the requirement for six designated parking spaces. Reference staff report dated 1/18/84; December 12, 1983 Planning Commission minutes; Carol A. Scaparro, Insurance Systems Inc. letter (December 26, 1983) to the Planning Commission; December 13, 1983 letter to Carol Scaparro from the Management/Leasing Office of The Crown Building (875 Mahler Road); Monroe letter to Scaparro dated January 6, 1984; November 1, 1983 and December 12, 1983 letters to City of Burlingame from Management of The Crown Building; and December 12, 1983 staff report with attachments. CP discussed Commission's requirement for six designated parking spaces, the unwillingness of The Crown Building's management to designate spaces; applicant's request to amend the permit; CE's comments on parking; property owner's statements in a phone call supporting the amendment request (there is adequate on-site parking, applicant does not occupy site full time, no classes occur at night or on weekends). Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Carol Scaparro, Insurance Systems. Incorporated, commented on the availability of parking on the site and the property owner's feeling that designated parking would cause problems. CP advised applicant had appealed Planning Commission action to the Council, CA had determined it would be more appropriate for Commission to consider her request since it was not information considered in the original action. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: CE's recent site inspection, he felt there would be adequate ,parking with the number and hours of classes as stipulated in the permit; in a site inspection today one Commissioner felt the parking was impacted; a recent Council reversal of a Commission denial on a courier service was noted which indicated that Council concern for use impacts particularly parking in the M-1 district may not be the same as the Commission's; staff indicated parking code requirements are exceeded on the site. C. Taylor moved to amend this special permit and eliminate the requirement for six designated parking spaces for this use. Second C. Cistulli. Comment on the motion: since owner is reluctant to designate spaces, how can Commission regulate overleasing of this property; would like statement in writing from the property owner elucidating ,his remarks about available parking. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal ,procedures were advised. 2(A)(6). SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 826 COWAN ROAD (BUILDING B), BY STANLEY PLOG CP Monroe reviewed this request for a car rental operation. Reference staff report dated 1/16/84; January 9, 1984 study meeting minutes; Towber memo, telephone conversation with applicant, January 11, 1984; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/14/83; Rent-A-Car Questionnaire date stamped 12/14/83; staff review: City Engineer (12/23/83), Chief Building Inspector (12/30/83), Fire Department (12/9/83 and 1/4/84); December 13, 1983 letter from Stanley C. Plog, applicant; property owner's consent to application dated 12/9/83; aerial photograph; Burlingame Rent-A-Car Agencies map dated 11/22/83; Towber report of 1/16/84 telephone conversation with the applicant; January 13, 1984 ,letter from the applicant; and plans date stamped December 14, 1983. CP discussed 'details of the request, staff review, applicant's comments on the proposed operation, Planning staff concerns. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1984 Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Stanley Plog, applicant, was present. He discussed his business which has operated for two years at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Showcase Rental Cars provides exciting, select import vehicles with a high level of service and a lot of personal service to customers. He distributed graphs and advertising material, commented on Showcase's position in the marketplace, its desire to expand to the San Francisco Bay Area, the need to be close to the airport; that his tenure on this site is temporary, he has an 18 month lease with no option; will meet all staff conditions; security lights and security alarm system will be installed; projected volume is not great, customer base is long haul arriving primarily 6:30 - 9:30 P.M. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: need for special oil and grease traps; discrepancy between 18 month lease and two year expiration date in the suggested conditions; applicant advised they have lease agreements with all companies who supply the rental cars, the cars are taken back by these companies; would want any sales tax to go to City of Burlingame. C. Taylor moved for approval of this special permit subject to the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo (December 23, 1983) and the Chief ,Building Inspector's memo (December 30, 1983) be met; (2) that the business be operated as defined in the Rent-A-Car Questionnaire and limited to the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 11:30 P.M. seven days a week with no more than eight employees on site weekdays and five employees on weekends; (3) that the minimum of five easily accessible on-site parking spaces be permanently designated and reserved for employee parking; (4) that should development occur on the site adjacent to the existing 20 foot concrete driveway the four storage parking spaces will be eliminated and the fleet reduced by four cars; (5) that this use permit will be reviewed for compliance with the conditions in nine ,months time (October 1984); and (6) that this permit shall not be issued until ,Conditions 1-3 are met and the permit shall expire in 18 months from date of issuance. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:30; reconvene 8:35 P.M. 3. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND FAIRFIELD ROAD (740 EL CAMINO REAL), BY HELEN SOM FOR WING MOY A. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM TURNING AISLE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT CP Monroe reviewed this application for a four unit residential condominium. Reference staff report for Items 3 and 4; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/14/83; Negative Declaration ND -349P posted January 5, 1984; Engineering Department notification of new address for this site; staff review: Fire Marshal (12/19/83), Chief Building Inspector (12/16/83), City Engineer (12/20/83); December 28, 1983 note from Helen Som with attached drawing indicating curb cut has been moved and giving parking maneuver clarification; January 4, 1984 letter to Commission from Wing L. Moy; January 9, 1984 study meeting minutes; staff report (5/10/82) addressing a previous submittal for this site with attachments; July 12, 1982 Planning Commission minutes; August 2, 1982 City Council appeal hearing minutes; parking maneuver clarification drawing date stamped January 13, 1984; partial site plan, June 1982 plans; aerial photograph; and plans jdate stamped December 14, 1983. CP discussed details of the proposal, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting request, previous application for the site, the issue of sub- standard backup aisles. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1984 iChm. Graham opened the public hearing. Amy Chung, attorney for the applicant/property ,owners, addressed Commission: difficulty in dealing with this odd shaped lot, lot ',coverage only 32-34%, has been vacant for a number of years, developing this R-3 site (with moderately priced single family housing will be a benefit to the city, neighbors have been opposed to anything on this vacant site, anything on the lot will block some ,of the view of the church, but the front of the church, its most beautiful part, will not be blocked. Ms. Chung discussed offer received from the church to purchase the property, an offer the property owners could not accept in view of their large investment in the project; she presented papers to support the owners' refusal. She also discussed ,the variance to the 24' aisle width requirement for units B and C; noted CE's comments; negative declaration supports the project; to meet the 24' aisle requirement the design ,would have to be cut down which would result in a much less attractive development and (poor use of the space. iWith the aid of a site drawing, Helen Som, architect, pointed out lot coverage with sand without a 24' aisle width and demonstrated automobile maneuvers entering the two ,garages in question, exiting would be no problem, auto maneuvers could be accomplished ,without going over the sidewalk. She showed an artist's rendering of the proposed ,project, project is residential in scale, would be an asset to the neighborhood. ;Dennis Chuang, 1534 Plaza Lane, Burlingame, applicants' real estate agent, discussed ,offer received from the church for the project site which was a low and unacceptable (price per square foot. Chm. Graham welcomed Councilmembers Barton and Pagliaro who were in the audience. !Michael Nilmeyer, 1415 Palm Drive, spoke in favor of the project: think architect has done an admirable job given this difficult site, most neighborhoods regret seeing a vacant piece of property developed, have seen other projects in which developers asked for many more variances, don't think this applicant is asking for a great deal; realize the church members oppose the project but consider the small number of hours per week ,a member spends on the church site. There were no further comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition: Rev. Stefan Pavlenko, 1136 Palm Drive (presented petition in opposition signed by 142 members of the Church of All Russian Saints, 744 El Camino Real); Diva Coulter, 844 Fairfield Road (presented a petition in opposition signed by 95 neighbors); Vera Harris, 1628 Monte Corvino Way; Jack Edwards, 1429 Palm Drive; Gene Satrap, 744 E1 Camino Real; Christo Daskalakis, 836 Fairfield Road. Concerns ,expressed: safety hazard, especially for the elderly, children and students of the nearby school; traffic/parking congestion; object to the large size of the condominiums; object to any variance whatsoever; there is no hardship in constructing a building which conforms to code; configuration of the lot existed before the developers bought it and developer was aware of code requirements prior to purchase; if guests are parked ,on turnaround pad, how will the occupants go out; doubt occupants will back in, will ,encourage cars being left on the driveway or on the street. In rebuttal Helen Som discussed the several submittals for a project on this site and ,the similarity in the design of the parking areas; the present submittal meets all setback requirements; believe any project on this site would take away two curb parking spaces; occupants will enter and exit the easiest way possible, and the easiest way is to back into the garages. Attorney Chung pointed out that setbacks were not a !problem in the present design, only the variance to the 24' backup aisle; referring to the negative declaration, the project was not expected to have an extraordinary impact on the church or school; City Engineer, in his memo, did not expect more traffic hazard than that experienced with similar corner development; landscaping provided Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 23, 1984 far exceeds code requirements. Believe variance should be granted because of the triangular shape of the lot and the dollars spent on the several designs by the developer. It is possible to back up in two maneuvers and front out onto Fairfield which should be sufficient to protect the safety of the neighborhood. With respect to the condominium blocking view of traffic on El Camino and Fairfield, no more than one car length would be blocked. Feel we have provided ample parking and maneuverable space to ask for a variance. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: site inspection on several days found few cars parked in the area; traffic congestion would be less from a condominium with older owners and fewer automobiles; view of the church will be affected by any construction on this lot, with a condominium project the city has some control; CE advised a building permit had been issued for an apartment project using these same plans, all setbacks had been met but at that time the issue of the backup aisle was overlooked, without this requested variance the building permit cannot be honored. CP clarified aisle widths for all units. Further Commission comment: think this is a good proposal, from testimony received this evening find concern about the backup aisle to be unwarranted, Commission has granted many variances over the years which were far more significant; project meets all zoning code requirements for height and setbacks, landscaping exceeds code requirements; concern about city's liability for safety if the project is approved, have no assurance people will back into the garages, with any hazard at all in a busy area such as this the developer should be required to meet all code regulations; the large amount of landscaping is a good feature of the project; have concern about traffic and safety for pedestrians in the area; this is a particularly sensitive area and have observed the concerns of the neighbors; developer is entitled to put something on the lot but meeting the 24' backup aisle requirement is no different, to my mind, than meeting the 20' setback requirement along E1 Camino Real; do not believe you can mandate people to park backwards; feel the variance request is a serious matter given the location of this particular property, difficult to find exceptional circumstances to support approval; there is no parking on E1 Camino, do not believe church members or school children would be crossing at that corner or walking on that side of Fairfield; think this is a fine project and that the minor variance request should be allowed. C. Taylor found there were exceptional circumstances in the shape of this lot and the required 20' setback from E1 Camino Real; that the property is zoned R-3 and suitable for multiple family use with only a minor modification of the code; that the variance from the 24' backup aisle requirement would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city; that no testimony has been presented to indicate the variance would be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners; that it would be necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owners, the evidence is clear that the only way this property can be used as the zoning ordinance permits is with the requested variance. C. Taylor moved for approval of this variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of December 20, 1983 be met; (2) that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to issuing a building permit; and (3) that the final working drawings conform to the plans filed with this application and date stamped December 14, 1983 as amended by the parking layout plan date stamped January 13, 1984. Second C. Cistulli. Comments on the motion: this is not a minor modification if it must depend upon residents backing in, this (would be a potential hazard; people walk on the sunny side of the street, would be fewer pedestrians in front of this site; access to the garages can be accomplished by backing in. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Schwalm ,dissenting. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 23, 1984 C. Taylor then moved for approval of the condominium permit with the same three conditions. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Schwalm dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR UNIT PROJECT AT 740 EL CAMINO REAL Reference CE's January 18, 1984 agenda memo. CE Erbacher recommended approval and recommendation to City Council. C. Taylor moved to approve this tentative condominium map and recommend it to the City Council. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Schwalm dissenting. Recess 10:17 P.M.; reconvene 10:30 P.M. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW WALGREENS DRUG STORE AT 1420 HOWARD AVENUE TO OPERATE BEYOND THE HOUR OF 11:00 P.M. Item withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SATELLITE ANTENNA DISH AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Item withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant. 19. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A COURIER SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 2-4 ADRIAN COURT, BY DON HOUSE FOR AIR COURIER ICP Monroe reviewed this request to allow an air courier service in the M-1 District. (Reference staff report dated 1/13/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/27/83; January 9, 1984 and November 28, 1983 Planning Commission study meeting Oinutes; staff review: Fire Marshal (November 2, 1983), Chief Building Inspector ((November 17, 1983) and City Engineer (November 14, 1983); letter from the applicant bated October 23, 1983; Towber letter to applicant dated September 28, 1983; site drawings date stamped October 27, 1983; and aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the request; staff review; applicant's description of the business; Planning staff comments and concerns. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the Public hearing. thm. Graham opened the public hearing. Don House, applicant and the property owner Were present. Applicant found staff conditions reasonable, his only concern being parking inside the building. At present two vehicles are parked inside at night, during the daytime none are parked inside except when loading or unloading; if parking inside is not allowed, this could cause some concern during inclement weather. He requested 4 temporary permit to park vehicles inside for unloading, at least during wet weather, until the building is brought up to code standards. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/determinations: two vans are unloaded at a time, one in each doorway; if there are three vans on site the third is parked inside the building; Fire Marshal's requirement that no vehicles shall be parked inside the building at any time until the building is brought up to code; this requirement will be enforced if special ermit conditions are approved, Planning Commission cannot grant exceptions to the niform Fire Code; applicant has been in business on this site for eight years; mployees have been advised not to double park in the driveway, 2/3 of the vans are one from the site at all times, have staggered work shifts; employee vehicles are arked on street, never inside; maximum number of employee vehicles parked in or around drian Road/Adrian Court is five or six. Further Commission comment: this is heavy use Of a small area, would limit expansion; 60 days was suggested as time limit for bringing the building up to code. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1984 C. Schwalm moved to grant this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of November 17, 1983 and the Fire Marshal's memo of November 2, 1983 be met; (2) that all employees be required to park their personal vehicles on Adrian Road; (3) that the business be operated as outlined sand with the number of vans and employees as described in the applicant's letter of 'October 23, 1983 including that two of the vans now operated from the site will ,continue to be assigned as company vehicles and parked off site at night; (4) that ,the city be notified and a permit amendment applied for in order to increase the number of employees or vans serving the business from this site; (5) that any vans added to 'the current fleet of nine be parked inside the building and only after the building ,has been brought up to the standards established by the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame in force at the time a use permit amendment application is made; (6) that within 60 days the applicant shall bring the garage up to Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code standards; and (7) that this permit be ,reviewed in one year's time (February 1985). Second C. Garcia. Comment on the motion: parking impact of a courier business is very great, if this especial permit is approved Commission is in effect giving the property owner a parking variance; it should be pointed out this motion prohibits the applicant from parking inside the garage during the 60 day period for compliance with UBC and UFC. C. Taylor !moved to amend the motion and delete Condition #2, seconded by C. Garcia; amendment accepted on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, Leahy and Schwalm dissenting. Motion to approve the special permit with deletion of Condition #2 passed on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. AMENDMENT OF 10/25/78 SPECIAL PERMIT TO REPLACE THREE RACQUETBALL COURTS WITH AN INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, BY BURLINGAME ATHLETIC CLUB, 888 HINCKLEY ROAD CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff report dated 1/18/84; Project Application and CEQA Assessment received 11/30/83; staff review: Fire Marshal (12/13/83), Chief ,Building Inspector (12/12/83) and City Engineer (12/22/83); applicant's letter, ,November 11, 1983; January 9, 1984 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; ,applicant's letters at the time of the 1978 proposal, September 21 and October 13, 1978; 10/25/78 staff report with attachments; plans received 11/30/83; and aerial photograph. CP discussed details of the request; staff review; applicant's letter; study meeting requests including Caltrans traffic generation figures for racquetball courts and swimming pools. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. iChm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant was present and distributed a drawing ,showing the parking lot at the rear of the building at 888 Hinckley Road; he did not ,project any increase in patrons of the athletic club on weekday evenings over the next five years. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: available parking and parking requirements; is parking requirement for three racquetball courts an even trade-off with parking requirement for one swimming pool; handicapped access to requirements of the UBC and UFC will be met in the building jpermit process; request written consent of the property owner; applicant confirmed that the physical therapist would be licensed. IC. Taylor moved to amend the 10/25/78 special permit for a racquetball club to allow (three courts to be replaced by an indoor swimming pool with the following conditions: (1) that 56 parking spaces be maintained on site exclusively for the use of the Burlingame Athletic Club patrons; (2) that written consent to this application be obtained from the property owner prior to issuance of the building permit; and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 23, 1984 (3) that the available parking and traffic impact be reviewed in one year (February 1985) and at six month intervals following that date until February 1986. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A TRAINING CENTER AT 866 MALCOLM ROAD IN THE M-1 DISTRICT, BY HAL BOBROW FOR GTE SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a training center in a portion of an existing office building. Reference staff report dated 1/13/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 12/13/84; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (12/16/83), City Engineer (12/22/83) and Fire Marshal (12/19/83); Ordinance No. 1255 adopted August 15, 1983; applicant's letter dated December 7, 1983 with attachment dated November 28, 1983; property owner's consent to application dated November 8, 1983; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped December 13 and 16, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, current and proposed expanded use of the site, staff review, applicant's letter, Planning staff comment. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Applicant was present and confirmed the suggested conditions were acceptable. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. There was a concern expressed about parking in the area; a site inspection had shown cars double parked, illegally parked and the parking lot full. C. Taylor moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that only 2,531 SF in four rooms of Building E be used for classroom/training ,purposes; (2) that the maximum number of participants on site for training at any one time be 28; (3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of December 19, 1983 be met; (4) that this permit for classroom/training use expires in three years; (5) that GTE Sprint shall be responsible for notifying the city of termination of its ,lease agreement on Building E; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed in one ,year (February 1985). Second C. Schwalm; motion approved unanimously on roll call ,vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. REVIEW OF 7/11/83 SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUCK STORAGE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1645 ROLLINS ROAD 'Reference Planner's staff memo dated 1/18/84; January 4, 1984 memo from the Fire Marshal; July 20, 1983 Monroe letter of action to the applicant, Star Excavation, Inc.; ,September 26, 1983 Planning Commission minutes. CP Monroe discussed this special permit granted 7/11/83 to allow truck storage as amended September 26, 1983, and ,Fire Marshal's periodic inspections. Commission determination was requested with ,regard to completion of the required fencing. Applicant was present and explained that the delay in completing the fencing was due to wet weather, that two or three weeks of dry weather was needed in order to put in the cement. Commission comment: failure to comply with all conditions has gone on a long time; don't see good faith by the applicant; permit is valid only until June, 1984; action should be taken on all the conditions, Commission should make valid conditions iand enforce them; think a contractor would find a way to complete the fencing. C. Schwalm moved that Star Excavation be given 30 days to complete the fencing or revocation proceedings be initiated. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Taylor dissenting. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1984 ITEMS FOR STUDY 13. SIGN EXCEPTION, CAN'T WAIT PHOTO, 1222 BROADWAY Request: how far is front edge of Sign A from the curb. Item set for hearing February 14, 1984. 14. SIGN EXCEPTION, HERTZ RENT -A -CAR, 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: does Hertz have a use permit to operate on this site? and at Amfac? what is total square footage of signage on this site? Item set for hearing February 14, 1984. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT, AFTERSCHOOL RECREATIONAL CHILD CARE PROGRAM, 701 PALOMA AVENUE (MC KINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL), BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA 16. SPECIAL PERMIT, AFTERSCHOOL RECREATIONAL CHILD CARE PROGRAM, 2385 TROUSDALE DRIVE (FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL). BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA Requests: would like more accurate sketches; definitive statement from the School District or YMCA describing activities on the site: how many children, how the Y activities are being accommodated, timing for use of the play yard, etc.; statement from the PTA of each school concerning this afterschool program. Items set for hearing February 14, 1984. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHARTER BUS SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 980 DAVID ROAD, BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY Request: clarify access to the building. Item set for hearing February 14, 1984. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its January 16, 1984 meeting. REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: SIGNAGE ON AWNINGS AND CANOPIES Continued to the meeting of February 14, 1984. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:12 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary