Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1985.08.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 26, 1985 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, August 26, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the August 12, 1985 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN CP Monroe discussed the environmental document which adresses environmental impacts of the Master Plan and of the first two phases (immediate and short term 5-10 years) of construction projects required to implement the Plan. She noted potential problems and mitigations identified in the document. Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works, was present to respond to Commission questions. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: how is the possible future odor problem being addressed at this stage? DPW stated city is currently receiving proposals for the design which will take odor control into consideration. Page 29, under suggested mitigation measures, use of space on top of the equalization basin would raise cost of the facilities for covers, has that been included in the overall cost, how many square feet, what would be the total additional cost? DPW advised this is not included in the immediate plans. H.3, suggested mitigation measures, page 29, is the cost of a qualified landscape architect to design perimeter landscaping included in the cost estimate. DPW advised it was included in the plan. Are costs in 1985 dollars? DPW stated costs included projections for the next 5-10 years. Reference Department of Transportation letter, rehabilitation of deteriorated facilities, forced main in the area of a triple box Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 culvert, who will maintain, is the city involved? Is the plan sufficient to satisfy the current general plan and discharge requirements? Is the city polluting the bay now? Do costs include inflation rate, and what is it? DPW stated they do for the immediate projects, about 9% a year. Does the city still have sludge beds? DPW advised only four for emergency use. Is there any change in handling of sludge? Mr. Kirkup stated a dewatering facility was installed several years ago. Have federal funds been reduced? Funds have been reduced, city is not currently funded beyond 1988, we do have a grant for the next fiscal year, 1986-87. Will cost be on the user? The best case is to finance from the general fund and federal grants; if user costs are necessary, heavier industrial users may pay more. Have all environmental effects of the initial study been incorporated into this draft? DPW stated most have been addressed and all are subject to mitigation so they are not impacts which will harm the environment. Staff will forward Commission comments to the consultant for preparation of the Final EIR, Response to Comments document. PUBLIC FORUM 2. PUBLIC FORUM TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LIFE CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY OPERATED BY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN HOMES, AT 1781 EL CAMINO REAL CP Monroe discussed the environmental review process and project review procedure including details of the proposed facility. Commission requested staff research tax exempt status of the project and how it might affect tax revenue. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Marie Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive addressed Commission: she felt the project would have a disastrous effect on residents of Ray Park and Mills Estate, impact on Trousdale Drive, all residents must use this street; intersections at El Camino/Trousdale and Magnolia/Trousdale are impacted presently, relocating the hospital entrance will increase the problem; proposed height would be completely out of character in this area; California Drive is another arterial which would be affected, report should address what might occur in future on the Southern Pacific right-of-way; what will happen to the heliport which is important for emergency access. In addition to residential impact Mrs. Teixeira had concern about the city controlling the makeup of the city's population, she felt there will be more families in the future and to dedicate the proposed site to older, wealthy families (many not Burlingame residents) would not be a responsible action. In conclusion she stated her concern about the airport, the train, possibility of BART being extended down the Peninsula, the industrial section on the other side of the tracks and the layout, height and density of the proposed facility. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 Commission requests/concerns/discussion: how will the project affect Hillhaven Convalescent Home, 1609 Trousdale? where will the displaced parking spaces for the office building and convalescent home be relocated? are there any other institutions in town which are allowed off -premise parking? who is eligible to live at this facility, what is the monthly cost, what services are provided? number of residents who would drive cars and where will they be parked? impact of this - facility versus its social advantages. Address loss of open space around the hospital site, explore safety impact from airplanes taking off over the site during stormy weather conditions; impact on amount of light in residential areas, on views; will air movement be changed? Traffic should be extensively studied. Address fiscal impact on the city, pluses and minuses; evaluate alternative projects, preferably one of lesser density and one of lesser building bulk; include plans with setbacks; information on flight paths and wind shears. Will project require a parking variance? Will the developer give placement priority to Burlingame residents? How will this facility affect hospital usage, what is the advantage to having it near the hospital? view corridors from patients' rooms in the hospital. Address circulation and signalization around the Plaza area including El Camino and Magnolia, circulation on the hospital site, how will it affect the present layout of the hospital? why is this located next to the hospital, hospitals are running 50% below capacity, what is the relationship? If the hospital is leasing this land to the developer, what impact will there be on hospital cost to patients? In view of the project's density would like to know the costs for sewer and physical facilities of the city. Staff will forward Commission's comments/requests to the consultant for inclusion in the Draft EIR. ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, PROPERTY AT 1469 BENITO AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 1985) Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the revised plans, CE's comments, Planning issues and concerns. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CA determined C. Taylor who was absent at the August 12, 1985 meeting was eligible to act on the application this evening since he had read the minutes and staff report and had seen the plans. Commission discussion: carport is 9' wide at the entrance but then widens to 101; 16' curb cut is acceptable, two curb cuts are not allowed on this size lot because of impact on on -street parking; dimensions of garage. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Randy Gibbs, applicant, presented a letter in support from the following neighbors: Richard Trudell, 1452 Benito Avenue; Paul Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 26, 1985 Sciabica, 1480 Benito Avenue; Ernest and Bernadean Weiss, 1465 Benito Avenue; George E. Paul, 2627 Hale Drive. Further Commission discussion: a 10' x 20' garage will accommodate one car; possibility of providing space for two cars under the house, this would affect the front stairs and be expensive. One Commissioner commented that many other sites in this neighborhood have 3' side yards, this proposal would allow the applicant area in the rear for his chldren to play, the neighbors have not objected and considering all factors involved he did not feel it would be out of line to allow the applicant to improve his property and allow his family to enjoy it. Another commented that from a site inspection it appeared this oversized lot has a large rear yard, approval of the variance would set a precedent for others, she was concerned about a double curb cut, on -street parking is limited, there is poor visibility and it would be a dangerous situation. Further comment: the variance procedure is included in the code to overcome a problem when there are no alternatives, in this case there are two alternatives; do not find any exceptional circumstances that could not be remedied by hiring an architect to draw up alternative plans. With findings that this proposal does not meet the variance requirements of the City of Burlingame and that there are alternatives to the project, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the variance seconded by C. Graham. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Schwalm and Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT FIVE TWO-BEDROOM UNITS AT 137 ANITA ROAD, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Jim Valenti, Dunlap Design, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: Commission policy regarding security gates; staff confirmed that basically this project meets all requirements; concern about the density of the proposal, with one less unit security gate could be included and covered parking provided; Commission has allowed guest parking that is not uncovered on some other projects, difficult to penalize this one developer; perhaps Commission should review and study the present condominium ordinance; Burlingame does not have architectural review, these projects are reviewed under the zoning code and condominium guidelines; project does not provide adequate security and only a minimum of private open space. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this condominium permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 Marshal's memo of July 9, 1985, the City Engineer's memo of August 20, 1985 and the Director of Parks' July 10, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the project shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department (except as amended to meet the exiting requirements of the Fire Department) and date stamped August 16, 1985; (3) that the landscape plan shall be consistent with the plan date stamped June 26, 1985 except as revised to allow the realignment of the front driveway and stairway; (4) that the garage area will not be secured by a gate without amendment of the condominium permit; and (5) that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this building be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of ,the foundation permit for this project. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Taylor and Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FIVE UNITS AT 137 ANITA ROAD (LOT 9, BLOCK 20, MAP NO. 1 OF TOWN OF BURLINGAME) CE Erbacher advised this map is complete. C. Giomi moved to recommend the map to City Council for approval. Second C. Graham; motion approved on unanimous voice vote. 6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR TWO TWO-BEDROOM AND THREE ONE-BEDROOM/DEN UNITS AT 1444 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: slope of the lot; it was suggested a condition be added to limit height of any fence placed on top of the retaining wall to 6' from existing grade on the adjacent property; staff will require utilities be undergrounded. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, was present. The following spoke in opposition: Paul McDonnell, 1447 Capuchino Avenue and Jack Losee, 1412 Mills Avenue. They were concerned about surface drainage and on -street parking congestion in the nearby single family district. Rachel Sanchez, owner of 1448 E1 Camino Real noted she, too, has water problems and gave staff a copy of a recorded easement between her property and the project site which was not shown on the tentative map. Jerry Deal advised the surface drainage problems on adjacent property will be alleviated by staff's rquirements for this project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. During discussion CE explained that water does tend to flow from E1 Camino to Capuchino, this condition exists because there was no requirement for pumping into the street or it wasn't enforced in the past. Further Commission comment: can understand the neighbors' concern about congested on -street parking but this application meets code requirements; E1 Camino has been zoned for multiple family use Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 for many years. CE assured Commission Engineering's requirements addressed the water problem, they will require that the roof area of this project not drain into the pump system. C. Giomi moved for approval of this condominium permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Condominium Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's July 17, 1985 memo, the Director of Parks' August 6, 1985 memo and the City Engineer's August 20, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the project shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 1, 1985; (3) that any fence placed on top of the retaining wall at property line measure no higher than 6' from existing grade on the adjacent property; and (4) that this approval be subject to any limitations of the easement agreement with the adjacent property owner. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FIVE UNITS AT 1444 EL CAMINO REAL (LOT 12, BLOCK 5, BURLINGAME GROVE) CE Erbacher recommended approval of this map with any revisions required by the recorded easement agreement received this evening. C. Jacobs moved to recommend the map to City Council for approval. Second C. Giomi; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Recess 9:17 P.M.; reconvene 9:30 P.M. 8. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THREE LOTS OF A PROPOSED FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 2720 MARIPOSA DRIVE 9. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE (RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 31, BOOK 7, PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 50; FORMERLY LOT 29, BLOCK 38, MILLS ESTATE NO. 13) Reference Planning staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments and Engineering staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the variance request, setbacks, Planning staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP distributed diagrams addressing view sheds. CE Erbacher referenced his staff memo which addresses previous concerns, lot sizes, utilities, soils report, seismic setbacks, traffic, building heights. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Discussion: seismic setback lines, i.e., fracture lines; allowable fence height and location on these lots; a rear yard fence on the private street would require a 5' clearance of PUE; addresses to be used; private road will be posted as a fire lane. Chairman Garcia opened the public hearing. Don Bennett, applicant, advised all the properties will front on the private street. Driveways could be brought in either way. There were no audience comments in favor. Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 The following spoke in opposition: Max Drimmer, 2812 Las Piedras Drive; Mrs. Yamagushi, 2808 Las Piedras Drive (former Turner lot) and Earle Erickson, 2805 Las Piedras Drive. Their comments: concern about obstruction of views, paid a premium for the view and the area, concern about fire access, two story homes with flat roofs are not compatible in this area, a 4,800 SF house seems excessive for a 7,000 SF lot and it would be considerably higher than the existing church, request height restrictions be placed on the new homes based on the height of the existing church. Mr. Erickson read into the record his letter of May 30, 1985 to the City Planner requesting approval of height limitations to be set forth in the subdivision map. In rebuttal Mike Monte, developer/contractor, noted a height limitation of 30' from the top of curb has been established by the city in R-1 districts. Prior to planning this project the developers hired a surveyor to take floor elevations of the Erickson and Yamagushi houses in order to keep the roofs of the new houses to a point at or below their window sills. The fault trace caused building pads for two of the sites to be smaller and thus a two story structure was proposed for these. Three of the homes will be one story; the site of the church will have one story structures. The church structure now obstructs a view which will be in the cul-de-sac and will be a totally unobstructed view corridor from the Yamagushi and Erickson sites with the proposed subdivision. Mr. Monte had commented that the house next to the Ericksons is a two story structure; Mrs. Erickson advised it is only one story. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CP discussed staff's drawings based on the engineer's elevations distributed this evening indicating where the finished structures would be in relation to the Erickson, Yamagushi and Lorenzi sites. It appeared the distant panorama would not be affected, the near view would be. From testimony this evening, detail of the plans and Planning staff's diagrams, C. Giomi found that the developer has taken pains to protect view corridors; that there are exceptional circumstances because of the seismic setbacks which are required for development of this property; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner, he is entitled to develop his property consistent with the zoning assigned; that it has been demonstrated this evening by the seismic setback and discussion of views that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners; and that it will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, the property will remain R-1 and will add to the housing stock of the city. C. Giomi then moved for approval of this variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the lots shall be created as shown on the subdivision map submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 21, 1985; (2) that the minimum front setback for each of the five lots created shall be 20' from the edge of the curb closest to the structure; and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 26, 1985 (3) that to protect view sheds the maximum height of any structure(s) on Lot 3 shall be 21' from top of curb; on Lot 2 shall be 23' from top of curb; on Lot 1 shall be 21' from top of curb; on Lot 4 shall be 21' from top of curb; and on Lot 5 shall be 17' from top of curb. Second C. Graham. C. Taylor suggested an additional condition, (4) that Lots 4 and 5 be required to show the front entrance on Mariposa Drive and a fence setback of 5' from the PUE. C. Giomi amended her motion to include condition #4, C. Graham amended his second. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Graham moved to accept and recommend to City Council for approval the tentative subdivision map with the following conditions: (1) that the lots, setbacks, roof heights and development be as shown on the tentative subdivision map as date stamped August 21, 1985; (2) that the developmental conditions of the City Engineer's memo of August 7, 1985, the Fire Marshal's memo of May 8, 1985 and the City Planner's memo on the variance (as amended by the Planning Commission) shall apply to this development; (3) that the developer shall replace any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site and repair and overlay the adjacent streets to center line as may be approved by the City Engineer; (4) that street trees, 15 gal. minimum, be installed, one on each lot frontage facing both the private roadway and the public streets, as may be approved by the Parks Department, with all street trees in the private roadway areas to be maintained by the homeowners to the satisfaction of the Parks Department; (5) that the sight line at the private roadway be defined on the final map as approved by the City Engineer; and (6) that the Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of all utilities, street lights, except for the sewer and water mains and services to meters and cleanouts. Second C. Giomi; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN AFTERSCHOOL CHILDCARE PROGRAM FOR ELEMENTARY AGED CHILDREN AT HOOVER SCHOOL, 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, BY PENINSULA FAMILY YMCA Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, letters in support, study meeting questions, traffic generation. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Mark Zuckerman, 1233 Laguna Avenue, spoke in support and introduced a number of concerned parents who were in the audience. He stressed the need for this type of program since in most families both parents work. The program at Lincoln School is overcrowded and there will be 25 parents with no program for their children when school begins if this application is not granted. Liz Weiss, applicant, requested an adjustment in operating hours; in addition to the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. they would like to operate from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. in order to accommodate those parents who commute to work. Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 Letters in support were received after preparation of the staff report from the following: Michael Beltran, 1132 Cabrillo Avenue (8/21/85); Betty Wolff (8/17/85) and Mark Zuckerman, 1233 Laguna Avenue (received 8/26/85). There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern about maximum usage of the site, -is parking more intense now than it was in 1980; staff advised the dance classes approved in 1980 are no longer tenants on the site and staff has received no complaints, the hearing was duly noticed and no complaints were received from the neighbors. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's July 19, 1985 memo and the City Engineer's August 8, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the daycare facility shall be operated from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. and from 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, September through June to serve a maximum of 30 children with a staff of three adults; (3) that the majority of the children shall arrive at the site by bus, and carpooling shall be actively encouraged by the YMCA for homebound trips; (4) that the joint use of the playground and bathroom facilities shall be satisfactorily worked out with the other tenants on the site and the playground facilities will continue to be available to the residents of the adjacent area; and (5) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with all conditions and review of any complaints received in June, 1986. Second C. Taylor; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AT THE ADELINE MARKET CENTER, 1500-1508 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Marmora Terrell, applicant and property owner, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. One Commissioner expressed his objection to Sign A-1, the directory sign on El Camino Real: El Camino is zoned residential and the city has discouraged commercial uses on this street. C. Jacobs found approval of this signage would not be a grant of special privilege and that there were special circumstances applicable to the subject property, there are few shopping areas in the city, this proposal is in good taste and does not exceed code requirements excessively. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the sign exception and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving the Master Sign Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 Program with the following conditions: (1) that all existing signs on this property shall be removed porior to issuing any permits for new signage on this site or within 45 days of affirmative action on this master sign permit; and (2) that any signage in addition to the signs identified in this master signage permit shall require an amendment to this permit including window signs. Comment on the motion: all tenants should be made aware of the sign program so that there will be no further abuses; not in favor of Sign A-1, those driving by won't read it and those walking in the area are aware of the center. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Schwalm dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING SPACES FOR THE AMFAC HOTEL, 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this request to reduce the required on-site parking spaces from 402 to 329, the number of rooms in the existing hotel. She discussed details of the request, history of permits on the site, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised it was not clear what standards were used to arrive at 402 required spaces in the 1968 use permit. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Joseph Kent, Raiser Architectural Group, discussed his research of all documentation and his interpretation of it: in 1968 a 338 unit hotel was approved with a parking garage behind it, 402 spaces were required which exceeded code requirements; in early 1969 the parking structure was deleted and an adjacent lot on Burlway Road was approved for parking for the hotel. He contended that 358 spaces were approved in January, 1969 although the record did not indicate the number of spaces and that the original application was approved with 358 spaces. Mr. Kent noted that Amfac has improved the parking lot and spent over $250,000 for shoreline development. Applicants are willing to leave the 365 spaces on site but request the parking space requirement be lowered to 329 to impose the same parking standard on Amfac as on other hotels in the city. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Kent stated the applicants feel present on-site parking exceeds the present code requirement of one space for one sleeping room. He further stated it is in the hotel's interest to keep the existing spaces to be used when needed but they would request the same standard be applied to Amfac as to other hotels in terms of parking requirements. Commission comment: can agree with requiring 365 spaces but do not see why it should be reduced to 329, especially since the original permit required 402; hotel is nonconforming in landscaping, the present parking is using space which should be landscaped; heavy usage of this hotel for community events points up the need for all 365 spaces. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 C. Jacobs moved to amend the 1968 use permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 7, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the parking requirement for the hotel use be'revised to 365 parking spaces no more than 20% of which are compact stalls, laid out as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 17, 1985; (3) that all landscaping installed within the parking area be maintained including installing and maintaining landscaping on the island between the main parking lot and the parking lot fronting on Burlway Road; and (4) that because its conditions were not met the February 11, 1985 use permit is no longer valid. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: think the applicant's request is reasonable, why should Amfac provide more spaces than the code requirement; if the parking requirement were lowered to 329 would like to see the hotel meet other requirements in which it is nonconforming; there are parking problems on this site now, would prefer to keep the requirement at 365. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN INSURANCE REPLACEMENT AUTO RENTAL AGENCY TO OPERATE FROM THE OFFICE BUILDING AT 851 BURLWAY ROAD Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to Commission question, staff advised a parking count of floor area in this building had not been made. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Applicants were not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission requested more information: fleet size; existing floor area/employees in this building. Chm. Garcia continued the item to the meeting of September 10., 1985; Commissioners agreed on unanimous voice vote. Staff will contact the applicants and request they be present for the September 10 meeting. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRY CLEANING SERVICE IN A PORTION OF THE BUILDING AT 327-329 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment on issues, American Pacific Equipment Co. letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Fire Marshal confirmed ingress/egress as shown on the plans was adequate. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Paul Zieman, representing the applicants, noted the blueprints provided do not show existing Page 12 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 bathrooms, final plans will be complete; chemicals will not be discharged into the sewer sytem, this is regulated by the state; he felt individual delivery/pickup time for a dry cleaning service would be no more than five minutes and that there is sufficient public parking in the area; applicants will satisfy all requirements of the city when applying for a building permit following approval of this use; they do not plan to operate delivery vans, will do no wholesale work; may possibly have once a day shirt laundry service trucks. Fred Guerrero, American Pacific Equipment Co., spoke in favor: can see no problem with provision of bathrooms, will use existing ones which were sized for the previous nightclub use; have spoken with the property owners' attorney, they will be doing all the improvements; once the permit is approved complete building plans will be prepared. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern about parking in this impacted area; not a good location for this business with its intensive parking demand; Commission does not know what uses might go into the rest of this building but cannot deny because of that; what use is there which won't generate parking, do not believe this would be any worse than on Broadway or Burlingame Avenue. C. Jacobs moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Leahy and Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 11:50 P.M.; reconvene 12:00 midnight. ITEMS FOR STUDY 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 50 SF SATELLITE ANTENNA DISH TO REMAIN ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT - 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE Requests: statement from applicant regarding alternative locations which would be less visible; statement from staff regarding undergrounding of utilities on California Drive; height of dish from grade. Item set for hearing September 10, 1985. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT - MOBILE RADIO -TELEPHONE SYSTEM STATION - 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: will equipment room take required parking? will lights be required on top of the antennae by the FAA? cross section of how this will look on the building; how are the transmitting antennae attached? Item set for hearing September 10, 1985. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT - COURIER OPERATION - 1722 GILBRETH ROAD Requests: will they use the whole site? how will enclosed area of parking be used? how many employees on site at one time? Item set for hearing September 10, 1985. Page 13 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 18. & 19. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE TO AN AUTO SALES CENTER AT 1070 BROADWAY Requests: breakdown of parking; what offices would be moved to this site from other sites; address circulation problems; recommendation on median strip; possible future second access from parking structure; address landscaping along the railroad tracks to soften the parking structure. Items set for hearing September 10, 1985. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Towber letter to Snappy Car Rental (new facilities at 1328 Marsten Road), August 7, 1985. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its August 19, 1985 meeting. - City Planner memo, 8/26/85, Planning Department Workload. Following a brief discussion Commission agreed to limit agenda action items to eight; time of day and date will be noted on each application received and applications placed on agendas in order of receipt. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary