Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1991.05.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 1991 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Kelly on Tuesday, May 28, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 13, 1991 meeting were unanimously approved with the following correction: Item #3, page 2, last paragraph, first sentence should read "Chm. Kelly opened the ." AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. VARIANCE TO DECLINING HEIGHT TO BUILD A TWO STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1109 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: why is being in the flood plain pertinent to exceptional circumstances, is this particular property in a flood plain, whose flood plain; other than the houses each side being two stories, what is exceptional about this particular lot; description of the extent of the work proposed throughout the building, i.e., is stucco to be removed, plaster to be removed, electrical updated; plans show little foundation work and will not be adequate for a building permit, how will these concerns be addressed; this appears to be a major remodel, why shouldn't it be treated as a new building. Item set for public hearing June 10, 1991. 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1860 CAPISTRANO WAY. ZONED R-1 Requests: because of the odd shape of the lot what is required side setback; a better way to indicate the new roof ridge line and bulk of the addition, perhaps streamers which would hang down and fill in the area; will existing radio antenna be relocated and if so where; where will uncovered parking be located. Item set for public hearing June 10, 1991. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 28, 1991 3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2845 MARIPOSA DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Requests: provide minutes of the approved hillside area construction permit for 2800 Mariposa Drive; marking which fills in the area to indicate bulk of the project; what is a tatami room; photographs taken from 2844 and 2853 Mariposa toward the site, when was second floor addition made at 2849 Mariposa, was 2849 Mariposa subject to any subdivision restrictions affecting future development; current lot coverage. Item set for public hearing June 10, 1991. 4. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR CROWN STERLING SUITES AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Requests: clarification of applicant's statement that this hotel would be at a disadvantage in competing with hotels adjacent to the freeway if the signage is not approved, why is it disadvantaged now if it wasn't previously; number and square footage of signage of other hotels in the area; where are Signs B and C expected to be seen from, why so large; colored rendering of Signs B and C including coloring of the building; compare Sign B wall sign with Holiday Inn; it would be helpful if location of Sign B could be taped on the building. Item set for public hearing June 10 or June 24, 1991 depending upon receipt of all information requested. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 2721 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Key Choi, applicant and property owner, was.present and indicated he would be happy to respond to any questions. In doing so he stated the project would have most impact on the next door neighbor at 2725 Trousdale Drive, he and his architect have talked to this neighbor; he has not discussed the project with any other neighbors but did not believe it would block their views; they did consider moving the addition to the rear of the property, this would reduce his backyard area and require massive excavation; adding behind the garage will not require excavation, there is an existing retaining wall which they will reinforce; there are no windows on the uphill side, first floor or second floor. There were no audience comments in favor. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition. Sylvia Carter, 2729 Trousdale Drive: she lives two houses uphill and stated the project would spoil her view, applicant could build out, others have, just grade some of the hill. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 28, 1991 Michael San Filippo, 2725 Trousdale Drive: he said when he talked with the applicant he thought it would be a one family dwelling, this evening he has heard there will be another family; he had discussed the bulkhead with the applicant, Mr. San Filippo Is property has dropped 81, weakening the foundation any further will cause problems for him; cars are parked outside, residents of the site do not use the garage; he will not have a view, just a view of parked cars; applicant's house has always flooded, every time it rains there is one foot of water in the garage; Mr. San Filippo had to put a drain in when he bought his house; if a second story is added as proposed his light will be blocked. Responding to a Commissioner question about distant views, Mr. San Filippo said he had a view in the back but it has been blocked by a tree, Mrs. Carter at 2729 Trousdale can see over the tree, the only view he has is in the front, all he will see is cars; the proposed construction will not block distant views from inside house. Irving Amstrup, 2708 Trousdale Drive: he lives 100 yards from this house, the neighbors are upset, this area has always been one story, it has not changed for 25 years, there are very few two story homes in this section of the Mills Estate because the CC&R's kept them from going up, people moved to this area for a one story neighborhood; once this second story is allowed people downhill could add a second story and take applicant's view, then people uphill will have to go higher, this will go on and on; all houses on this street have room at the rear to expand at grade; there is not much view on this part of Trousdale; applicant could go back on his lot, he has only 17% lot coverage with this project. Frances Chilcoat, 2804 Trousdale Drive: she was concerned about an increased family on this site and more drivers, open carport between two homes will be a fire hazard; it should be made clear who will be moving in, not multiple families; want to keep the area as it has been for the past 25 years, not looking like a used car parking lot. In rebuttal Key Choi advised his niece who will be coming from overseas to attend college will be moving in with them, there will only be one family, they have only three bedrooms now; the elevation at 2729 Trousdale is 15' above his roof. Sool Choi, applicant's wife, stated she was sorry if they were causing problems for the neighbors; she noted that driving down Trousdale there is a curve, a second story on their house will not block any views, because the road is curved the addition will not block neighbors' views from their backyard; all houses in the area have small bedrooms, their project may enhance the neighborhood. A Commissioner commented the home two houses away has a garage underneath, it is not really a two story house. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: applicant is asking for a parking variance because of the length of the driveway, no change is being made to the existing garage or driveway, applicant has the burden of proof to show they are Burlingame Planning Commission.Minutes Page 4 May 28, 1991 not blocking any views which sometimes necessitates talking to the neighbors and taking photographs, Commission has seen none of this type of documentation, do not know if Mrs. Carter's view will be blocked, applicant must provide that information, cannot support the request because Commission does not have all the information; after reviewing the plans a first impression was that it looks like an addition, not architecturally compatible with the rest -of the house or the neighborhood, one story houses are prevalent in this area, if this project is allowed it will prevent downslope neighbors from any consideration of a second story addition because they would block the distant views from this house, am more concerned about the variance request, with six bedrooms there will be a need for a substantial amount of parking, it is critical to get cars off the street, evidence of loss of view is inconclusive, overriding concern is the parking variance, there is room in the rear to add space, reluctant to create problems for the future. With the comment applicant has not proven there is no view problem, there are other options to add living space, Commission cannot give a parking variance to a six bedroom house, C. Jacobs moved for denial of the hillside area construction permit and parking variance, seconded by C. Graham. Comment on the motion: whether this house is expanded in the rear portion of the lot or not is unimportant, there is a potential for six sleeping areas; a building of this size, with two covered parking spaces and one substandard uncovered space in the driveway, located on a heavily traveled street, is not an appropriate project for this location. Motion to deny was approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ENCLOSE A PATIO AREA AT 1701 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner asked if the overhang which is extending to the fence is removed will that be sufficient for fire access. Fire Marshal replied it would be, with less than 3' to property line on a single family dwelling fire regulations require a one hour fire wall. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Jeff Kockos, applicant and property owner, was present. He stated they wished to enclose their open covered patio to be used as a new T.V. room and thus provide a bedroom for their new daughter. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 28, 1991 C. Graham found this to be a good project, there are exceptional circumstances, this is a corner lot and angle of the property line creates an unusual situation not commonly found, there have been no objections received, it will not be injurious to the neighbors. C. Graham moved for approval of the side setback variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 29, 1991 with the wall of the enclosed addition no closer than 3' to property line and the eave overhang no closer than 2' to property line; (2) that, if required by the Building Department based on construction plans submitted, the applicant shall complete a property line survey by a licensed surveyor; (3) that the structure/roof presently attached to the eave and property line fence shall be removed; and (4) that the addition shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING COVERED SUBSTANDARD PARKING STALL AT 1111 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP noted changes in the staff report, the project will result in a four bedroom house which requires one covered and one uncovered parking space, and confirmed that code requirement for a one car garage is 10' x 201, applicant's garage is 12.5' x 18.51. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Barry Ongerth , applicant and property owner and Gary Simpson, designer were present. Applicant commented that his 18.5' x 12.5' garage is 231.25 SF as opposed to 200 SF for the code required one car garage. Commissioner comment: this garage is filled like Bekins, she hoped applicant would use it for parking if his variance is approved. CP confirmed the porte cochere over the driveway is about 9' wide, wide enough for a regular car. Katherine Sinski, 1109 Balboa Avenue spoke in opposition: her house next door is very close to applicant's, for the last 12 years she has had to keep her shades drawn for privacy with no sun or light coming in, if a second story is added at 1111 Balboa with more windows she will lose more light and will not be able to use her bath or bathroom without pulling the shades; she would not object if there were no windows facing her property, applicant could have windows to the street or his backyard, the project will reduce the value of her home. Responding to a question, she advised she lives to the south the other side of the driveway. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 28, 1991 Commission/ staff discussion/ comment: these houses are close together and with cars parked in the drive they seem even closer; Ms. Sinski is on the side where the porte cochere is located; side setback proposed is 5'-411, code requirement is 41; applicant cannot expand his garage acceptably for 1.51, he can fit a car in the garage, all over Ray Park there are garages this size, it is acceptable there, would hope with the addition the garage will not be used for storage area, the driveway is long enough to park three or four cars off the street, as far as the neighbor to the south is concerned she is separated by the driveway, would be more concerned about the neighbor to the north. C. Graham found it was not feasible for the applicant to remodel and extend his existing garage, he meets the intent of the code, the variance will not be substantially detrimental to surrounding properties. C. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: cannot go along with this reasoning, when a building is updated sometimes it is necessary to update other things on the property, the garage needs to be updated, would suggest a 21' length overall to allow some room for storage; have a concern about not requiring use of the garage for parking, suggest a condition addressing this, with stored items removed one car can be parked there; have a concern about the second story deck shown on the plans, neighbor to the south will have an additional privacy problem, perhaps window problem could be mitigated by raising the elevation of the windows; there are a number of one car garages on this street, whether one or two car garage is not significant but am concerned about back -out problems; the length of the driveway seems adequate; concerns of the next door neighbor could be addressed by removing the second floor deck and raising the elevation of the windows. Agree that garages are not built for mini storage but let's not propose something that is impossible to police. Replying to a question, CP stated there is no code requirement which says one cannot store things in one's garage, in this case the space is there but applicant is not using it for parking. Further comment: prefer that people park their cars in their garages, at this site there were two cars in the driveway, do not want a parking lot in the driveway, while making a big addition to a house it is no big problem to add to a garage; would not want to deny this request if applicant has not considered raising the elevation of the windows and removing the deck. Chm. Kelly reopened the public hearing. Designer advised applicant will eliminate the second floor deck and window heights will be raised; regarding the parking structure, it is over the required square footage even though it does not meet the required length, the aesthetics of increasing the existing garage will not benefit anyone unless it is torn down and rebuilt. Applicant told Commission the items stored in the garage presently will be moved to the new bedroom after the addition is completed. Designer advised Ms. Sinski that because of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 28, 1991 angle one cannot look into her house from the existing first floor windows,. the new second story will be set back and windows will look down on her house, not into it. Chm. Kelly closed the reopened public hearing. Maker of the motion and the seconder added a condition requiring a new set of plans be submitted for the addition incorporating changes agreed to this evening. It was suggested applicant talk to the neighbor to the south before submitting plans. Conditions follow: (1) that the parking areas shall be maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 22, 1991 Sheets A-3; A-4; A-5; A-6; S-1; S-2; M-1; M-2; E-1; and May 6, 1991 Cover Sheet; A-1; A-2; (2) that a new set of plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department showing removal of the second floor deck and raising the windows in the new second story, the City Planner shall determine if these plans are in substantial agreement with the discussion at the May 28, 1991 meeting before a building permit is issued; and (3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Deal dissenting, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:57 P.M.; reconvene 9:10 P.M. 8. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BOAT TO BE PARKED IN THE SIDE SETBACK AT 3027 ARGUELLO DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff discussed size of the area where the boat is parked, distance from side property line, height of fences, CE's requirements regarding sidewalk, curb and gutter, the suggested condition regarding expiration of the permit. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. David Seid, applicant and property owner, told Commission he tried to put the boat in back so it is out of view; staff explained replacement of the sidewalk is required for safety reasons. Speaking in support, Frank Kelly, 3035 Arguello Drive: he had no objection and is the only neighbor who might be impacted, applicant has done a nice job, the boat is out of his sight and that of the majority of people in the neighborhood. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs commented she lives on Arguello and there are boats parked legally in front yards on this street, applicant has tried to minimize the visual impact, she found the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, there is a slope on the lot and no neighbor to the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 28, 1991 rear, the neighbor at 3035 next door does not object. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the parking variance by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the boat shall be parked on an 11' x 23' gravel area within the side setback, no closer than 35' to the front property line and 8' from the side property line; (2) that the fence parallel to the street shall be raised to 61; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 28, 1991 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's May 1, 1991 memo and the Director of Parks' May 2, 1991 memo shall be met; and (4) that this variance shall expire in five years (May, 1996) and the driveway on which the boat is stored shall be removed and the area returned to landscaping at that time. Comment on the motion: the applicant should be complimented for getting the boat off the street in a way not obtrusive to neighbors; a range of paving materials is available including turf block; in five years the applicant may reapply for this variance if he wishes. Motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD GIFTS AND ANTIQUES TO AN EXISTING FRAGRANCE AND PERFUME SHOP AT 1199 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 5/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham commented the applicant had advised Commission when he applied for his special permit in April that these small gift items were already in his shop, this is not a big -concern, she had no problem with the request. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit amendment by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 8, 1991 Sheet 01 only; (2) that the shop shall only be open during the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sunday, with a maximum of one employee on the site; (3) that this tenant space shall comply with the master signage program approved for this property and any subsequent amendments of this program including the prohibition of window signs, and shall not have any signs or other objects in the walkway in front of this shop or anywhere in the public right-of-way; (4) that the fragrance shop shall sell perfumes, gifts and small boutique antiques; and (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Burlingame Planning Commission'Minutes Page 9 May 28, 1991 Comment on the motion: will vote for the request but am not happy with the fact that applicant was to remove these gift items from his shop until he received a special permit amendment for them, and did not do it. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PARKING VARIANCE AND HEIGHT LIMIT SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO STORY RETAIL AND OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 1218-1230 BURLINGAME AVENUE/1209-1215 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 5/28/91, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff comment/discussion: there is no city requirement for buildings to connect Burlingame Avenue and Donnelly Avenue, a connection has been discussed over the years but never become a reality; CE's conditions regarding exiting sight distance; types of shops/businesses in the 1209 Donnelly structure which was destroyed by fire and the 1213-1215 Donnelly structure which was not. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Jack Kemp and Jim Kemp, architects for the project, were present representing the Chen family, property owners. Jack Kemp addressed Commission: what was on this site prior to the fire in December, 1990 was not very effective for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, they want to take advantage of the catastrophe clauses in the ordinance to provide a high quality commercial development in its place, all uses proposed are within Sub Area A requirements; they will provide a pedestrian lane between Burlingame Avenue and Donnelly Avenue which will benefit merchants on Burlingame Avenue; the proposed second floor is a mixture of storage/office/retail, the proposed eating establishment will be located on the second level, the areas they are proposing for retail/storage/office are maximums, the storage component will be expanded on the second level so retail and office will probably be diminished; the first floor level will be retail with a significant component of common area, there will be a minimum 20' wide pedestrian way, code allows 10' width but this would not have maximum exposure for retailers; this will be high rent space and needs the amenity of high quality open area. The building will actually be about 20% more leasable area if you don't count the parking garage. The property owners have requested an economically feasible and a project compatible with the Burlingame Avenue area, they need to provide this space at a fair rent. Architect discussed parking requirements, his calculations versus those of staff, he noted options Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 28, 1991 for reducing the parking variance. Regarding an eating establishment, they would suggest a big space on the second floor on the Donnelly frontage for restaurant use, something like a food fair with a single tenant but a mix of food, this concept is unlike the use which was there before the fire, they need direction on this. (Staff noted a use permit would be required.) The project is in an early stage of design, they have a long way to go in terms of aesthetics; they are prepared to accept all of the conditions suggested in the staff report. Responding to Commission questions, architect said if tenants in the building currently standing on Donnelly cannot renegotiate their leases there would be an impact on cost to the applicant, they would build out the front two-thirds of the project toward Burlingame Avenue, the portion not over parking, they would have to build the second floor in a shell not to be improved or leased in the first phase; the owners are attempting to negotiate so they will not. have a phased condition. There is a storage component of 1,800 SF on the second floor, this could be much larger; the driveway slope meets city requirements; enlargement of underground parking would limit the above ground structure, structural support would not be the same; provision for trash storage will be made, plans are rudimentary at this stage; number of employees on site prior to the fire was not known; prior tenants at 1213-1215 Donnelly will be given priority; the garage is designed within slope requirements for handicap accessibility. The following members of the audience spoke. One of the owners of Copenhagen Bakery, 1216 Burlingame Avenue: he would like to see something next door but was concerned about the parking problem downtown, granting the parking variance would be detrimental to the rest of the merchants in the area, can the city provide more parking, parking needs to be addressed, there is a problem now, applicant should provide minimum required parking for this project. Hugh Connolly, attorney in Burlingame: responded to architect's comments about lessees in the 1213-1215 Donnelly building, it is not true that the property owner is diligently pursuing renegotiation of the leases with these tenants, as far as he (Mr. Connolly) knows the owner has not made any proposal to one of the tenants, the tenants made a proposal to the owner, there has been no response from the owner. Bruce Kirkbride, co-owner of 1204 and 1227-41 Burlingame Avenue: he favored the project, had no concern about the special permit for height; previously this site's lack of parking forced people to use some of his spaces, this project must provide parking for its own tenants, city lots are for the benefit of everyone. Mike Tsien, speaking for the property owners, responded to Attorney Connolly's remarks regarding leasing, he felt everyone was trying to take advantage of Mr. Chen, property owners are negotiating the leases but have not come to any conclusions at this time. Duffy Offield, a resident of Burlingame: has an office at 1214 Burlingame Avenue; developer shouldn't have to provide parking for the public, public lots are for that, but he should provide parking for all tenants on site, a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 28, 1991 parking variance should not be allowed. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: it is a nice building, in view of the recession don't understand a 34% increase in floor area nor the parking variance, when business picks up there won't be parking in downtown, the city will need another parking garage; if a parking variance is allowed in Sub Area A the city deserves what it gets, applicant should provide all required parking. Have no problems with the 40' height, it will add to the corridor; do have a problem with parking, intent of the ordinance is to let someone rebuild up to the extent of what was there before, this proposal is for 18 conforming parking spaces which is only four spaces over what is there now despite a larger building; they are projecting increased square footage and 110 employees on site, there will be a lot of people taking up public parking spaces, this is too much of a burden for other property owners and merchants to bear, do not think they are exempt from providing required parking, why 18 when all they need is 29 spaces. Continued Commission comment: need to look at what the project is contributing, the whole project (including all three buildings) is 7,300 SF larger and there will be 1,700 SF less office space on the site than was present before the fire; the real issue is that the catastrophic provision does not include the undamaged building, therefore this replaced space must meet current parking code requirements; if the remaining building were considered to have been destroyed by the fire then the developer would be providing more parking than required and a parking variance would not be required, therefore favor the variance request. It is a nice project but Commission takes direction from the City Council, and Council has said take a hard look at parking, even with the new parking structure parking continues to be a problem. Every merchant in the city complains about lack of parking, agree the project is well designed with the exception of the parking situation. C. Jacobs found that from the initial study and comments received all potential environmental impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels through conditions of approval and there will be no significant impact on the community as a result of this project. She then moved for approval of Negative Declaration ND -445P, seconded by C. Graham and approved 6-0 on voice vote, C. Ellis absent. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the parking variance for the reasons stated, this project is larger than the original building, such a large variance will be detrimental to Sub Area A. Motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: the city has to have parking in this area, it would seem there is a way to extend the garage, people will then be able to come there, park and shop, this building should not contribute more to the problem and should carry its own load. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 28, 1991 Motion to deny the parking variance was approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Galligan dissenting, C. Ellis absent. C. Mink moved to grant the special permit for height as provided in the documentation with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 23, 1991 Sheets E, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with a maximum height of 40' for 7.5% of the roof area and a pedestrian mall and retail sales space, except that 29 parking spaces shall be provided on site; (2) that the new structure shall include a maximum of 6,347 SF of office area on the second floor and 6,400 SF of retail sales space on the second floor, the remainder of the floor area within walls shall be used for storage; (3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of April 15, 1991, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of April 29, 1991 and the City Engineer's memo of May 2, 1991 shall be met; (4) that the project shall have an underground parking garage for 29 spaces, including one handicap stall, and an at -grade loading area along the southwest side of the building; and (5) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Ellis absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its May 20, 1991 regular meeting and May 22, 1991 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jerry L. Deal Secretary