Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.05.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, May 24, 1993 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 10, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved with a correction to Item 110, special permits, 912 Paloma Avenue (page 8, condition of approval #1): ". . . plans . . date stamped April 9, 1993." AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY, 10 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 101 ANITA ROAD/904 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-3 CP noted there is no determination on second floor bay window projection required, plans were revised before study meeting, staff will delete this from the project assessment. Commission requests: number of trees on the site, number of trees to be retained; is a den loft considered to be a bedroom; will the storage cupboards on wall above parking be assigned independently of the parking stalls, will there be a problem accessing the cupboards above the car; location of water heaters. Item set for public hearing June 14, 1993. 2. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 AND 2A, BLOCK 20, MAP OF LYON & HOAG, (101 ANITA ROAD/904 BAYSWATER AVENUE) Item set for public hearing June 14, 1993. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 24, 1993 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES TO REMODEL THE FIRST FLOOR AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR AT 1349 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 CP advised staff failed to notice this item for an interior side setback variance which a subsequent submittal showed was necessary, Commission cannot act on the application until it is renoticed. There were no members of the audience present to speak on this request; CA asked that the item be continued and no public hearing be opened at this time. Commission requested that the dimensional errors on the plans be corrected and a survey provided by the applicant before the item is brought back to the Commission; staff was asked to check the square footage figures for the addition. Chm. Deal continued this item until the applicant has submitted all information required by staff; the item will be renoticed. 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW FOUR STORY, 16 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1495/1497/1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 5/24/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, changes from. the May 10, 1.993 study meeting, history of a previous application approved for the site in 1990, staff comments, study meeting questions, findings for a negative declaration. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner commented people are concerned because this project is located near a school where children are arriving between 8:00-9:00 A.M. and have after school programs, how will traffic be controlled, concern about big trucks during construction; CP/CE advised the UBC and local ordinances have regulations for hours of construction, keeping local streets clean, etc., Commission could add a condition if it wished something different. A correction to suggested condition 112 was noted: change "Bayswater" Avenue to "Oak Grove". Further discussion/comment: the condition regarding placement of trees in the 1990 application was not included in the 1993 conditions since the new distinctive tree ordinance now regulates this; in 1990 a "right turn only" sign for exiting cars was included but not in the 1993 conditions, if it was good over two years ago it probably would be good now. A condition limiting hours for hauling of soils during construction was not included in the 1993 conditions, it would be appropriate to add this requirement. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Takuo Kanno, applicant, property owner and architect, was present. His comments: he: was quite willing to have an additional condition requiring no hauling of soils during :--) construction between 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. and 1:45 to 3:00 P.M.; in his original application in 1990 he did not ask for any variances, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 3 May 24, 1993 following the study meeting for this application he redesigned the project to eliminate a variance for dimension of compact parking stalls and a special permit for landscaping. He discussed difficulty in saving the oak tree, making a two way entry to retain it, 20' setback on El Camino Real, whatever the Park Department requires for trees they will conform. They feel the high end housing market will come back by the time construction of these units is completed; if something over minimum sound transmission standards is required they would be willing to do so, this would not make the building higher, ceiling height could be.reduced. Regarding a condition requiring a "right turn only" sign for exiting cars, Mr. Kanno found this acceptable but commented no one feels it is enforceable. Applicant discussed parking provided with Commission; only one handicap space is required, he would like the freedom to convert the second handicap space; when they sell a unit one space will go with the unit, the second space will be assigned in some manner not yet determined. CE commented -this is not uncommon, mapping action will designate one space and the others can be assigned to units as the homeowners /property owner determine except guest parking which must be owned and maintained by the association. CP confirmed parking requirement for a two bedroom unit is two spaces, two spaces do not have to be assigned to each unit, just available to residents, there is no requirement in the code that a developer must provide 20% guest parking or any guest parking; this project provides 32 parking spaces, two for each unit, guest spaces would come out of the required 32 as well as the two disabled accessible spaces, all parking is behind the gate. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CP confirmed a two bedroom apartment unit requires two parking spaces. Commission discussion/ comment: when this came before: Commission in 1990 had concerns and have the same concerns now, it is a quality project and a good plan but am concerned about parking, some condominiums have a mix of two bedroom/one bedroom units, in these eases guest parking may have some meaning and guests have a shot at some of the on-site guest parking; with this project which has all spaces behind a gate the homeowners themselves will use the guest spaces and the public will be parking on the street; another concern is trying to put a 38.5' building into a 35' space, taken to an illogical extreme a 12 story building could be put here as long as one goes deep enough, would prefer to look at this project on its merits and if it's a 38.5' structure see it at grade level, this is a flood area, flooding or backups could go into the garage as well as the units themselves. Further comment: feel the same about this proposal as the 1990 one, concerns are parking and height, the existing houses have been demolished and the site is a vacant lot now but that does not justify approving a building which is too big, it could be a better project and more desirable for the owners of the units if it were reduced to 10 units, unfortunately this is not economically feasible; concerned about Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 24, 1993 these being high end units when they are so crammed in, do not believe there will be any on-site guest parking available. C. Galligan found that on the basis of the initial study and comments received there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and moved to approve Negative Declaration ND -461P, seconded by C. Kelly and approved 7-0 on roll call vote.- Based ote.. Based on the comments and concerns voiced in discussion, C. Graham moved to deny the condominium permit, seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: can accept the validity of some of the concerns previously stated but applicant in good faith came in to the Planning Department, looked at the code, studied the code and designed a project which meets the requirements of the code, if Commission thinks the code is flawed it is not an acceptable reason for denying the project; concur with these statements, applicant has brought the project up to current code, listened to Commission concerns at the study meeting and listened to City Council in 1990, cannot support denial; in 1990 voted yes, now one parking stall has been taken away from the complex, am concerned about a four story building next to a school with very little on -street parking, do not like the idea of a free-for-all for the parking spaces, in reality there will not be much guest parking, liveability of the units has been minimized, units have been squeezed in, project satisfies all the requirements of the code but there is discretionary approval, will support the motion to deny. Responding to a question CP advised if this project came in as an apartment building it could get a building permit. Motion to deny failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Jacobs, Kelly and Mink voting no. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the condominium permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as well as conditions 112 and 113 of the 1990 approval. Conditions follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 17, 1993 Sheets 0, 2 through 4; Sheets 6, 7, , 9 and 10; and date stamped May 13, 1993 Sheet Revised Basement Garage Floor Plan, Sheet 1 Tentative Map, and Sheet L-2 Landscape Plan; and date stamped May 13, 1993 8-1/2" x 11" Plan of Balcony and Storage off Master Bedroom; Detail 7, Typical Party Wall; and 8-1/2" x 14" North Elevation and Parking Ramp Profile; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 17, 1993, April. 19, 1993 and April 4, 1990 memos; the Chief Building Official's May 17, 1993 and April 19, 1993 memos; the Parks Director's May 3, 1993 memo; and the City Engineer's May 4, 1993 and May 17, 1993 memos shall be met; (3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge and parapet wall shall not exceed elevation 69.0' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real, and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 24, 1993 Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final. framing inspection and roofing; (4) that a security gate system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the below and on -grade parking areas; (5) that a total of seven guest parking stalls shall be designated and marked on the final map and plans, and'not assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; (6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (7) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; (8) that the parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners and their guests, and no portion of the parking area and aisles shall be converted to any other use than parking or used for any support activity such as storage units, utilities or other nonparking uses; (9) that the furnaces and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside of the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; (10) that for the protection of pedestrians a silent auto warning system shall be installed at access/egress to the parking area; (11) that the location of trash receptacles shall be approved by the City Engineer; (12) that a handicap/ disabled ramp shall be installed in the stairs at the front entrance gate off Oak Grove Avenue; (13) that a "right turn only" sign shall be placed on the site at the end of the driveway requiring exiting cars to turn right only, the sign shall be maintained by the homeowners association; (14) that during construction hauling of soils shall not be done during the hours students are being dropped off and picked up at the school, e.g., between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M. and 1:45 and 3:00 P.M.; and (15) that the project including egress and access shall meet all the requirements of the Municipal Code and Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved 4-3 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan, Graham and Deal voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. C. Jacobs requested study of the condominium regulations at some future time. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 6 May 24, 1993 5. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 16 UNITS, PORTION LOT 8; BLOCK 7, MAP NO. 2, BURLINGAME LAND CO., APN 029-100-101/020/030 (1495/14971 1499 OAK GROVE AVENUE) Reference staff memo (May 18, 1993). CE Erbacher recommended this mapping action be forwarded to City Council for approval, one condition was suggested. C. Mink moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map and tentative condominium map to City Council for approval with the following condition: (1) dedication of a 15' x 15' corner cutoff for street and utility purposes for future curb return widening. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 5-2 on roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Graham dissenting. Staff will forward to Council. 6. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, SIX UNIT CONDOMINIUM, LOT 3 AND PORTION OF LOT 4. LYON & HOAG SUBDIVISION (113 ANITA ROAD) Reference staff memo (May 18, 1993). CE Erbacher reviewed previous approvals and expirations of this map. Construction is substantially complete and it is hoped a final condominium map will be ready for the Council meeting on June 7. He recommended the tentative condominium map be forwarded to City Council for approval and requested a 30 day time limit be placed on receipt of the final condominium map. Commission discussion: original approvals were in 1986, project has been under construction since that time, it has been built to UBC regulations at the time the building permit was issued. CE again explained history of approvals, expirations and extension of the tentative map and construction of the condominium. Chm: Deal opened the public hearing. Vincent Lee, applicant, was present. He advised he bought this property about four years ago, approved plans came with the purchase. He discussed the revisions required for the building permit, time it took to have his architect make revisions and to get final approval from the city for the building permit. Reapplication for the condominium permit was also needed. There were delays caused by the death of his architect and delays by his contractor. At present the project is complete except for storm drainage, he hopes to apply for final inspection by the end of this week. He was aware of the CE's request that the city receive the final map in 30 days and will ask his surveyor to comply. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative condominium map to City Council for approval with the condition that the final condominium map be received by the city within 30 days. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Staff will forward to City Council. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 24, 1993 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE TWO LOTS - LANDS OF MOLAKIDIS - APN 026-240-300/310 (1017 AND 1025 ROLLINS_ROAD) Reference staff memo (May 18, 1993) . CE Erbacher reviewed this request to combine and divide five parcels into two parcels, -the two existing buildings to remain. He discussed review criteria and staff comments. CE recommended this map be forwarded to City Council for approval with four conditions suggested for attachment to the map. Responding to questions, CE advised Parcel 026-240-040 is excluded; in response to study meeting question, this proposal will work with all staff's requirements. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Fred Allen, Civil Engineer and Al Molakidis, applicant and property owner, were present. Mr. Molakidis/staff discussed fire exiting and requirements for property line walls or wall opening agreements. CE said he suggested conditions to address these matters, he wanted wall openings and any other easement to be completed before the final map is presented. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved that this tentative parcel map be recommended to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) that the exit paths to the public right-of-way be clearly established to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and indicated on the recorded map if necessary; (2) that the existing wall opening on the proposed lot line be restored to the required fire resistant standard or a wall opening agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and Fire Department be executed; (3) that the existing sewer laterals be tested and repaired or replaced if needed in accordance with Ordinance No. 1329; and (4) that all existing utilities for the existing structures be relocated onto their respective parcels or that easements be provided. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Staff will forward to City Council. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A'DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT AT 104 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/24/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission/staff comment: in order to get a building permit applicant will have to comply with side setback requirements, 'this could be added as a condition if Commission wishes; staff generally adds a condition for detached garages that they shall not be used for living purposes and a second kitchen shall not be allowed, then it':; recorded with the deed and future owners are aware; are two sets of stairs needed; for safety no. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 24, 1993 Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Translator for the applicant, Mike Yun Qi, replied to Commission's questions: there were two sets of stairs when Mr. Qi purchased the property two months ago, room on first floor of the old garage is a laundry room, existing kitchen is on the second floor, it will remain upstairs; the Audi parked between the fence and street will be removed next week; there are 3-1/2 baths in the house and two bedrooms, one upstairs and one downstairs, the kitchen is upstairs, there is a patio with barbecue downstairs; six people will live in the house, with one kitchen. A Commissioner noted existing first floor headroom is insufficient, foundation shallow, not adequate for two stories; applicant said if foundation is not strong enough he will make it more solid, he had not thought about putting in new foundation and new walls. Regarding a suggestion he be required to remove the outside stairs, applicant said there are many doors and connecting rooms and it would be better to have the back stairs also. People using the uncovered back stairs enter the first floor through the laundry room. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found this is a project which needs help, project would be better served and more functional for a single family if exterior stairs were removed, the exterior stairs invite a second unit. C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit by :resolution with the conditions in the staff report and an additional condition that the exterior stairs be removed and the only access to the upstairs be through the interior. C. Jacobs seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: ceiling height in downstairs portion will have to be increased from 7' to 7.51, this may result in extensive foundation work, does this become a new house; there are changes required under the UBC which will alter dimensions on these plans, how can these plans be a condition of approval; staff noted these are only schematic plans, they serve as a guide to plan cheek, requirements of the UBC and UFC will be met even if they require changes in wall placement, all the code required changes will make the structure more conforming to zoning standards; structural plans will come later; this building will be demolished inside resulting in replacement of a nonconforming structure, cannot support the motion; this is not a good plan, poor placement' of rooms, insufficient ceiling height; it is a unique property developed at the rear instead of the front; the project should be denied for the protection of the applicant; suggest condition 14 be deleted: am not convinced that taking out the exterior stairs will solve all the problems, if this much work is going to be done there is a need to know if the foundation is satisfactory; perhaps it could be denied without prejudice. During discussion staff advised the existing house could continue to be used in its nonconforming condition if no addition was proposed. A Commissioner thought granting this request now might help improve the property, if it were denied the house could stay unsafe and become more Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 9 May 24, 1993 of a problem over the years; staff confirmed this was not a code enforcement item. Additional comment: there is more we don't know than we do know, cannot agree to eliminating the outside stairway, it has been there for a long time and won't necessarily result in a second unit; stair is next to the property line, one hour construction is not possible, that staircase will be removed once the plans go to the Building Department; the whole building is a detriment, first floor has been converted to living space, it doesn't meet requirements of the UBC, setbacks are violated, should require the building to be brought up to code, if approve a slipshod unit it will remain slipshod. Staff commented on disclosure laws and buying "as is". C. Graham removed staff's suggested condition 14 from her motion to approve, accepted by the seconder, C. Jacobs. Motion to approve failed on a 2-5 roll call vote, Cers Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Kelly, Mink voting no. C. Galligan moved to deny the application, seconded by C. Mink, approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:25 P.M., reconvene 9:33 P.M. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICE AREA EXCEEDING 20% AT 380 BEACH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/24/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comment, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Philip Anasov;ich, architect with Blunk Demattei Associates, was present. He advised Piper Painting is at 380 Beach Road now, they leave their truck there at night, exchange their cars for the truck in the morning. There: were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found this would not be detrimental to other businesses in the vicinity and moved for approval of the s=pecial permit for additional office space over 20% 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 May 18, 1993 Sheets A-1, A-2 and Existing Lower Level Floor Plan and Existing Upper Level Floor Plan date stamped May 4, 1993; (2) that if additional office space is proposed in the future it would require an amendment to this special use permit; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 24, 1993 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA ON THE ROOF AT 1633 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 5/24/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the request, required findings. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Larry Lyons, Burlingame Office Center, was present. He stated this antenna will be used for market information for the applicant's business, it will not be visible from anywhere in the vicinity; he believed this commercial application of small satellite dishes will be a fast growing use; the antenna will be placed 20' to 30' from the edge of the building; this type of dish is considerably smaller than others and is used for specific business information. The Mercy Life Care antenna on the roof of this building is 8' x 5' but the 8' and 5' arms are 1" in diameter. A Commissioner noted the specifications say "reflective surface comprising copper platelets" and the suggested conditions of approval say "nonreflective surface". Mr. Lyons replied if it's copper it won't stay shiny long on the roof. The Commissioner wanted applicant to be aware of this condition before installation of the antenna. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. It was noted this dish is not attached to the roof, the base is weighted to secure it to the building. The CA advised the ordinance includes items secured to roof. C. Jacobs found this dish antenna would not be detrimental to the area because it would not be visible and moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the satellite dish antenna receiver shall be placed on the roof. only at the location shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 26, 1993 Sheet 1, Satellite Specifications; Sheet A5, Roof Plan; Sheet A6, Elevations; and Sheet A7, Elevations; (2) that a building permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of the antenna; (3) that no other antennas or dish antennas temporary or permanent shall be placed on the roof of the building or elsewhere on this site without receiving a special permit and building permit from the city prior to their installation; (4) that the satellite dish shall be painted nonreflective paint to match the color of the roof; (5) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible for an amendment to this use permit if future construction on any adjacent property requires relocation of the dish antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/or property owner; (6) that the applicant shall permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the dish and its support structure, or remove the facility; (7) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit; (8) that should this tenant leave the building the antenna shall be removed and the city notified of its ) removal; and (9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page it May 24, 1993 the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. TEMPORARY STRUCTURE PERMIT 11. PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY TENTS, CANOPIES, AWNINGS OR ENCLOSURES ON REQUIRED PARKING AT THE.SAFEWAY GROCERY STORE, 1450 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA SUB AREA B AND R-3 Reference staff report, 5/24/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of this request and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion/ comment: this could be called a permanent temporary request since there will not be a review of the specific use each time; staff noted under the code a public hearing is not required nor are notices; concerned that any retailer could come in for this type of activity, would feel more comfortable if this were an amendment to a special permit or a specific special permit. Staff commented the code was changed recently establishing the present procedure„ these permits have not been a real concern of City Council, temporary tents have been approved for the hotels; this store is a permitted use in this zone. Further comments: concern about having a temporary tent city every Christmas, or someone using a vacant lot next to residential for this type of use; would suggest this permit be reviewed in one year; would like to calendar review of the whole matter in one year; when this issue first came up staff controlled the issue, Council was concerned as elected representatives, the issue has come up and worked so Council does not feel there will be abuse of this type of use, it does serve a useful purpose. Would suggest that this be allowed six times a year, Christmas excluded; if there are no complaints, do not waste the time of Commission and staff with something that so far hasn't been a problem. CP noted the manager of this store is just as anxious to retain parking spaces for customers as the city is to have them retained. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this application with the following conditions: (1) that the area to be used shall be :Located on the east side of the entry to the store as shown in the letter date stamped May 14, 1993, shall occupy no more than five parking stalls and shall not occupy or affect the use of the disabled accessible parking stalls in any way; (2) that the store shall use this outdoor- area no more than six times a year for a maximum of 10 days for each sale except that they may use the area for up to 30 days for the sale of Christmas trees; (3) that the management of the store shall receive a blanket approval from the Fire Department for the canopy, awning or tent material and size, to insure each conforms to the department's Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 24, 1993 requirements and they shall notify the Planning Department in writing no less than two days before this area is to be used; such notice shall state the date on which the structure is to be erected and the date of its removal; (4) that each temporary tent, canopy, awning or enclosure shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time; and (5) that the permit for the temporary use of this outdoor sales area shall be reviewed in one year (June, 1994), upon complaint or if it becomes a nuisance and/or causes a safety or maintenance problem to customers, other merchants or property owners in the area. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved unanimously on roll call vote. PLANNER REPORTS There were no Planner reports. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10.02 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth 13. Jacobs Secretary