Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.02.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, February --22, 1993 at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Mink Absent: Commissioner Kelly Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the February 8, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THREE STORIES AT 2315 DAVIS DRIVE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 2/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question CP advised the 38' height at the rear is not a problem, height is measured from the front of the lot; plans do not include a second exit but this has been discussed with the applicant. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Ken Ibarra, architect and applicant, presented a sketch of proposed second exit from the third floor. He incorporated his letter addressing variance findings which was included in the packet. His comments: existing lot coverage is less than 27% for an 11,000 SF lot which includes 320 SF of existing deck, well within 40% lot coverage; because of the large oak trees and change in grade on the site there is no room to add one level; this project would comply with proposed FAR which is being discussed by the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 22, 1993 City Council at the present time. It was noted staff and applicant have agreed on the elevation figures stated in condition #2; the deck proposed as a second exit from the third floor is above the existing deck which would not enlarge the existing footprint. Architect said any addition would result in a third story as far as building and fire codes are concerned; he had not talked to any of the uphill neighbors. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Graham found this area to be unique and an exception to the rule for_ hillside area construction permits because of the topography, applicant has done a good job in trying to work with the existing house and keeping the existing footprint. C. Graham moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit and variance for three stories 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 February 11, 1993, Sheets A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5 and A.6; (2) that the highest roof ridge shall not be greater than elevation 43.6 or 24'-6" from average top of curb (elev. 19.125); (3) that the height variance for three stories shall apply to the area over the existing footprint of the house as shown on the plans date stamped February 11, 1993 and shall not include any future extensions to the rear of the building; (4) that the portion of the new addition which creates the third floor must have two exits; plans showing the location of the second exit must be approved by Planning, Building, Fire and Engineering, and must not affect the footprint or lot coverage as shown on the plans submitted February 11, 1993, before a building permit can be issued; and (5) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW POOL HOUSE AT 1341 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 CP Monroe reviewed details of the four special permits required for this accessory structure to be used as living quarters for a care person for the property owners' disabled daughter. She discussed a previous application for remodeling the existing lanai which was denied by the Commission, staff comments, applicant comments, study meeting questions, required findings. A large number of letters/petitions in support and opposed were noted. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The Chair noted a letter in support (February 19, 1993) which the Commissioners received at home from Assemblywoman Jackie Speier. A letter (February 22, 1993) from Attorney James D. Smith was also noted. CA advised the cases Mr. Smith cites deal with group residential care facilities and are not relevant to a single person situation. Burlingame Planning commission Minutes Page 3 February 22, 1993 Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Lou Dell'Angela, private planning consultant representing the applicants, Jim Wells and Carol Windsor, discussed zoning and planning. aspects of this proposal; applicants' architect was also present; most of the people here this evening would like to see Hope (applicants' daughter) reunited with her "family in their home; the question is how to do this without creating a problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Dell'Angela stated there may be a degree of confusion, Wells/Windsor want a special permit to use a portion of an accessory structure for living quarters, this use is permitted by the zoning ordinance, no variance is being requested, the structure will not have kitchen facilities, any neighbor in the R-1 zone could apply for these same permits; they are not requesting a second unit or granny flat, the proposed use is a legal use in the R-1 zone. Applicants agree to most of staff's suggested conditions of approval and have recommended some of their -own. Mr. Dell'Angela continued: regarding the concern about conversion to a second unit, there will be no attempt to create a rental unit, applicants only want to create separate living quarters for a care person. Regarding alternatives to the proposal, applicants have studied their options extensively, in each instance there seemed to be a problem with privacy for the care person and the family. Looking at the garage as an alternative, the ceiling height is only 6-1/21, there is a small upstairs room used as a hobby room, cars are parked in the garage, there seems to be no way to make that structure livable for a care person, would have to replace it entirely to make it livable and still would have the problem of cars coming in at night, gas fumes, etc. This will not be precedent setting, such requests are judged on a case by case basis, the Commission has approved and denied special permits for a variety of uses, this is not a variance request so do not need to prove hardship although there is a hardship involved in this case. Mr. Dell'Angela addressed the findings required for a special permit, it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, there is no parking problem associated with this use, only one person will be added, there is room to park in the driveway and on the street., a new pool house will replace the old buildings upgrading the property and the neighborhood; architecture will be compatible with that of the existing house, there will be no negative visual impacts; the accessory structure is located in the rear of a large property, trees will screen the building, there will be no windows facing the side property line. This property is much larger than typical lots in the area, over 9,200 SF, existing lot coverage is only 29%, many lots in the area are close to 40% lot coverage. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan of the city and the zoning ordinance; it does not require a variance, is specifically permitted in the R-1 zone, meets height requirements in R-1, will comply with building and fire codes. Mr. Dell'Angela stated applicants have no objection to the conditions being proposed. He offered a listing of eight conditions Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 22, 1993 (Environmental Development Group, February 22, 1993) including staff recommended conditions with which applicants concur and two added conditions to protect the neighbors. He then suggested a 9th condition: that in the event the applicants sell their property this permit shall be revoked; this differs from staff's suggested condition 15. They objected to condition 15 because of the requirement in 10 years the structure be put back to a lanai, applicants do not know how long Hope will be able to be with them and cared for on this property, they do not want to create a new structure and then dismantle it after 10 years or sooner; applicants think their suggested conditions will address staff concerns. Consultant stated this is a responsible and reasonable proposal, it will be compatible with the neighborhood, it will cause no environmental concerns, there are conditions of approval to protect the neighborhood, recorded documents will ensure this structure will not become a second unit. Trust is what is needed, applicants will abide by the conditions; if not, the city can enforce; applicants' primary concern is to get their daughter home. Responding to Commission questions, consultant advised the special permits he mentioned earlier were for a variety of uses, not similar uses; he.wished to make the point that Commission has the right to use its discretion to approve or deny such special permits. Regarding staff recommended condition 15 which has a 10 year sunset clause and the requirement to remove a wall so the structure cannot be used for habitation, does that give the city increased protection to prevent a rental unit? Applicants will spend so much to create this structure they wonder why remove a wall when there are other conditions to protect against a rental unit. The Chair wished recommended condition #7 to say "when the need ceases the enclosed building ceases"; why are two sanitary facilities needed, toilet in the garage and pool house, why not make use of the one in the garage. Consultant advised applicant has a hobby room on the second floor in the garage. Carol Windsor, applicant, discussed the needs of their disabled daughter, Hope and pointed out photos displayed at the rear of the Council Chambers; Hope is severely disabled with cerebral palsy; she has developed beyond their expectations; has been living away from home, the trip each weekend ,takes eight hours, it is extremely difficult to have her so far away and she wants to come home, she needs to be with her family and her family needs her. Applicant said they want to provide opportunities which Hope does not have now, there is no swimming and this is an important activity; she leads a narrow life, spends two hours on the bus going to and from school. With this proposal they would be able to expand Hope's horizons, they realize their lives would change, Hope's needs are great,full time live-in care is essential :since she needs to be helped in all activity. Burnout is a problem with all care givers, they need to have their own space when giving long term care, it is important to the care giver to have living quarters separate from the family. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 22, 1993 Applicant read statements from several agencies addressing burnout, this is a common occurrence with care providers and. it is important for care givers to have separate living quarters. She noted in Hillsborough it is possible to install a bathroom in a pool'trouse with a permit; the bath in the proposed pool house would be accessible to Hope; they are not asking for a variance or for anything that will be harmful to Burlingame, just asking for these special permits so they can bring their daughter home. Responding to questions, applicant advised Hope will have a bedroom in the main dwelling, care giver will be in the detached bedroom; care giver will help in the morning, then Hope will go to school, care giver will help after school through dinner; Hope will be bathed in the shower in the pool house until they can remodel and put shower in the downstairs bath in the main house; they would like to remodel the kitchen and some other parts of the house but everything hinges on what they can do with Hope. Live -out care is not as beneficial, it works out to the family's and child's benefit to have someone live in. There is room to park two cars in the garage but at present there is too much stored there. To bring the garage up to code would require a great deal of expense and there would still be two shacks in the back yard. They have not investigated bringing the garage up to code, could remove toilet in garage if Commission wishes. Gary Murakami, architect, commented on using the garage as the live-in unit, ceiling height is 6'-411, to have living space above a legal second story would require a variance; garage is on the property line, the highest it can be is 10'; existing parking structure does. not have two legal spaces; applicants addressed making the second story into sleeping quarters, to make it compatible for a care giver would make it more nonconforming; toilet is on the existing first floor, would need more height to put in shower area. Architect responded to more questions about locating shower in the garage, all suggestions would add to the nonconformity. They did look at adding a bedroom above the family room to keep the care giver in the house and accessible to Hope but Hope would need an elevator; Hope would be able to go to the care person's living quarters in the pool house. Jim Wells, applicant, commented: one of their considerations is to have the care giver be the primary lifter of Hope, they are planning to install shower in the pool house for Hope with shower chair, want care provider to be able to bathe her; they do not have a shower which would work in the downstairs of their house. They want to live in Burlingame, one of their major concerns has been the impact on the neighborhood, they feel this proposal would be best. for the family and for the neighbors, two old buildings will be removed, the pool structure will be moved farther from property line, it will match architecture of the house and be designed to reduce noise with no windows to the side, there will be sound insulation. Care person will be an employee, there will be no effect on the neighbors; they have Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 22, 1993 talked to many neighbors and have lots of support, 95% of responses are in support; they will not rent the pool house but are unwilling to agree to tear out a wall and modify the structure once it is not needed for a care giver, it would be a useful amenity for anyone who has a pool. They are asking for the special permits to allow thft and the care person to meet their legitimate needs for privacy, they want their family all together again. In discussion with Commission Mr. Wells said it is possible to build a shower in the house but they are asking for privacy for themselves and for the care giver, they want Hope to have access to the care giver's structure when it is appropriate; adding a bedroom above the family room with an outside staircase is not acceptable because Hope would not have access to that area of the house, they would have to add an elevator in that case; the most private place would be in a pool house. Others with disabled children all feel the need for privacy; everyone works it out in their own way, their needs and capabilities are vastly different. Room above the garage was rejected because Hope could not go up the stairs, applicant did not think there would be an impact if the pool house height were reduced from 13' to 121. The following members of the audience spoke in support: Rhonda de la Parra, 1515 Hillside Drive; Jennifer Kennedy, PARCA, San Mateo, Coordinator Family Support Services, Developmentally Disabled; Rick Chavez, social worker, Golden Gate Regional Center; Susan Kossiakoff, 1020 Cortez Avenue; Gerald and Joan Woods, 1132 Hamilton Lane; Peter Wantuch, 1350 Columbus Avenue; Ralph Osterling, 1361 Columbus Avenue. The following spoke in opposition: Nick Germano, 2304 Easton Drive; Jane Sears, 2312 Easton Drive (she also spoke in opposition for Richard Rossi, 2411 Easton Drive and Barbara Chiari, 2408 Easton Drive); Louellen Hesse, 2307 Easton Drive; Diana Garibaldi, 2308 Easton Drive; Maria Concepcion, 2319 Easton Drive; Richard Garibaldi, 2308 Easton Drive; Herbert Tanner, 1345 Columbus Avenue. Comments in support: have a disabled son myself who needs full time care, have averaged one person every eight months, have one spare bedroom and we share the bath, no one has privacy;. due to physical and emotional demands a care person and the family need maximum privacy, these children won't get better but should have the right of access to all parts of the home; serve the developmentally disabled, worked with San Mateo County's special education program for 20 years, outside placement is more expensive, respite care in San Mateo County is financially infeasible; group homes have several shifts, it is difficult work, physical breakdowns occur; commend the Windsor -Wells keeping their child at home and making the environment as stress free as possible; in terms of costs to the state funds are continually cut, this child had to be placed in Watsonville in order to attend school which points out the shortage of facilities in this area; based on professional judgment separate living facilities are the best for good care giving, it is essential for anyone providing this level of care; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 22, 1993 am a friend of the applicants and a teacher in the Burlingame School District, understand the second unit concerns but the Wells need to be trusted, just because there are living quarters does not mean it has to be a permanent second unit problem; this will not set a dangerous precedent, it is just an exercise in discretion, there is a'Talance of the neighbors' concerns against the needs of quality care and privacy. A neighbor spoke of his 4-1/2 year old daughter wondering where Hope was, every situation has solutions, have known the Wells for almost five years, think commission should take them at their word, they have been very sensitive to the neighbors, many of us moved here to raise a family, would like the Wells to have the same opportunities to do that as others; Burlingame equals families, neighborhoods, trees, there are special concerns but think second unit concerns in this case can be forgotten. There were no further audience comments in favor. Comments/concerns in opposition: additional structures in back yards, particularly pool houses; sympathize with the applicants but there are other considerations in order to maintain neighborhood harmony; this lot has had three building permits so far, now is asking for four special permits to build a pool house with living quarters, care giver could live in the six bedroom home and have adequate privacy or could use the room over the garage, sewer and water could be piped upstairs, 6-1/2' ceiling could be easily raised, this room has dormer window which would be an ideal spot for a bathroom; the care giver could live somewhere in the neighborhood/area and come to the house when needed; have looked at the proposed plans and new pool house will be slightly larger than existing mechanical room and lanai, recommend applicant repair the two older structures and use them as intended, multiple development on single parcels of land has created bad feelings among neighbors, proposed structure will not interfere with my property but am disturbed about possible use by a future owner. Am against a possible second unit, it will set a precedent, oppose two houses on any R-1 lot; care provider will be separated from the child at night so might as well live off site; property owners could fill the pool house with relatives and guests, won't a care person have a social life and guests; Mr. Wells could be transferred, would new owner not rent the pool house, how can this be policed; we are the closest neighbors, can hear noise from the pool, are we expected to endure the intrusion of another house; am the sole care provider for an elderly mother and father, need help to care for them physically, have only three bedrooms; there are other options, once a bathroom is added it is easy to add a microwave and have a granny unit; have a retarded child in the family, he developed much better when not living in the home; back yard abuts the Windsor -Wells, will care giver be in pool house all day while Hope is at school, care giver will have friends, street is narrow, there are always cars parked there, this will add to the problem (responding to Commission question, existing pool house has not had an adverse impact on his property, if pool house is occupied it will become a home and affect his privacy). Burlingame Planning commission Minutes Page 8 February 22, 1993 Am not convinced applicants have considered other alternatives; if this structure is to be a haven for the care giver why have Hope back there, better to remodel bath on the first floor of the main house; this sets a precedent for multiple dwellings, detracts from the character of the neighborhood, how will compliance be enforced, what if it doesn't work out, how can new owners be forced to comply with what previous owners have agreed to, think other alternatives deserve more consideration; cannot imagine a wider shower for Hope in the pool house, one accessory structure is enough, keep it the way it is; there is a good reason why Burlingame has remained a charming city, over the years people have worked for the community, when there is running water it is easy to add a hot plate and microwave and you have a kitchen; the Windsor -Wells have a six bedroom house which should provide ample room for a care giver; Columbus Avenue is narrow, with cars parked on both sides there is room for only one car to pass, with this second unit there will be more cars/traffic; if house were sold this unit could be easily rented by a new owner. Mr. Dell'Angela clarified that this is not a six bedroom house, there are only four bedrooms, the proposal is not a granny unit but is a permitted use in the zoning code, applicants are willing to remove the bathroom in the garage if Commission wishes. Ms. Kennedy of PARCA advised a typical care giver should have some training, age is not as important as experience, someone who is well built and able to lift, have had college age people, someone who could go to school when Hope does, or a single mother with a grown child. Applicant advised the wooden structure behind the garage is a fort for their son, has no foundation and could be moved. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: Commission is in a no win situation this evening, both sides presented compelling arguments, seems to be two neighborhoods with very disparate views; two homes on Easton back onto this property, one on Carlos signed in support; parking is not an issue with the Windsor -Wells proposal but if they moved out of town a family could move in with three teenagers, that could produce real noise as opposed to a care giver; concern seems to be that somebody is spending the night in the pool house, in another situation kids could sleep in the lanai and make more noise; there are alternatives, a bedroom could be added to the back of the main dwelling for the care giver's use, Hope will not have access to the upstairs anyway unless they put in an elevator, but this addition would make the house huge and would not favor such a solution; find compelling arguments on both sides but tend to think that with some modification Commission might work with this application. Further comment: this is a difficult decision, this is an R-1 lot but is the proposal a second unit; garage could be remodeled and bathroom put upstairs but it would still be a unit that could be rented out in Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 22, 1993 the future; separate bedroom over the family room with a separate staircase could be added, this could provide the privacy but could it be a separate living unit in the future; think best care is with the family, it is expensive to have a person live in, agree the care person needs separate space; do not think it is inappropriate to require removal of a wall later; this is a special permit, not a variance; special permits are granted to allow people to use their property, generally for some recreational use; tend to think of this as a detached bedroom rather than a detached living unit, at the moment in favor of the project with some conditions. A Commissioner discussed definitions in the code, an accessory structure is permitted as long as it is built without a kitchen, that's what is there now, it has running water, only change requested is to add a bathroom; family includes servants, an accessory structure can have family living in it; lanai would be converted to a pool house, a separate room in conjunction with the pool makes sense; this lot is the equivalent ,of 1-1/2 lots, if a property owner has one lot he is entitled to one house, if he has 1-1/2 lots he should be entitled to 1-1/2 houses; the care giver needs space separate and apart from the family if it can be reasonably provided to the benefit of everyone. Am impressed with the applicants' suggested conditions, think they are committed to the family use of this as defined by the code and do not need their suggested condition #7 requiring an annual report to the city that the pool house is not rented; this proposal will take two accessory structures, make them into one, reduce the noise level, pull existing structures farther from property lines. Would like to lower the height of the pool house to 12', this would have less impact on the neighborhood, insulation will help but when doors and windows are open a party could intrude on the neighbors; am convinced Hope will spend significant time with the care provider and it is unreasonable the care provider should have to carry her up the stairs in the garage. Rebuilding the garage to make a two car garage to code is not practical because of inadequate backup space, could add to the house but this is not practical either. Incorporating information in the staff report and statements made this evening, C. Galligan moved for approval of the special permits by resolution with conditions, seconded by C. Graham. There was considerable discussion with respect to the conditions and comment on the motion: will be voting no because I feel this is a second unit; concern this is the same as the last proposal for this site, a second unit in R-1, can understand the needs of the care giver and the family but there are other options; Commission has a difficult job to maintain the quality of the city, work with the people of the city and at the same time defend the city against improper uses by residents and others, this is a good compromise, the Windsor -Wells have a difficult situation requiring special consideration, the city does not want second units in R-1, staff and Commission have reached a good Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 22, 1993 compromise with the applicants which we expect them to carry out in good faith, if this permit is abused it's a whole new ball game. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the pool house shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 21, 1993 Sheet One, with,a maximum height of 121, and it shall never include a kitchen area or cooking unit; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's January 25, 1993 memo shall be met; (3) that neither the pool house accessory structure nor any other accessory structure on the property shall be used or rented as a second dwelling unit; (4) that the pool mechanical room shall have sound attenuation walls on all four sides and in the ceiling as necessary; (5) that the use permit to use the pool house structure for accessory living purposes (without kitchen/cooking facilities) and to have a toilet and shower in the pool house shall expire in 10 years (February, 2003) and at that time the pool house shall be converted to an open lanai, or these improvements shall be converted to an open lanai if a change of ownership occurs within 10 years; (6) that the new pool house shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (7) that the city and the Windsor -Wells shall record a separate notice in the property records requiring that the Planning Department be sent written notice of sale of the Windsor -Wells home upon close of escrow, with a copy of the permit attached. Motion was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Jacobs voting no, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 10:30 P.M.; reconvene 10:40 P.M. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE OUT AT 299 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND 1101-1103 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 2/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request, staff comments, required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was noted they are already selling food at retail. CP advised this business was at this location prior to amendment of the code requiring take-out permits, since they are expanding they are required to make application now. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. John Linderman, applicant, advised he has been in business since 1978, has been doing take out since 1978. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis moved for approval of the special permit for take-out service 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 January 21, 1993 Sheets FS -1, FS -2, FS -3 and FS -4; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 16, 1993 memo (off- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 22, 1993 site trash and recycling area must remain available for this site), the Chief Building Inspector's February 16, 1993 memo (both entrances must be handicap accessible with one unisex handicap toilet) and the Fire Marshal's February 1, 1993 memo (the awning on the front of the shop must be modified to provide clearance for the fire'•escape from the second floor) shall be met; (3) that the shop shall be open Monday through Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and Sunday 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. and shall provide no tables and customer seating, and shall have a maximum of four employees at any one time; (4) that if and when the off-site trash/garbage/recycling area is removed this special permit shall be reviewed and may be revoked if facilities acceptable to the City Engineer, Fire Marshal and County Health Department cannot be provided; (5) that the retail gourmet food business shall provide, maintain and regularly empty trash receptacles as needed at the door and on the corners of California Drive and Burlingame Avenue, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; and (6) 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. Jacobs and approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (FIXED INCOME SECURITIES) AT 330 PRIMROSE ROAD 1602, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 2/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the details. Applicant, Ronald Krampton, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the business be limited to telephone sales of fixed income securities and limited to the 935 SF area as shown on plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 20, 1993; (2) that there be a maximum number of six (6) employees; 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 unanimously on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (LOAN BROKERAGE COMPANY) AT 330 PRIMROSE ROAD 1610, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 2/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the details.* Applicant, Robert O'Connor, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the business be limited to loan brokerage only and limited to the 900 SF area as shown on plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 21,1993; (2) that the loan brokerage business be open 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. weekdays with a maximum number of six (6) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 February 22, 1993 employees; 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. Graham and approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (REALTY, DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES) AT 330 PRIMROSE ROAD #312, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 2/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the details. Applicant, Stephen Boschetti, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Graham moved for approval of this special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the realty, development and financial services business be limited to the 1,000 SF area as shown on plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 1993; (2) that the business be open 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. weekdays with a maximum number of three (3) employees; 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. Galligan and approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT FOR HYATT REGENCY HOTEL AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 2/22/93, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis moved for approval of this temporary tent permit with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 1993 Exhibit and Site Plan 8-1/2" x 11"; (2) that the temporary tent shall be removed by March 14, 1993 and the parking spaces shall be restored to their original use; (3) that all employees whose parking spaces have been temporarily displaced by this tent shall park on site in the primary parking structure of the hotel; (4) that there shall be three exits required for an occupant load of 320 people; (5) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that the site shall be inspected for removal of the tent on March 15, 1993. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Kelly absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes :Page 13 :February 22, 1993 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Letter from Catering Manager, Doubletree Hotel, 835 Airport Boulevard (February 18, 1993) regarding permit for a temporary-tent.— CITY emporary"tent.— CITY PLANNER REPORTS CP reviewed City Council actions at its February 17, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary