Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1986.02.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Garcia on Monday, February 24, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. unr_r_ rrnr.r. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman MINUTES - The minutes of the February 10, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda revised to hear Item #4 prior to Item #3. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. AMENDMENT OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR LOT 1 OF THE 5 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 2720 MARIPOSA DRIVE Item withdrawn by the applicant. 2. TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TAKE-OUT/DELIVERY FOOD SERVICE AND NON -AUTO RELATED USE AT 224 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUB -AREA D OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 2/24/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing: two as listed in the staff report, a third to require amendment of the use permit if there is any change in the proposed operation and a fourth to require review in one year's time for compliance with the conditions. CP also noted a change in suggested Condition #2: ". . . employees on site would be limited to a maximum of five, two inside and three delivery ." Commission discussed handicapped access, possible signage, Fire Department requirements. Frank Albers, applicant, responded to Commission questions: he was aware of handicapped access and Fire Department requirements, there would be no signs on the delivery cars, he does not have S.P. parking rights but has counted on -street spaces, within 189 yards there are 139 public spaces. He chose this location because the leased area best suited his needs for size and shape. From a survey of parking during his proposed business hours he had Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 24, 1986 determined there was available parking between 4:00 and 7:00 P.M, those in front of the railroad station were always available and three in front of his store; after 7:00 P.M. there could be a problem from customers of the bar across the street. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Those speaking in opposition: Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue who read a letter in opposition signed by 50 workers/ residents of Burlingame.' Letter urged denial: there are too many eating establishments in the city now; there is a need to improve the retail sales base, not food sales and there is inadequate parking available for this proposal. Berry Hurley, in business at 231 California Drive: this area doesn't need another eating place, there is no available parking, his business is open until 8:00 P.M. and there is no parking at that hour, Saturdays are very congested. Kevin Kanady, representing the landlord of 224 California Drive, supported the application: this is not a restaurant, 95% of the business is delivery; it is not a sit down restaurant, Domino's will not take customers away from other businesses; there will be three delivery vehicles which deliver a number of pizzas at one time; only 5% of the business would be pickup. Addressing parking, there are two 20 minute parking stalls in front, the train station has metered parking, there would be enough parking for this 5%; trucks parked in back would leave when Domino's opens, that space would be available for the smaller delivery vehicles. Further comment in opposition: Dave Dornlas, in business at 210 California Drive: there is a problem now with parking enforcement in the S.P. right of way leased to 218-210 California Drive at the rear of the building because of lack of parking in the general area; if Domino's opens at 4:00 P.M. when will the first employee be on site, concern that employees will arrive much earlier; would not like to see this application approved and the city receive a reapplication for longer hours a year from now, this would aggravate parking even more. (Applicant comment: the business will not be open before 4:00 P.M.; in observing other pizza operations their hours have not changed, there is not enough demand for pizza during the day; the first employee might arrive at 3:30 P.M., food arrives already prepared; will have one truck which will be kept off site overnight, trucks from other businesses in the area are not there after hours or on weekends.) A Commissioner expressed concern with an 11:00 A.M. opening on Saturday; applicant stated people are home on the weekend and more delivery business is received; this would not encourage sit down service, the corporation itself does not encourage opening for lunch. Comment from Mr. Hurley: California Drive is zoned for automotive uses, there are a number of other types of business there now including three pizza places within a block of each other; his business is open Saturday and Sunday, there is no available parking on Sunday either. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Pag e 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1986 Commission discussion/comment: other uses have been allowed in this area but think all opportunities to return it to auto related uses should be taken; the limitation on restaurants in Sub -Area A might be pushing food services to this area; more non -auto related uses may have been allowed when the auto industry was in the doldrums but agree the area should be returned to auto related use, applicant did not have a compelling reason for this particular site beyond the size and shape of the premise; applicant should have a,fair opportunity to survive but this is not good business, subsidized by employees who furnish their own cars, subsidized by the city with on -street parking and the S.P. property, subsidized by its neighbors, this particular operation impacts the city severely with no contribution to the downtown community; Commission should attempt to put auto related uses back in that location. One Commissioner felt this building was there and should be used, auto supply businesses have not come to this location, they are located all over the city; if food service is going to be allowed in the C-2 district this proposal would have less impact than another type of restaurant; if auto related use is required the property owner could have a problem in renting. Further comment: a poor location for this type of activity, this business should have at least one or two of its own parking spaces; applicant found only four to five empty spaces, this is a good business which needs a better location, not at the foot of Burlingame Avenue. C. Taylor moved for denial of the application. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO DETAILING SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 70 STAR WAY Reference staff report, 2/24/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, letters from applicant's attorney, study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Anthony Stagnaro, applicant, was present. His comments: received a business license for auto detailing at this location in 1980; in 1981 the property owner put in a wash rack without a city permit; following the city's order not to wash cars on site and since detailing work requires washing, he now must take the cars elsewhere for washing. (Drainage must conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department.) Applicant's responses to Commission questions: there are two wash racks, one for Mr. Detail and one for Star Excavation; there are no pending legal proceedings with his landlord which might affect any action taken this evening; he had no objection to the suggested conditions; business license was applied for as auto detailing which includes washing, he was willing to abide by the conditions of approval and not wash cars on site; 99% of his business is from rent -a -car companies, 1% from people off the street. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. and the public hearing was closed. Page 4 February 24, 1986 There were no audience comments Discussion: staff advised the major problem with this activity at the moment is drainage, cars could be washed there if the drainage issue were addressed and resolved; regarding Condition #5 and reinstalling original landscaping and parking layout, tenant and landlord must work this out together, the condition on the tenant's approval is the tenant's problem with the property owner; condition states landscaping and parking must be reinstalled by May 1, 1986 or the use permit is not valid (staff will follow up). C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Building Department's January 27, 1986 memo and the City Engineer's January 28, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that the auto detailing use at this site be limited to one-third of the building, operating six days a week, with four full time and one part time employee, with no more than 10 customers each weekday and two on Saturdays; (3) that service vehicles on site shall be limited to four and shall be parked inside the building at night and on weekends; (4) that auto detailing on this site be limited to polishing, waxing and cleaning the interiors of cars, no auto washing will take place on this premise, and all detailing work will be done within the portion of the warehouse building leased for this business; (5) that the original landscaping and parking layout be reinstalled by May 1, 1986; (6) that any change in the method or hours of operation, number of employees or volume of business shall require an amendment to this use permit; and (7) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in six months time (September, 1986). Second C. Giomi. Comment on the motion: it is difficult to justify approval when so many restrictive conditions must be imposed, restrictions are really on the property owner, difficult to vote on the application at this time; landscaping and parking were required in the late 170s when new warehouse/office space was approved, it has not been maintained. Some Commissioners regretted putting the applicant in such a position; it was pointed out the property owner is aware of the conditions. A further condition, #8, was suggested: (8) that the wash rack be removed and the required parking replaced. C. Jacobs amended her motion to include Condition #8, C. Giomi amended her second. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOBILE RESTORATION SERVICE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 50 STAR WAY Reference staff report, 2/24/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1986 Comment: would like to add "storage" to Condition #3; under Condition #2, 90% wholesale business would be difficult to define and to enforce. Charles Potts, applicant, was present. His comments: basically the business services cars of a small number of the Candy Store Car Club members, he would consider this wholesale and it is the bulk of his business; some others bring cars to him but he deals directly with the business itself; he does not advertise in the phone book, any public business received is by word of mouth. Mr. Potts responded to Commission questions: at times one or two cars have been left outside, he is attempting to comply with the landlord's request that all cars be kept inside; compliance with all conditions will be no problem; he did not get a new business license when he relocated from Burlway Road to Star Way, he had an existing business license for the Burlway location and the same landlord at both locations, he relocated as a favor to this landlord who had a potential tenant who wanted more space at Burlway; operation of the business has not changed except for a limited number of outside paint jobs; there are five parking spaces down the side of the area he rents, he is entitled to three, can park approximately 20 cars inside the building; he would prefer to work strictly on older cars from the Candy Store but some outside customers may be necessary when business is slow. The property owner repaved the road six months ago and intends to regrade and clean up the area, upgrading the property. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commenting this is a suitable area for this type of business and with the understanding all cars will be'stored inside, C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Building Department's January 23, 1986 memo and the City Engineer's January 28, 1986 memo shall be met; (2) that the business shall be limited to four employees and to the use of 2,900 SF of the warehouse building including 200 SF of office area, and to the restoration and repair of classic automobiles; (3) that no storage, repair work or washing shall be done outside the building; (4) that the original parking layout and landscaping for the whole site be reinstalled by May 1, 1986; (5) that any change in the method or hours of operation, number of employees or volume of business shall require an amendment to this use permit; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in nine months time (December, 1986). Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:52 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SECOND FLOOR STORAGE AREA OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 1238-40 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Requests: letter from applicant stating reasons for this request; could tenants rent storage at a different location; why do they need 8' �1 Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1986 clear; where are stairs in the garage located now; why outside stairs in this proposal; lot coverage maximum in R-2; is electrical service to the house 110 or 220 volts; one hour walls within 3' of property line are not indicated on the drawings; common opening width for double car garage; where are washer and drier located now inside the garage; how much storage area is there now. Item set for hearing March 10, 1986. 6. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 20 SF SIGN AT 1512 ROLLINS ROAD WHERE TOTAL SIGNS EXCEED THE NUMBER ALLOWED FOR ONE PARCEL Requests: why was the sign code written to allow only two signs; are existing trees part of the consideration in sign location; how many tenants are in the building; is it fully leased; how long has this tenant been on site. Item set for hearing March 10, 1986. 7. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGNS AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD WHICH EXCEED THE TOTAL NUMBER AND AMOUNT PERMITTED IN THE C-4 ZONE Requests: why are both signs B and C on the parapet facing Anza Boulevard needed as shown on the site plan; size of Amfac roof sign; complete elevation of the south side of the building. Item set for hearing March 10, 1986. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - City Planner's 2/18/86 memo with attached letter from Northern California Presbyterian Homes. - Planner's memo, History of Present Parking Requirements for Medical Offices. CP will look into the cost of a study to determine parking requirements for medical offices. - FYI memo, Modification to Chevron Gas Station Circulation Plan, 1101 Broadway. - Planner's letter to Beverly's Flowercart, Adeline Market Shopping Center, February 6, 1986. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 18, 1986 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Leahy Secretary