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Item withdrawn by the applicant.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