Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1993.09.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Deal on Monday, September 13, 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 August 23, 1993 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RESTAURANT(S) DEVELOPMENT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 2. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, VISUAL ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE AND LANDSCAPING IN THE PARKING AND CIRCULATION AREAS FOR NEW DESTINATION RESTAURANTS AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD ZONED C-4 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE FIVE LOTS INTO ONE PARCEL - LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, BLOCK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 6 (620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD) Requests: why are the special permits for FAR, street frontage obstruction and landscaping needed; has there been any discussion of signage, history of signage in that area; what will source of water be, fresh water or salt water; is there a way to mitigate the two stacks that appear on page A-9 of the plans, south elevation; City Council minutes for the traffic allocation; provide apparent width from previous reviews for some of the adjacent buildings so can compare. Items set for public hearing September 27, 1993. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 13, 1993 ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1531 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/13/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for -consideration at the public hearing. CP confirmed the issue of inconsistencies in plan dimensions as discussed in the Zoning Technician's memo of September 13 has been discussed with the applicant and designer several times. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Anna and Nikita Derugin, applicants and property owners, were present; designer was not in the audience. They confirmed that the string marking was at the base of the proposed new deck; the roof, line will be the same height, roof ridge may move but will be the same height. Replying to a comment that view obstruction might be minimized if addition were moved to the right which would be farther from the neighbors on the uphill side, applicants said they particularly wanted to stay away from the north side of the house because it is very damp there, they wanted as much sun as possible; they will stagger the structure on the other side. The existing kitchen can't be moved without redoing the whole room; they have tried to propose something which will be a compromise and make it better for the neighbors. Neighbors did offer suggestions: increase the height of the fence by 41, plant cypress trees to block the view from the new deck into neighbor's yard. Applicant agreed with a Commissioner that planting cypress would be overkill, would take away the view from that side of the house. There were no audience comments in favor. Speaking in opposition, Ron and Loris Moorbrink, 1527 Los Altos Drive: they will lose view from two bedrooms; privacy is important to them, applicant will be able to look into their backyard from the new deck. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: have a problem in that everyone has the right to make an addition but blocking of view is the issue, in this case neighbors at 1527 Los Altos one can look across Skyline to the hills, where can an addition be made to this house without affecting view; if there is a loss of view it is from the boys' bedroom, not from the master bedroom, there is still view from the rear of the house, if deck were not there house would still be there, do not think there is a problem with loss of view; agree with this statement, if furniture were rearranged in the boys' bedroom view would be straight out; privacy is not an issue in this regulation; if these neighbors wanted more view they could cut trees to increase view of the hills, do not think the proposal will have a significant impact. Looked at view from both neighbors' homes and went across to Loma Vista, in this case there is already loss of view from existing trees and fences on the neighbor's property, given the size of the lot this proposal seems to Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 13, 1993 make sense; there will be some loss of view but there is substantial view left. Based on findings in discussion this evening, C. Galligan moved for approval of the hillside area construction permit by --resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 3, 1993, Sheets 1 through 5, with a front setback of 31'-011, a rear setback of 42'-0", a left side setback of 8'-0" and a right side setback at 8'-611; (2) that the finish material used on all portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as approved by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; (3) that the highest point on the new roof of the remodeled house shall not exceed the existing roof ridge (161- 9") at the front of the existing house and the framing shall be surveyed to confirm this elevation and the survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for and the roofing material is attached; and (4) 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. Comment on the motion: the code refers to obstruction of view from habitable areas, residents at 1527 Los Altos use their deck frequently, there will be modest loss of view from the two bedrooms in this house but significant loss of view from their deck; considered loss of view from the deck but with normal placement of table and chairs they will be looking straight out; this is a unique area, it has a large stand of eucalyptus where a number of birds roost, with this addition the neighbors will not be able to see the birds in the sky from their deck; visited all the areas mentioned, there will be some view blockage from the neighbor's deck, emphasis of the ordinance is on views from habitable areas within the dwelling, standing in anyone's back yard there will always be some view blockage, there is an existing walnut tree which will be removed, the addition will fill that space, blockage would be the same as existing. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Mink voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, EACH OVER 100 SF, AT 850 ACACIA DRIVE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/13/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. A Commissioner asked if the metal shed was existing at the time the owner bought the property, staff suggested she ask the applicant at the public hearing. Responding to another question CA said this permit could be granted with an expiration date but he would prefer not. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Applicant's mother, 2327 South Norfolk Street, San Mateo, was present representing her daughter, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 13, 1993 Marcia Miller who was out of town. Commission/Mrs. Miller discussion: the metal storage shed was put in about a year ago; a Commissioner noted there is ceiling area in the front of the garage which has been finished off with room for a window on the street front, he asked if this attic area is intended to be used for storage and how it will be accessed; Mrs. Miller replied there is a pull down ladder in the middle of the attic area, it is in use now. Regarding how long the shed will be needed for storage, Mrs. Miller stated until her daughter's ex-husband finds a house and can remove the furniture stored there; shed is built on an existing slab, she thought there would be a use for it after the furniture was removed for garden equipment, etc., it could be taken down but she would rather not, it could be moved. Jay de Wolfe, 1212 Edgehill Drive, spoke in favor: his front door faces this property and he appreciates their rebuilding the garage; he thanked the city for noticing the neighbors about this proposal and hoped to be notified of all proposed construction in the area. City Attorney commented on this statement later: there are hundreds of building permits issued every month for projects which conform to code and are not noticed to the neighbors, it would be an impossible task to notice all proposals which obey the laws. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs stated she had made a site inspection, if the shed is moved 3' from side property line she saw no problem, many people have such accessory structures, the neighbors have not complained, the new garage will improve the neighborhood. C. Jacobs moved for approval of,this special permit for two accessory structures 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 August 12, 1993; (2) that the conditions of the memos of the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal (8/30/93) shall be met by relocating the shed so that it is 3'-0" from the rear property line; (3) that a retroactive building permit and penalty fees shall be paid for the installation of the metal storage shed; (4) that a 24" box tree shall be planted before the building permit is finaled; and (5) 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 on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Galligan and Mink voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ROOF HEIGHT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 1436 BERNAL AVENUE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 9/13/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, required findings. Letter listing concerns (received after preparation of the staff report) was noted from Janet Costa, 1417 Bernal Avenue. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Sgptember 13, 1993 Commission/staff discussed the easement at the rear, how height of the garage is determined. Staff advised if Commission wished it could include a maximum height for the garage in the conditions. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Ann Marie Flores and Viktor Pochran, applicants and property owners, were present. They advised they had decided to replace rather than repair their garage, had understood 500 SF and a maximum height of 14' to be conforming; their property backs onto the easement, neighbors to the rear are at a higher grade, they do not think continuing the roof will have an impact, this permit is just for continuing the gable roof for the last few feet of the roof line; they have had a survey done. Regarding Mrs. Costa's letter, about four years ago the Costas made an application and Ms. Flores wrote a letter questioning the project's suitability, she thought this might have caused Mrs. Costa's letter of concerns. Their house is ±18' in height, it is taller than 14'-811. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink found that if the pattern of the neighborhood is followed where garages are built up against the easement line and there is still a 10' space between buildings, this proposal would not be detrimental to the community or the neighborhood. Based on testimony given and information received C. Mink moved for approval of the special permit 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 August 25, 1993, Sheets 1 through 4; (2) that condition 12 of the City Engineer's memo dated August 30, 1993 shall be met; 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 with the comment there is a garage behind with a huge blank wall, those neighbors will not be affected, and there is the 10' easement which does separate the properties. Further comment: most garages in this area are built right up to the property line because of the easement, this project fits in with all the garages in the area. Motion was approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE FOUR LOTS INTO ONE 3.2 ACRE PARCEL - LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10 AND PORTION OF LOT 6, INGOLD/MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL CENTER, 30 INGOLD ROAD/1701 ROLLINS ROAD Reference staff report, 9/13/93, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed review criteria, study meeting questions. One condition was suggested if this map is recommended to City Council. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Jim Whitehead, property owner, advised they purchased the 30 Ingold Road property in 1986 and have Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 13, 1993 greatly improved it. They hope to construct an addition to the building at 30 Ingold in the lot which is part of the 1701 Rollins Road property, thus the request to combine lots. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan found the proposed lot size is compatible with and comparable to other lots in the area, property owner intends to improve the property; although there are smaller lots he did not think the Council worries about lots getting bigger, they worry about them getting smaller. On that basis C. Galligan moved to recommend this tentative parcel map to City Council for approval with the following condition: (1) that all damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved unanimously on voice vote. Staff will forward to City Council. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MICRO BREWERY CAFE WITH BILLIARDS AT 321-333 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 SUB AREA B Reference staff report, 9/13/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, billiard club approved for this site in April 1993, entertainment permit requirement, staff comment, comment from a neighboring restaurant owner, study meeting questions, required findings. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised a similar operation in another city presented the usual parking concerns, odor was an additional concern; CE stated restricting deliveries to 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. was based on high volume traffic flow off hours on the street, not available parking. C. Kelly advised he would abstain from discussion and voting. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. David Connor, applicant, was present. Noting that 12 parking stalls would be required for the billiard tables, he proposed they not allow the billiards at lunch time and delay opening this area to around 2:00-3:00 P.M.; this will be a high class operation, high quality food and beer; they have a micro brewery restaurant in Eugene, Oregon, also own and operate Days Inn in Burlingame. Cordy Jensen from Eugene, Oregon discussed the project: they would like to be a part of the business community here, have been in the restaurant business for 30 years, have a dinner house which is similar in concept to Kincaid's in Burlingame; at their brew pub in Eugene 60% of the sales are food, it is a fine restaurant which serves beer on the premises. He could relate to parking problems, was on the downtown commission in Eugene. There is no offensive odor from the brewery process, their building in Oregon has offices and retail adjacent and none of the tenants have complained; this establishment would be a real plus for downtown Burlingame. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 13, 1993 He pointed out their brew shop in Eugene is in a restored downtown area, most of their lunch clientele come from downtown offices or are shoppers, their cars are already there; there is a lot of parking available in downtown Burlingame at night; it will be a high caliber operation, not a pool hall, 40% to 50% of their patrons are female. The building on California Drive has been empty for two years, any use that goes in this building will need parking. Tevis Martin, attorney representing Donald Sabatini, property owner stated Mr. Sabatini has been a resident of Burlingame for 30 years, has had an office on California for 20 years; he maintained an auto dealership on the corner of Lorton and California where Stacks is now located; immediately across the street was a gas station at 345 Lorton which is now an office condominium; 1/2 block up Donnelly was a warehouse which is now a dance studio; at the corner of Donnelly and Lorton was the Feed Store which is now the Casa Nostra restaurant, this area has been improved and Mr. Sabatini would like to improve the subject property, he has brought it back'to the original brick, will do a seismic upgrade, it will not house an auto dealership or garage; any lease on the premises will be a change and any change will require a parking variance. The proposed use would be an improvement, Mr. Sabatini could put four tenants in but is looking for one tenant, he is trying to keep the property in conformance with the surrounding area. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. The following spoke in opposition. Marilyn Schmidt, owner of Nathan's restaurant on the corner of Burlingame Avenue and California Drive: she thought the proposal was a wonderful plan but was opposed to it based on the parking variance; every restaurant in Burlingame has a problem finding parking for its patrons at lunch time and dinner time; since the opening of Stacks and Starbucks there is much less available parking; many professional people come to Nathan's from the airport and complain there is no parking; commuters park on California and are there all day; delivery hours of 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. are unrealistic, that is during the dinner hour; a micro brewery and billiards across from the high school is not a suitable location for the use. She hoped that Mr. Sabatini would find a good tenant but a different type of operation; there are too many restaurants in the area now, the basic problem is parking. Edith May, 1348 Drake Avenue: she runs the art store at 315 Lorton next to the parking lot, her customers have had no place to park since Stacks and Starbucks started operation; Casa Nostra is busy at night; stores on Lorton have a bad parking problem. Mrs. May asked about restaurant limitations in the downtown area. CP explained that the subject site is in the C-2 Sub Area B zoning district, restaurants are a permitted use but there are parking requirements. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 13, 1993 Commission discussion/ comment: appreciate applicant's offer not to start the billiard operation before 3:00 P.M. but am sure this would be a successful restaurant; if a 39 space parking variance is allowed what will happen when the next application is received for this area. In April Commission approved a 43 space parking variance on this site, this applicant is requesting less; in April did not hear much complaint about the parking; there is a lot of parking on Bellevue during the day, many people walk from their offices for lunch in the area; have trouble denying something which was previously approved and has a lesser parking variance. The previous application was for billiards with snack food, can't be compared to a sit down restaurant with 37 tables; think the approved billiard parlor would have been used at lunch time and after work, these uses are quite similar. Further comment: thought the billiard parlor was a great use, the expectation was greater numbers of people would be coming in later in the day which would provide relief to the area and less intense use at noon, this application will have lunch time impact; parking in the area is at capacity and any use must be considered carefully. There is a niche in the community for a restaurant of this type which can help revitalize the area but am concerned about potential parking impact a very successful restaurant will have, they will draw their own customers, concerned about people not going to Burlingame Avenue because there is no parking. Think valet parking is mandatory in this circumstance and it would be appropriate to require valet parking from 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., not as concerned about evening hours. There is another consideration, Commission must be fair with the property owner, he is entitled to use his building for something, these applicants appear to be concerned developers, if they use valet parking the problems could be mitigated. Comparing the previous application for the site with this application the previous request was for billiards with incidental finger food, almost fast food, and a bar; this is a sit down restaurant which incidentally has billiard tables; like the idea of billiards and the micro brewery but will it fit in the area. Testimony on the previous application showed that use of the building would increase starting sometime mid-afternoon so was persuaded the parking impact would be minimal; this is a different proposition, it will have intense use at noon; even though many patrons will walk to the site am not convinced it will work. Agree the property owner has a right to use his building in a way that is financially to his advantage. Speaking to exceptional circumstances, there is nothing about this building which doesn't apply to others in the area, it's not an exceptional building, it's just an empty building. This is a different application, lunch is a big item; am sensitive to the parking issues, there is a special circumstance in that it is off Burlingame Avenue on the fringe; regarding trip generation, there is no way to tell how many people are already in the downtown area and how many will walk. Applicant's offer to eliminate billiards at lunch time Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 13, 1993 is good; did some personal research on this type of business and found most of the patrons were walk-in customers from the area; it may draw people from outside if the business is successful. There is an exceptional circumstance in that these buildings were built when no parking was required; this is a good use and the building is excellent for the use. This type of establishment is going to be a benefit to the merchants on that block of Lorton, it would be easy for people to meet at the restaurant for lunch and then do some shopping. Based on the reasons and exceptional circumstances stated in discussion, C. Graham moved for approval of the special permit and parking variance by resolution with the conditions in the staff report, seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: this project is different from the billiard hall application, the area where the present billiard tables are proposed was going to be used for parking in the previous project, applicant might consider using that area for parking; the biggest impact will be noontime crowd. Would like to see something like this in the city, it's distinctively different. Am inclined to give it a try, opening for billiards at 3:00 P.M., applicant could come back to amend the permit hours for billiards and Commission would have a chance to look at the impact. Maker of the motion added a condition that no billiards be allowed before 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, accepted by the seconder. Comment continued: the possibility of requiring valet parking was discussed, the destination for valet parking was questioned; would prefer to see how it works out, if applicant wants to come back to amend the use permit to bring in billiards before 3:00 P.M. Commission could look at valet parking at that time, would like a specific destination proposed for valet parking. Commission has used the option of valet parking.in the past as a device to make it impossible for an application to work, if this business needs valet parking the first person to ask for it will be the applicant. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 16, 1993 Sheet A-1 and Sheet A-2; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 26, 1993 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's August 16, 1993 memo and the Fire Marshal's July 26, 1993 and August 16, 1993 memos shall be met; (3) that the micro brewery restaurant with billiards shall be open 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of twenty (20) employees at any one time; and that no billiards shall be allowed Monday through Friday before 3:00 P.M.; (4) that all deliveries shall be made between 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.; (5) that all sales of beer shall be for consumption on site and no beer shall be sold for off-site consumption; (6) that all on-site parking shall not be leased separately to'any off-site use and no portion of the parking lot shall Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 13, 1993 be converted to any other use than parking (except for the outdoor patio area shown on the plans); (7) that the applicant shall obtain a waste discharge permit from the city before receiving a building permit, all spent grain products shall be transported off site for disposal through a waste treatment company and not .dumped into the sanitary sewer system, and no odors from processing and storage shall be detected off the site or in adjacent buildings; (8) that the property owner shall be responsible to purchase, and maintain, and regularly empty standard city trash receptacles as needed at the front door on California Drive and along Lorton Avenue at the exit from the site, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; and (9) 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 approved 5-1-1 on roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Kelly abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:35 P.M.; reconvene 9:45 P.M. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA ON THE ROOF AT 241 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B Reference staff report, 9/13/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request and required findings. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Robert Ortiz and his wife, Alma, applicants and owners of the California Bar and Grill, were present. They have owned the bar and grill for eight years, wish to have a satellite dish antenna on the roof in order to be competitive, they sell only beer and wine. Aesthetically the dish should not be a problem, it will not be visible"from the street. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs found applicants had been very successful in locating the dish so it is not visible, it is a necessity for their business. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit 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 August 10, 1993 Roof and Site Plans; Roof Mounting Plan and Section; Front and Rear Elevation; and Laser Quad 4500 Specification Sheet; (2) that the antenna dish installed shall not have a diameter greater than 7'-611, not rise more than 7'-0" above the surface of the roof, be painted with a nonreflective paint, smoky gray in color to match the roof, and mounted with a ballast structure to the roof; (3) 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; (4) that the applicant shall Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 13, 1993 permanently maintain the nonreflective surface of the dish and its support structure, or remove all the equipment and support structure; (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that any modification to the antenna or its location shall require an amendment to this use permit. Motion was seconded by C. Graham and approved unanimously on voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL AUTO SERVICE AND STORAGE AT 1221 WHITETHORN WAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 9/13/93, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed history/summary of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: six parking spaces are required for this use, property owner has designated eight spaces, the new parking plan submitted by the property owner on September 3, 1993 was discussed and the desire to know if there is sufficient required parking for this complex, this plan still does not show what the required parking is for each use. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. Paul Beltrami, applicant, was present. He stated he is the current owner of Autohaus Schmid, took over that business in 1990, at that time they leased two outside parking spaces from D&M Towing; in 1992 they took over the D&M Towing lease, their business had increased and they needed space for more cars, at 1221 Whitethorn Way they were able to park their cars inside as well as outside; after three or four months they got a smog inspection license, this equipment has to be kept in a permanent safe location, can't be run inside the building, they keep the smog machine at the front of the warehouse, do the tests outside and are able to store cars in the rest of the building; parking spaces on Whitethorn Way are all adjacent to their building at 1221 Whitethorn, those spaces have been theirs from the beginning when they leased from D&M Towing. If parking is the only question, with the spaces they have inside the building they can put a day's work inside, they use almost no street spaces; his employees use spaces 1 through 8. He does smog inspections at 1221 Whitethorn, tire inspections which can be done without taking off the wheels, stores cars, if more extensive wheel work is required he does it in the Rollins Road shop where he keeps the proper equipment; has not done brake work as yet, may in the future. Mr. Beltrami advised he has four exterior parking spaces and 12 inside the building on Rollins Road, eight spaces on Whitethorn and 14 inside the building, he has five employees. Nick Crisafi, property owner, was also present. There was considerable discussion regarding uses on Mr. Crisafi's property in this area, permits/parking variances granted, number of parking spaces and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 September 13, 1993 location/size of parking stalls. Drawings/maps to date do not give Commission enough information. It was noted applicant has shown he has all the parking he needs, it was suggested applicant's request be acted on this evening and concerns with the property owner over required parking and parking leases to businesses not located Qn Whitethorn Way be addressed in another fashion. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan found that the parking needs of this business are adequately met by the building and eight spaces appearing on the new parking plan and moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. In discussion on the motion some Commissioners wished to add a condition requiring additional information from the property owner on required parking and leased parking, others were uncomfortable tying that request to this applicant. It was noted that every application for this area presents the same problem regarding uses and location of parking. Maker of the motion accepted an additional condition that the property owner submit a second plan showing the parking designations for all of his properties. Seconder opposed the motion as stated, he preferred a separate enforcement action with the property owner, but did not oppose the additional condition's amendment to the action. Conditions of the motion follow: (1) that the project shall conform to the site plan and business plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 17, 1993 and Parking Plan date stamped September 3, 1993; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's and Chief Building Official's memos dated June 21, 1993 shall be met; (3) that the uses at 1221 Whitethorn Way shall be limited to smog checks, storage of vehicles related specifically to the auto repair business at 1213 Rollins Road, tire inspections and brake service; (4) that any change in use or addition of other related repair activities shall require an amendment to this special permit; (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) that a scale drawing shall be prepared by the property owner showing all properties fronting on Whitethorn Way (1221 to 1261), including the square footage of each property, and showing all parking places upon Whitethorn Way, indicating all spaces designated or rented to specific businesses; said plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department 45 days after approval of this use permit. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Kelly voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 September 13, 1993 PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its September 8, 1993 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary