The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About217 West Ln - Approval LetterLIr� (�z�� a� ��tx�ia�c��n�.e SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� GALIFORNIA 94010 July 6, 1983 Mr. Stephen Clark 28 Laburnum Rcad Atherton, CA 94025 Dear Mr. Clark: TEL:(415) 342-B931 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the June 27, 1°83 Planning Commission approval of your Special Permit application became effective July 6, 1983. This application wa� to allow a dog grooming service in Sub-Area D of the Burlingame Averue Commercial Area:at 217 West Lane. The June 27, 1983 minutes of the Planning Commission state the permrt was approved with the following conditions: 1. posting fc�ur of the par�kTng spaces in the parking lot at the rear of the building for the use of the dog grooming business; 2. operate the business during the hours and on the terms described in the staff report of June 27, 1983 and applicant's letter of May 18, 1983; - -. 3. comply with any requirements of the San Mateo County Health Inspector and Humane Soc.lety; and 4. comply with the conditions of the Fire Plarshal's May 24, 1983 memo. Any site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely, ��'�G(��1�`�i� Margaret P4onroe City Planner MM/s att. cc: Chief Building Inspector (w/att.) License Collector Property owner: David Kimmel (w/att.) cc: Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Portion Block 16, Town of Burlingame; APN 029-213-030) Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1983 4. AMENDM�NT OF A 4/26/82 COPJDOMINIUM PEP,MIT TO ENCLOSE THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE"WITH A SECURITY GATE, AT 1500 SHERMAM AVENUE, BY JOHP! RALEIGH FOR TALDAN INVEST�4ENT C0. CP Plonroe reviewed this request to fully secure the underground parking for this 18 unit residential condominium project. Reference staff report dated 6/21/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/12/83; May 23, 1983 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; May 24, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; May 24, 1983 memo from the City Engineer; May 11 and June 10, 1983 letters from the applicant; June 13, 1983 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; Vicinity Map and Survey Diagrar�; and plans date stamped P1ay 11, 1983. CP discussed details of the request; Commission guest parkinq policy; staff review; applicant's justification for the proposed gate relocation; and referred to study meeting questions discussed in the staff report. Two conditions ��ere suagested for consideration at the public hearing. John Raleigh, the applicant, was present. In reply to his request to extend the heioht of the fence on top of the wall to 9' he was advised the maximur� height perr�itted by code was 6' from grade, including the wall. Chm. Graham opened the public hearinq. There were no audience comrnents and the hearing was closed. Discussion: believe visitors would park on the street rather than use a communication system at the qate; prefer open guest parking; how would service people gain entrance?; applicant advised the most convenient place for the communication system would be at the gate, there would be two entry systems - one at the front door and one at the driveway gate; concern about double parking while using entry phone; fence is proposed along the top of the wall at the 4araqe entrance in the alley area; approved gate was placed down the middle of the �arage for architectural reasons, just below the elevator, which resulted in loss of two parking spaces; stairwells have no doors, only the elevator goes into the buildina. Concern was expressed about blocking the sidewalk when using the garaae entry phone and about backing out, if necessary, into Sherman Avenue. Further comment: this request appears to be no different than the two previously approved anplications for security gates for condominiums, althouah this time the request was received before the fact (apolicant advised the other two condominiums do not have a phone system, guests must park, use phone at the building entrance and then be let in by a resident); it seems there are two alternatives: move the gate forward with a phone system or leave the gate where it is; think the best alternative for condominiums on E1 Camino Real would be security gate with the phone system; think it best to leave the gate �,�here it is, use of the phone could be a problem. The Chair explained operation of this type of communication system. Redesign of the gate was suggested so that a car would not be on the ramp when using the intercom; applicant advised this was not a feasible solution. C. Leahy moved that the proposed amendment to the condominium permit for 1500 Sherman Avenue be denied. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny received a 3-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Graham dissenting, Cers Giomi and Taylor absent. Application effectively denied; four votes of Commissioners present necessary to carry a motion. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERP'IT TO ALL04; A DOG GR00^1ING SERVICE IN SUB-AREA D OF THE BURLINGAME ��- AVEP�UE COMMERCIAL ARE,A, AT 217 1•lEST LANE, BY STEPHEM CLARK WITH DAVID KIMMEL (PROPERTY 041NER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a special use permit to a11ow a dog gromming shop. Reference staff report dated 6/22/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 27, 1983 5/18/83; May 18, 19II3 letter from the applicant; �•1ay 18, 1983 letter from %the property owner; staff comments: City Engineer (5/31 and 6/1/83), Chief Building In�pector (6/6/83) and Fire Marshal (5/24/83); 6/22/83 Planner's report of phone call to the County Health Department; Planner's June 22, 1983 memo re: parking for proposed dog grooming operation; June 13, 1983 Planning Commission study meeting minutes; copy of Notice of Hearing (all tenants were notified); and aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the request, code requirement for use permit, staff review, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Stephen Clark, the applicant, was present. He advised that the Fire Department requirement for installation of an approved central station monitoring system is in the process of completion by the property owner. Regarding noise concerns, the shop has hallways on two sides, the wall between the restaurant, Pasta Bravo, and his proposed shop is a fire wall and soundproof, he did not believe dogs would cause a noise problem for the printing shop and to the immediate left there was an electrical closet with no occupants. He discussed his plans to have 24 permanent kennels for holding the dogs, only those being groomed would be outside these kennels. His preference was to use the West Lane entrance directly to the shop as recommended by staff. Responding to Corrrnission questions, tdr. Clark advised neither he nor his er�plo,yees were veterinarians, they are experienced dog grooming people, no dogs would be kept on the premises overnight. David Kimmel, property oum er, stated he would comply with the City Engineer's request to provide four parking spaces for this operation. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: there is a doorway into the hall from the proposed shop, employees will have access to the public restrooms; this business will be the seventh operation in this building, Lhe limit previously established by Commission; the business will be run on an appointment basis; each dog would be on the premises approximately two hours, the applicant did not expect the 24 kennels would ever be full; he further corrmented that most dogs are brought to a grooming service on a regular basis and are accustomed to a grooming shop, therefore he did not expect an excessive amount of barking. Applicant said he had spoken with the operators of the Costa Bravo restaurant, the printing business and the photographic shop and they did not express any objections. C. Sch4�alm moved for approval of this special permit subject to the following conditions: (1) posting four of the parking spaces in the parking lot at the rear of the building for the use of the dog grooming business; (2) operate the business during the hours and on the terms described in the staff report of June 27, 1983 and applicant'S letter of P1ay 18, 1983; (3) comply with any requirements of the San Mateo County Health Inspector and Humane Society; and (4) comply with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 24, 1983 memo. Second C. Cistulli. Responding to a question on the motion, CP h1onroe advised a master sign program had been approved for this building which outlines allowed signage for this site. Motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Taylor absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. USE DETERMINATION - CAR RENTAL AGENCY - 903 CALIFORP�IA DRIVE Continued at the request of the aaplicant.