The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About970 Davis Road - Staff Report,1 ITEM # 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT Special Permit for Truck Storage Address: 970 David Road Meetinq Date: 8/22/94 Request: Special Permit for truck and equipment storage at 970 David Road, zoned M-1 (25.44.030 - 17). Applicant and Property Owner: Joel Beck APN: 025-272-160 Lot Dimensions and Area: 20' X±253' _.116 Acres General Plan: Industrial, Industrial and Office Uses Zoninq: M-1 Adjacent Development: Warehouse and Industrial Uses CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(a), Grading on land with a slope of less than 10�: and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(c), Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site; and 15311 - Accessory Structures Class 11(b) consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including (b) Small parking lots. Previous Use: Vacant lot Proposed Use: Truck and Equipment Storage Allowable Use: Truck storage with a special permit Summary: The applicant, BK Bobcat, is requesting a special permit for truck and equipment storage at 970 David Road. This narrow lot (20' X±253' or 5,063 SF) has a PG&E easement on the east side and industrial buildings with parking lots on the west side. The lot has driveway access from David Road. For the past two years the applicant and property owner have been storing trucks and equipment at the site. The lot has been regraded with gravel and is partially fenced. In the future, the applicant intends to complete the fencing and add a gate at the front of the lot. This project came to the attention of the Planning Department as a code enforcement item (May 2, 1994 and June 23, 1994 letters from J. Coleman to Joel Beck). The truck storage facility is open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday. The business has four part time employees and a maximum of six visitors per day. The applicant anticipates a maximum of two employees and visitors on site at any one time. According to the applicant employees and visitors park on the street. A condition of approval will state that all employees and visitors should park on site. History: In August, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a new building at this 20' X±253' site (P.C. August 26, 1994 Minutes). A 20' X 124' structure was proposed to store automobiles. This application required variances to side setbacks, exiting in a backward direction, and parking; and a special permit for indoor �nd outdoor auto storage. The Planning 1 SPSCIAL PSRXIT 970 David Road Commission denied the application. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision (C.C. September 16, 1994 Minutes). The City Council felt there were too many permits and variances required for this development on this site. They felt it would be difficult to for city to police its use and feared that in spite of the poor access the building and site would be used for car repair. PROPOSED IIse: * truck and equipment storage EXISTING truck & equipment storage * Special permit for truck and equipment storage. Meets all other zoninq code requirements. ALLOWED/REO'D truck storage with a special permit Staff Comments: City staff have reviewed this application. The Fire Marshal, Chief Building Inspector, and City Engineer had no comments. Required Findinqs for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12 , 1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; 2 SPSCIAL PSRXIT Conditions: (continued) 970 David Road 2. that the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time; 3. that all employees and visitors shall park on site in the storage lot; 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. Jane Gomery Planner cc: Joel Beck, applicant and property owner 3 CITY OF �URLINGAME APF'LICATION TOO THE PLANNING Cnl�/IMISSIOO N Tyve of Anvlication: �' Special Permit Variance Other Project Addre Assessor's Parcel Number(s) � 2�� 2�L '�:��'D �4PPL/CANT Name: �� £�-� Address: �0'2 PCS�� rt�i City/State/Zip: �� -i��r��! Telephone:(work) ___/ � ��=�1��' (home) l�� .3�i--9�d ARCH/TECT/DES/GNER Name: Address: City/State2ip: Telephone (daytime): �ROPERTY OWNER Name: �c�+,�,� Address: j'�� = City/State/Zip: Telephone: (work) (home) Please indicate with an asterisk !•1 who the contact verson is foi this vroiect. PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON: AFF/DA V/T/S/GNA TURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belie . . A licant's Signature ate I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. / Property Owner's Signature Date ------------------------------------------ -- O F F I CE U S E O N LY ---- - ---------------------------- k�' ✓ Date Filed• � i' 2' G/� Fee �� Receipt # Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: ' P.C. study meeting (date) P.C. public hearing (date) P.C. Action ,s�as Appeal to Council7 Yes No �.�;�.�„ Council meeting date Council Action � . �, cir� . ,�1, • pt. BURLINGAME ��, �. e. . � �o�r �� a�r�Lao��u� �U �i0�b'�l� U L�� II Y��U`L�O� Y'OUE� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or. injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenfence. � �� v �' � �o �✓C� ��. �ic.�. �"t,5�� .�,� l l� UG�- ��c�P ct1StT�" ST�, Rb-Gc �� !-l/� !'�� t�CD F-o�e. T�t � uSc t�k... `7 /4�" ��s'T" `Twt� �C`C��1�5� �77zti�� W �� ..� - � �i c�Ci c� �" 7�'ff� �..�`T� To �'I��P f ,4-P_ t�2t1G,. 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT �'�7- � S ZnrvF� ��- �p�/�-L � � ?%/1s zo�tJ�'�UG H/f � G1-a3� o� �-�t�s �./^f=fD arov,�JD� 3. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adpining properties in the genera/ vicinity7 �1'� �'��r�rT' �-Q�l� a��.��,� Tk� �b� ..�� vs�n �sz ��e S�aR�� !.� �{ �vc ��t� aoo ca,�, • , �ss .�.tm, s� 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ -or injurious to property o� Iinprovements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect nei�hborinp properties or structures on those properties7 If neighborinD properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, (andscaping sunlipht/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfarel Public heslth includes such thin�s as sanitation (parbape), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the poterrtial to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, st�rape of chemicals, situations which encourape the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Public safetv. Ho� will the structure or use within the structu�e affect police or fire protectionl WII alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly patherinfls, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dan�erous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal�. General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning commun'rty good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a socyal benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure o� use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT Ask the Planninp Department for the �eneral plan desipnation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this i�ormation, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zoning, then ex�lain why this proposal would "fit' accordingly. 3. Ho w wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing neighborhood and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If chan�es to the st�ucture are proposed, was the addition designed to match existinfl architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If a use will affect the way a neiphborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". Hova► does the proposed structure compare to neighborin� structures in terms of mass o� bulk7 If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other suuctures in the neighborhood o� area. How will the structure or use within the structure chan�e the character of the neighborhoodl Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of devebpment and general pattern of land use. wll there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed p�oject be compatible with existin� and potential uses in the pene�al vicinity7 Compare you� project with existinp uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. , �ez .v.rrm ., • f, c�r.r • �,�. 04, ey�Rur�gwMe �..� .. �� r� CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATIOA TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION COI�Il�IERCIAL APPLICATIONS l. Proposed use of site: �?U�lj�'�Yc� �� -G �a�� 57aRat�� pC�'�'. 2. Days/hours of operation: �'l�ih''� S��'m 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles (by type): -T� 4. Current and Projected maximum number of employees at this locaLion: ExistinQ In 2 Years In 5 Years After After After 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM SPM 8AM-5PM 5PM Weekdays fulltime artime 'y Weekends fulltime artime 5. Current and Projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existincr In 2 Years In 5 Years � After After After 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM Weekda s � Weekends 6. Maximum number of employees and visitors/customers which can be expected to be on the property at any one time: �-- 7. Where do/will the employees park? O� r i��?- 8. Where do/will customers/visitors park? D/U �� 9. Present or most recent use of site:_�� 7f�(c�!¢-� 10. List of other tenants/firms on the property: /�/0� i C`�I�.e C�r#� �# ��xzXtx��axxtte JEROME F. COLEMAN CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD •e� (415) 696-7207 Ciir q77oRr�Ev BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 rnx (415) 342-8386 .7une 23 , 1994 Joel Beck B K Bobcat 607 Pisces Lane Foster City, California 94404 Subject: Use Permit Dear Mr. Beck: This is to confirm yesterday's "conversation". I understood you to say that you needed another two weeks to prepare the documents for the use permit. I appreciate you are busy, but it has been months since this started. Based on the two week deadline, I wil� expect that a complete application will be submitted to the Planning Department by,July 6. That has to be the final deadline. s , tr ly > � �,_ OM F . OLEMAN Ci�y A�torney cc: P�_�nning (S. Saisi)Y � .,,�«,y,,,,,�,,:., -__�, t� C`�.�.e C�Y#� � �►�xx1Y�t��x�t.e JEROME F.COLEMAN CITV ATTORNEY May 2, 1994 Joel Beck B K Bobcat 607 Pisces Lane Foster City, Calif. CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 94404 Subject: Failure to obtain use permit Dear Mr. Beck: re�. (4i5) 696-7207 Fqx: (415) 342-8386 In February I wrote you concerning the parking of trucks on the property at 970 David Road. Since that time you have graveled the area, but you have failed to apply for the necessary use permit for this kind of business at this location. I understand that you picked up the application forms at the Planning Department some weeks ago, but nothing has been returned. This letter is to inform you that unless that department receives a properly completed application by June 15, 1994, it will be necessary for my office to initiate appropriate legal action to enforce our ordinances. Yo�rs rul � � �_ �� E ME F. COLEMAN - City Attorney cc: Planning (S. Saisi) � . ..,J:,, _ .. - ..iik, C� gurlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 26, 1991 p� 'ect. There were no further audience comments and the public heari was closed. _ C. Jacobs fo`�nd,_`this proposal would not be_,.de�rimental to the neighborhood, there�a�e exceptional circums�a�rr�es in the unusual shape of the lot. C. Jacobs m�ved for app�,,,r,av�l of the side and rear yard setback variances with the �fo�l.�ow�,ng'"conditions :(1) that the proj ect shall be built as shown on�� Department and date stamped='7�ug ( 2) that the proj ect sh�a11 meet Code requirements,�,as'amended by �� fie.., plans submitted to the Planning st 19�.._1991, Sheet 1 and Sheet 2; and all Unifor�,Building and Uniform Fire the City of �tx�lingame. Moti�o�n s seconded by Cers Graham ca Yvote, C. Kelly absent. Appeal _ �� and Ellis and approved � G-O,.,uon roll procedures were advised. ` 9. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AUTO STORAGE AND VARIANCES �FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACKS FOR PARCEL APN 025-272-160 WITH A ; TEMPORARY ADDRESS OF 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1 (CONTINUED FROM � 8/12/91) Reference staff report, 8/26/91, with attachments. ZT Saisi reviewed details of the request, parcel map creating this long and narrow parcel, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, required findings. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. She advised a landscape variance was no longer required. Responding to a question, staff advised a chain link fence would be acceptable under Condition #3. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Stephen Segale, applicant, was present. He noted this is an unusual lot, long and narrow, he will keep three to four cars there, not in and out every day, he just needs the storage area; he is a carpenter working normal daytime hours; no auto restoration work will be done on site. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal stated he would abstain from discussion and voting. Commission discussion/comment: cannot vote for this project, applicant may use it for storage now but in the future any use will need variances, it doesn't have on-site parking, it is ridiculous to put 370 SF of landscaping in the back of a building which has a roll-up door, this proposal is not in the best interest of that area nor is a building on this site. Agree with these comments; why two handicap restrooms if there is no commercial activity proposed for the site; it is difficult to believe applicant would not use this good storage facility for some tinkering on his cars, cars always require something. Further comment: agree with the previous comments but am compelled to come to the opposite conclusion, who created this situation, the real issue at this point is what are the options; the city permitted this division and now there is a property owner who wants to develop his Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 26, 1991 site, this is as simple a project and about the only type of project this property could support; if the city doesn't feel the property should support any project then the city should step in, take it over and relieve the property owner of the burden; if the city is not prepared to do this it should look at the merits of the proposal, do not think there is anything else that can be put on this property from a commercial standpoint. Another comment: this parcel was split off to complement and add on to others, the other property owners do not want this parcel at least at this time; if property owner and applicant want to build on an M-1 lot of these dimensions they should meet code, an architect can always find a way to do so. C. Jacobs moved for denial of the special permits and variances for this project with the statement this is not what the parcel was divided for, Commission should look toward the future and think in terms of the whole area. Motion was seconded by C. Graham who commented that Commission has not heard from the property owner and what he has done to attempt to lease this space. Comment on the motion: it is unfortunate that this piece of property exists, the type of use proposed is perhaps one of the few uses which could go in there; have a problem with the design, it could be better and less objectionable, there could be more landscaping in front; handicap restrooms are probably a building code requirement; upholding the conditions suggested by staff is going to be difficult. Motion to deny was approved on a 4-1-1, roll call vote, C. Galligan voting no, C. Deal abstaining, C. Kelly absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 0. SPECIAL PERMZT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND REAL ESTATE OFFICES AT 400 \ PRIMROSE ROAD ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B1 Item b ntinued to the meeting of September 9, 1991. --�'"�� .,:, . �� FROM THE FLO�� ✓p r � �,,,r��r Marti Knight, 455 atham Road, re�ef red to the vacant parcel at the corner of Adeline Dr e and E1 ��ino Real and the parcel considered this evening at 970 David.,�oa,��'�temporary address) , inquiring about the possibility of the cit�,%�aking over privately owned property for parking. The Chair adj �ised he'�the official position of the city would have to be request��from City Cquncil. - Copy of City Attorney's August 15, 199�.,letter to Mithoo Benner, Donnelly Square Fitness Center, regarding'�noise complaints. �r between this building and the adjacent building; he said the project meets all requirements of building code except for pre- existinq conditions over which they have no control; he submitted a letter from lo adjacent property owners who had no objection to the project and reviewed findings council could make to approve the project; the addition cannot be seen from the stree� because you would have to stand 198 feet from the front of the building to see the roof line of the proposed addition; he r�quested approva l . /�� Mayor Barton closed the public hearing. � Councilwoman o�Mahony reviewed the encroachm� t of this building and the addition into the rear setback and�.�n area on the addition that projects into the setback. i' Councilman Harrison said he was impres ed with Freer's letter and presentation and his points are well �ken, the lot coverage already exists and it is easier to �ild a second story over the existing walls, he supported appro�dal of the project. Councilman Pagliaro said he,walk�d through the neighborhood and did not feel this addition wvuld be compatible with the area; there are almost no second s b�ies to be seen; because it is not compatible and because of th� npnconforming lot coverage, he could not support approvalJ '. Mayor Barton asked aboutl�the dupleic�next door which also seems to be nonconforming; City �lanner said �t was a mirror image of this buildinq and it appea� they vere bui�t at same time on one lot; later the lot was sg3it to make two separate properties, this may also explain the narrow street frontage \ Mayor Barton said if council allows th�s expansion to a noncori�orming use, the buildinq next dgt�r could do the same; she ldid not think there was enough space f f parking in this impacted a�ea and could not support the p�ject. �_ Councilwomati O'Mahony said council encourages p3�eperty owners' improveme , but she was greatly concerned about he existing 47 percent ot coverage; if the building were destro� d it could be rebuilt to greater density; Freer has done his best�to keep the addit' n small but because of the density and the pa�king she coul not favor approval. � C�cilman Pagliaro moved to deny the request and uphold P anning Commission. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, 1 on roll call vote, Councilman Harrison voting no. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FOR SPECSAL PERMITS AND VARZANCES FOR DE�7ELOPMENT OF PARCEL AT 970 DAVID ROAD - DENIED �i �� CiEy Planner reviewed her memo of September 11 which recommended " council hold a public hearinq and take action. Stephen Segale, applicant, Dennis Cheng, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, are requesting two special permits and three variances fn order to build a structure on the 20 foot by 225.5 foot vacant lot at 970 David Road (temporary address) in the M-1 zone. The applicant proposes to build a 20 foot wide by 124 foot long structure in order to store his own automobiles. As proposed, the structure would provide no side setbacks (10 foot setback required), no on-site parking (3 spaces required) and no ability to exit in a forward direction in a commercial zone (required). Special permits are required for indoor, and for outdoor auto storage in M-1. In developing the site, they would provide two handicapped accessible bathrooms as required by building code. Also 455 square feet of landscapinq would be provided (451 square feet required), there would be 85 square feet of landscaping in the front setback and 370 square feet at the rear. The Planning Commission voted to deny the request. City Council M¶nutes September 16, 1991 Mayor Barton opened the public hearing. Tom Ryan, friend of the applicant, introduced the applicant, Stephen Segale, and property owner, Dennis Cheng; Cheng said he has been trying to sell the property and there has been no interest until Segale proposed this storage facility; he contacted the broker of the adjacent property when it was for sale to attempt to sell his property to the adjacent one as it makes sense to develop the two lots together. Councilwoman O'Mahony asked if he had contacted the property owner to the east (PG&E); owner said no, but he thought it was a good idea. Ryan continued that the main issue is the narrowness of the lot; a 20 foot wide lot cannot have any side setbacks; he reviewed history of lot's creation, it was a railroad spur, part was purchased separately and part was bought by adjacent property owners; Segale�s proposal seems the only good use of the lot; the handicap restrooms are required by building code for a building of this size, it does not mean Segale proposes some commercial use; there will be parking inside the building and at the rear; Segale intends to store his auto collection at the site, he has four vintage 1950 autos, he does not intend to sell or repair autos on the site; he noted the Planning Commission's discussion about landscaping at the rear being ridiculous, that not beinq the intent of landscaping requirements; they appealed because they think the decision is unfair because this proposal is the best use of the property since it cannot be sold to the neighbor; the Planning Commission seemed to think the property should be sold to a neighbor and that is the only use they would consider. Councilman Pagliaro said he drove to the site and passed it before he realized it; he looked at plans and wondered why Segale needs a buildinq 124 feet long to store four autos; he also did not understand the need for roll up doors at the rear of the buildinq and the paved rear yard if storage is only inside, where is the parkinq on site for visitor; he asked why not move the building to the rear and put parking and landscaping in front, and eliminate the roll up doors at rear. Segale responded that the building is required to be located there because of fire code requirements, it can't be more than 150 feet from front of a lot and they must have access all the way around the building; he could live with smaller building but it would be harder to sell. Pagliaro asked if Segale would object to eliminating the roll up door in back; Segale said he put that door there so that perhaps a contractor could purchase building and use rear lot for storage. Councilman Pagliaro asked if Segale objected to a requirement that the walls be solid slab, Segale said no. Councilwoman O'Mahony suggested Segale put in regular man door rather than roll up door at rear. Mayor Barton asked when Cheng purchased the site; Cheng replied about three years ago, when he purchased he hoped to sell to neighbor. Cheng said he had an agreement with Segale for purchase of the lot conditional on Segale getting these permits. Segale said he agreed to all the conditions proposed. Betty O'Kelly, 1352 Drake, had some reservations about this use, she wondered why anyone would buy a lot and build a building to store four cars, she thought it was not a good idea. Mayor Barton closed the public hearing. Councilman Harrison confirmed that condition 2 required no person be on site other than between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., it could be read that no cars are allowed on site between those hours also; Councilwoman O'Mahony informed the audience that there are several car clubs in the city that allow storaqe of autos. Mayor Barton said there are too many permits and variances needed for this project; the buildinq is too long; she believed there were other ways the site could be developed; if this is allowed it would be difficult for the city to police its use; she feared in the future it would be used for car repair; there is no room for parking or car turn around; the real estate market is tough right now and the owner has only had it on the narket for six - ;✓ j/ ' � months; she agreed entirely with the Planning Commission; she felt council would really go out on a limb if it approved this. Councilman Paqliaro moved to overturn the Planning Commission and grant this request with conditions in staff report with some revisions and added requirement that walls be solid concrete slab, that there be no roll up door at rear of building and no storage of vehicles in outdoor area; and that the permits be reviec✓ed in one year and every three years thereafter; that restrictions run with the land; and including change on condition 2 to delete the word "outdoor" and on condition 3 to delete "automobile storage." Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion tied on a 2-2 vote, Councilman Harrison and Mayor Barton voting no. Because of the tie vote, the Planning Commission decision to deny prevails and the appeal was denied. C HEARING - SECOND READING - ORDINANCE 1444 - Cit Attorney reviewed his memo of August 7 and recomm ded coun il hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance king an amen ent to our zoning code provisions concerning a lt entert inment business. For some time the courts h e required that p cedures for licensing adult businesses hav� a specific deadlin when the license must be qranted or deni�d. This ordinance�established a 90 day period for such �tion. Mayor Barti�n opened the public hearing; there,,lieing no comments, the hearinq�was closed. / Councilwoman�0'Mahony moved adoption of OR�INANCE 1444. Seconded by Councilman�.jiarrison, carried 4-0 on ro�l call vote. PUBLIC HEARING t SECOND READING - ORDIN�NCE 1445 - REPEALING City Attorney revi"'wed his memo of ugust 26 which recommended council hold a pub 'c hearing and �hen adopt this ordinance. Our code limits solicit s to the hoyrs between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The courts hav held that uch limits cannot be constitutionally just fied. T s ordinance will remove the time limit provisions from o r cod . Mayor Barton opened the��.b ic hearing. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. ' Councilman Harrison move�d adoption of ORDINANCE 1445. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahor�y, car�ried 4-0 on roll call vote. City Manager review d his memo o September 9 with the Finance Director's memo a ached. As an 'cipated, it was a very poor year financially or the city; ge ral fund growth was only .3 percent and ente prise fund growth as 2.5 percent in the water and sewer funds expenditures were 'gher because of salary and benefit increa es, and numerous one- 'me items like the convention ce er study. He suggeste a mid-year budget review within the n t few months to consider ny needed revisions. Councilma�arrison said one area of goo�ews is that there may be heavy r infall this winter. Councilwo an O'Mahony said that is a reas to look at building another re ervoir. City Ma�iager's memo of September ll recommende'c� council adopt the proposed rules and regulations including establsshment of a$100 applic�ation fee and $300 per day location use fees for use of city property for events of a commercial nature not sponsored by local non-profit group, for example movie companies. These are the same fees San Francisco charges to movie companies. 4 ROUTING FORM DATE : �' � G '��' TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INBPECTOR ,��_ FIRE MARBHAL PARRB DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR S��G1/ l .i��l'Y)l ��Y ��i1C�.• St�YGrGI� AT �1 �fl b� v�� PoQ�I' , z��d �I-/ SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ,A�A�9ii- MEETING: 1""C�/ V, ZZ• REVIEWED BY STAFF� IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �� U� y� I_ TxArrxs , Jane/Sheri/Leah � � �,K� �►�► -'� � � �� `� Date of Comments Cd �.�� , ��., ROUTING FORM DATE : _ / ' I2 '�� TO: CITY ENGINEER � , CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: REQIIEST FOR s��il/ � ��/'�'YJI� � ��C� AT 'o b� �� ',z��d �I/ SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION .AA�P�9i� MEETING: �j, 2,� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �1 U��/ - - � THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah � � �-.'�.. �`� � ` �` Date of Comments � BAYSyORE s ADR/AN BK.26 a TAX CODE AREA � _ � � . „ ssoai zs�e I I I � I .. .. � I � � � � O � � I .. �T— I 1 � , � � � 6 I � � I I � � � � � � ; � � il � � � � O � I � I � i I � � I i � � � � I �� i I � � I � , , , J; � � , , , ► .., �� ,I N� � „I I R� � I O 1- I„ �: NI Q i m N //'� � . I � � M I� mI TI �I �I eyil TI ` I I �i �I ol N� � I N O i � � I � � � j �, �l m� NI I , � I � � � � � � ' � i a � � � � I I ► I m , I I � I � i � � � i I � I i � � I 43 ' 44 i 45 � 46 � 47 �� 48 :s'.4 � 36 � 37 � 38 39 � 40 I 4/ i 42 I i � � I � I i � I � i � I I I _- I -- I � � — --- � — --- _L___-- � -- — �--- _ 1 -- --� --- - - 20�.23 _ _ - -- -- 9� 59-- ---- � --------- i - - - -� � i 5. P. {�. R. � CO. .. � PTN . SBEi PAR- 2 � B72 - 4� 2 0 � -- � —�— 6°. �'r' � ---_ . --�----- � �3�.Of � -- 1----- ---1- ---� 45� 02'2'I'�E , _�a.�,_ � .. I 3 ' m l0 39 O _ - - _ m�� -- - - �� /�-_ � � � � ' N5Ta2�2TW _6s!•66" -- ------- -- a os�, --- —�--- -- --- -- -IDv;---- --�--- —�_ _ � N PARCEL C s ---- -- — 180' 225 2 i � � PARCEL A i I i � /4 �Im MIN � �I � , i � PARCEL 56 O Je0' � PARCEL 57 �, i i zz � ROLL/NS � 8a' � 272 �1 PARCEL E '� �B ea� L� S5 O � N�-�� FREEI�Y,qy - ROAD Go.��• I �p 4C Z� 550'41'25"� I � � �� . � O � � � I I � � � O I i � I �� '� � �� e! � �� 2%3 ml N 1t� N I N I I NI I N I � I � � � � � I �I i � I 5 � 6 / � 2 i 3' � 4 i I I � � � � � ---1--- ---�---1- l -- -�-- ---L — i � r.a�'T� .1� _�G.�a. �r—° ----1--bo—�J_'7--� ------- 55�' 02' 21"E 441.Iq' w �_ �� o . � N m .� �� O � � �- � � r4a.�e�- v � a�sr PARCEL D m N ^ O 4� V'� 8'EASE. — — — N� —___ io�— — � '1' V . � � ' I � � +4 � PARCEL B I_ iw� is a � � I i � � ,� i I i�c.�,4, L �_\ � Q _ Q 55' !35' 1 — u 5? o � �- -- PTN. PARCEL E O , 3 s �'IN 7� 0 � s � a ROAD L� ° .�3 \ PARCEL MAP VOL 47/87 � PARCEL MAP VOL 52/79 -80 28 � PARCEL MAP VOL 32�/0-// L' PARCEL MAP VOL 54/2/ 25 - 27 O BK. 26 /0 - — CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, THE 22RD DAY OF AIIGOST, 1994, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 970 DAVID ROAD APN: 025-272-160 APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRDCR STORAC3E AT 970 DAVID ROAD, ZONED M-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. Please note, when possible, and when multiple family or commercial development is involved, this notice shall be posted in a public place on the project site and on neiqhborinq buildinqs with tenants. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER AUGUST 12. 1994 �� " •' '�' ;cs� • ..•.:.. � � �' ` � ..T, " Ar Ki� 't' `J". � � 1 V v , lCAaM'ti�.'�artcr�r`�';,,a�,.. ca ,�r • � `R � -A y � •r � 'kr �.� � �� ` � �� --- n.a��r:� �' , 1• . Y +e .. { .. _ ' _ � �• � T �� j!"' " V" � ^ � M � : - .' � ` � .' `A ,; < � ,. , , , � " �� ; � ; _ < � � '�� `'r.� "k'a� r.�... `.�' � � � ~ � � � - .' �� ''�'4�` '+?��.��rc� "��''? .� __..� _ � «i 3 �. �p �� .. .l . . e �.3 - ' -•' E. '^ � . _ . � y �'y � � �' � ` ` i"kK4 . _!'�: ''[ .. . � ; � . S . 4;-� �� '-r�- _: . '�F p ^ t' ��r , . a",.,��. r„ : : �'` �, � �.a � ' � �', _ j - � � .:� . . . y . � .rf, .� a:- r�-. . 4 . �.. � ' °ar"� - [ • � � .,. �' �. � � � � j - � � � ;� s� ; 1 � .- y '7!� : ,�Aao�.�Wv ..�'�� . $ . :.� . aV � ' � � '� ��, -�� , - - ''�.-,' �Pr i� 3 . w��s �.y._ . . , i _.. �... ''.� �..�� i �' `' i � ; . r 2' .� ' ' � �7 y, . i'. t 1{, , 7 :.�{ ` ✓ .. :'�R y .: S F "� � i . ! _ 'tY � ��i�'F�'� r:.�',�., t `_ Y�' a ^� . �. '7"��{ '_i �. � , ` q� ,.r, � � �r�jP y. _ .5+�� i_ I . �. � ;�� `" r ��. _ y �c� r.trL; � f 'V -`r.' � ' I, .. �� k�,��.� �r c i�.sk,'. y ,r� . n � ,�. ' , .� . !y{ k"• � .f;-� � �- :�" _ . .. - , _..._ .�` •i r� �,,,,.� — � " f� - _ �` � �. � �� j_ . -. � i.. '�;,t !"'�! �.; ,it� ��'' `� � •.��, ' .:.Rt^. -�`� �' � .�� M,A,� "��r� ,. � � . • _ 1; '�` �'y `��,�,..�5�c'� �. � _. ---- , -"N ,:�' _ � _/� '4 y Y` � �"�. : •„�'.� `•� ., . . F.� ��r��=.rw -_.�,�»�_.., f �� s��_~�n � . i N.'y�,'' ' � � �� 1 .. '•�... '1 � 1•1 y . " -�— . �l ' � • w � O � . ^:� . . � O6��A��' ; '; � � "�-' ..i • .., r� t: r +; x: Q'� _ � �l_�: t � � ► �L � � Y � y . �� -, � �4 . ^'' -,�,�,,.�,�� , .+� w � : �a - - s � � i y ` �: ; �1 �� ..� ��..-�`. - ; , :k � � , , :'+�' _ - � _ ' �A r y{e �, ' +. a�:n.;�. + .rir. � y �' . .. f��ls . i ` e` `'' � C � � � � d �� 7''�� . � � rt � � a� �� . -.+ "`�"' %�s� � �t� ,�� ' � �` f �-T l�s.rq ;� '; ` � r4� :34 .r - � � .o+. ` —�^ - '7p � y,�� ' ��.. � .. . - �. k ' j: �1r � ! �.;�-1� � ` •1� M! � r+��i, ':��f ws'1:'�A . _ ' ,_�.-t,.- ,:: -, r• � i N � + ::K«: .r : ; �_,l.:Q i.: _ o. � � � �� s� � ,� .. �� . � :=ir�+� � -- - o�o� � r �-.`�-..�P�+'rlW.�' 1, � - . �, � � *� � e - ar � y �'•"` 1 � � '~ * � � �,�, ..7 � : �. - :� , 4 �� . {'•: f - ��: a��; _. * _� . p ? f � "i� ,^,� N:. " � a � � � *� I � � ��' ��`��.� � � ' - � �'�. � R ` � � - + � �. . � � �� ,� -- � � . N _ _ � � � ;:; ' �� . - . _ - � . .� �.. �� _ . �.w,. � _.. �1� 1-►'10 � �, , .. � . �. �" Vt- --_�. _. ,_ _ �^t 'r yr� t � �;� ^ � � Y�' � � l : _ 4�� ' . t�� Y � IA r � i-�.`� � ,�} '� _ �� Y �.�--� s , : .}.t... . ��-t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a special permit for truck storaae at 970 David Road. APN: 025-272-160; propertv owner: Joel Beck, 602 Pisces Lane Foster City, CA; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Auqust 22, 1994 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption Section: 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(a), Grading on land with a slope of less than 10�: and 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(c), Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site; and 15311 - Accessory Structures Class 11(b) consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including (b) Small parking lots is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such special permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certif ied copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Mike Ellis , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY .• EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and special permit 970 DAVID ROAD effective SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12, 1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; 2. that the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time; 3. that all employees and visitors shall park on site in the storage lot; 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. � �Y�� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 ..� Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Art Michael, was present to answer questions relating to future uses, i.e., a warehouse building with variances; additional parking, etc. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted this is a routine procedure and in accord with the reasons cited in the staff report, moved recommendation to City Council with the following conditions: 1) that no site development is approved by approval of this map; 2) that a covenant on the Final Map create all the necessary easements shown on the Tentative Map; 3) that all fill material presently stockpiled in the drainage right-of-way be removed from the site prior to recording of the Final Map; 4) that all conditions of the Planning Memo dated August 8, 1994 shall be met; 5) that a special Encroachment Permit be obtained from the Burlingame City Council for any development within the 140' drainage right-of-way; 6) that flooding must be allowed in the 140' easement and any proposed uses or regrading must accommodate this flooding; and 7) that conditions 2 and 6 shall be shown as developmental conditions on this Parcel Map. Motion was seconded by C. Deal and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AT 970 DAVID ROAD ZONED M-1 (JOEL BECK PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 8/22/94, with attachments. Planner Gomery discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Joel Beck, the applicant, was present to answer question. The applicant asked that condition #3 be eliminated and they be allowed to park on the street. They have been doing so for two years and there have been no complaints. CA Coleman advised condition #3 be replaced conditioning the installation of a curb cut. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted the amended conditions in the staff report, he then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 12, 1994 Sheet 1, Assessors Parcel Map; 2) that the truck and equipment storage facility will be open 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday with a maximum of four employees at any one time; 3) that applicant shall install to City standards a curb cut on Davis Road as approved by City Engineer; 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. Jacobs and passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -5-