The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1409 Rollins Road - Approval Letterr � 0 BURLlfVGAME JUNE�. _/ �r� LV�� .� �a��..�4z�.��x�.e �� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRTMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-893i February 23, 1983 Mr•. E. E. Booth McCullagh Rent-A-Car Div. of McCullagh Leasing, Inc. 1409 Rollins Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Mr. Booth: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the February 14, 1983 Planning Commission approval of your Special Permit application became effective February 23, 1983. � This application was to allow auto rentals in conjunction with the existing auto leasing use at 1409 Rollins Road. The February 14, 1983 minutes of the Planning Commission state the permit was approved with the following conditians: 1. that the car ren.ta�l fleet operated from this site be limite� to a max-�mum of 30 vehicles and operated between the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., hlonday through Friday; 2. that no off-loading or on-loading of vehicTes from trucks take place on the street or public right-of-way; 3. that no parking of leased or rental vehicles be allowed on-street at any time; and 4. that there be no maintenance or washing of vehicles on the site until the drainage facilities meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Any site improvements or construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely yours, I� lc� C��( r�� Margaret Monroe Ci ty Pl anner MM/ s � ' , cc: Chief Building Inspector .�� Alice M. Honerlah (property owner) Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 6, Acreage-Edwards Ind. Park; APN 026-103-030) License Collector ° Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1983 CP discussed the April, 1980 approved condominium permit; the final subdivision map which shows half the required spaces outside the gate, the other half and storage area inside the gate; recent installation of a gate which encloses all the required off-street parking; the impact of this gate on the size of one parking space; applicant's reasons for his request; answers to study meeting questions; CE's suggestions regarding the gate. One condition for consideration was suggested in the staff report with regard to providing an unobstructed 9' width for the parking space immediately adjacent to the gate. Zev Ben-Simon, the applicant, was present. He advised that the previous gate was installed and in place until a series of vandalism incidents caused it to be moved, and that the substandard parking space could be easily used by a compact car. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: the grade on the driveway into the garage is approximately 15%; there are three on-street parking spaces in front of this building and 30+ on-street spaces in the area, most in the adjacent R-1 zone. Applicant commented on the incidents of vandalism which occurred after occupancy of the building when open off-street �uest parking was available including ripping out overhead lights, theft from cars and gathering of children in the daytime; and that the current gate is operated from residents' cars. Further Commission discussion: service companies arP provided a key to gain entrance; most incidents of vandalism occur at night; the di�'rficulty of moving the gate to an alternate position between parking spaces 5 and 6 hecause of the overhead sewer plumbing. Commissioners could not find exceptional circumstances with regard to the gate as installed: there is visibility into this garage; the three on-street spaces available are not enough for guest parking; suggest post sign indicating yuest parking inside; this street is badly congested with parking now; concern that installation without city permits had occ.urred twice recently; suggest the developer return with a new plan to providP more accessible guest parking. C. Graham moved to deny this amendment to the condominium permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny passed on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO RENTALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING � AUTO LEASING USE AT 1409 ROLLINS ROAD, BY E. E. BOOTH FOR MC CULLAGH LEASING, INC. CP Monroe reviewed this application for an amendment to the December, 1970 use permit. Reference staff report dated 2/7/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 1/19/83; applicant's project description received January 19, 1983; Rent-A-Car Questionnaire dated 12/29/80; site drawings received January 19, 1983; aerial photograph; January 24, 1983 letter from T. L. Unternahrer, Operations Manager, McCullagh Leasing, Inc.; January 6, 1971 letter of action from the City Clerk for operation of a new truck and car leasing facility at 1409 Rollins Read; December 28, 1970 Planning Commission minutes covering this approval; 1/28/83 memo from the Chief Building Ins!�ector; 1/27/83 memo from the Fire Marshal; February 1, 1983 memo from the City Engineer. CP discussed details of this proposal; staff review and comments; applicant's project description; Planning staff concerns about maintenance of landsr.aping and protection of the available on-street parking. If approved, three conditic�ns were suggested in the staff report. E. E. Booth, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1983 Discussion: use permit goes with the site, not with the operator; is car rental an appropriate use in this district? The applicant was commended on his present leasing operation; concern was�expressed about another car rental agency taking over use of this pr�perty in the future and in that context was car rental an appropriate u�e in F4-1. r�pplicant explained his long term leasing business and plans for short term renta�, 10-30 day periods; in short term rental, maintenance and insurance are provided by �he rental agency. Mr. Booth further advised they do not re-lease their automobiles, .ut usually sell them; that they would like additional signage to identify the new company activity but that would be a separate application; that they had approximately 1,000 units per year under lease, rentals would be a maximum of 30 vehicles per day and incidental to their general operation. A fourth condition of dpproval was suggested regarding maintenance and washing of cars on-site. It was po�nted out that the original permit covered concerns about maintenance of landscap;ng. C. Graham moved to approve this special permit amendment to allow auto rentals i.n conjunction with auto leasing with the following conditions: (1) that the car rental fleet operated from this site be limited to a maximum of 30 vehicles and operated between the hours of 8:00 A.M, to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday; (2) that no off- loading cr on-loading of vehicles from trucks take place on ihe street or public right•- of-way; �3) that no parking of leased or rental vehicles be allowed on-street at any time; and (4) that there be no maintenance or washing of vehicles on the site until the a�ainage facilities meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SICN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF TWO SIGNS WHICH WILL EXCEED TNE HMOUNT OF SIGNAGE AND NUMBER OF PERMIT7ED SIGNS AT 101 CALIFORNIA DRI�!E, B'f ROBER'� KNFZEVICH FOR BURLINGAME FORD _ _ _ __ _ CP Monroe reviewed this request. Reference staff repert dated 2/7/83; Sigr� Permit application filed 1/13/83; photographs, California Drive frontage; table indicating California Drive frontage existing signs and proposed sign; photographs and table for the Bayswater Avenue frontage si 9ns; "no comments/requirements" memos from the City Engineer (1/17/83) and Fire Marshal (1/17/83); memo from the Chief Building Inspector (1/28/83); Sign Exception application filed 1/13/83; applicant's plans received w�th the application; aerial photograph; table comparing existing signage of Auto Row (California Drive) and Rollins Road auto uses to city code standards, CP discussed details of this sign exception request and existing signage; code requirements; applicant's justification; table comparing existing signage to code standards. Three conditions were suggested in the staff report for Commission consideration. Robert Knezevich, the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink oNened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and th� hearing wa� closed. Discussion: Sign C on the California Drive frontages if the applicai;ion were approved it would in esse�ce approve a total signage program on this property. C. Schwalm found that tris was not an unreasona��e request nor a grant of special privile�e in that the apolicar�t is taking on a new dealership to sell Peugeot automobiles and needs this identific�tion. C. Schwalm then moved to approve the Sign Exception. Second C, Graham; motior. approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Mink dissenting, C. Giomi absent. ,4ppeal procedures were advised. RecP�:s 9:12 P.M.; reconvene 9:22 P.�i�