The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About903 California Drive - Approval Letter, �.�P V�Z.�� .4�� i�',�Z�.�CC�1"r.e SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 July 20, 1983 Mr. Duncan Downing Agency Rent A Car 903 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Downing: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the July 11, 1983 Planning Conmission denial of your special permit application became effective July 19, 1983. This application was to allow a car rental agency in the C-2 district at 903 California Drive. The July 11, 1983 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was denied "unanimously on roll call vote". In accordance with your letter of July 19, 1983 we will expect you to have vacated the premises by August 15, 1983. � Sincerely, Nla��'�l�h�v� n�Q Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Chief Building Inspector License Collector Property owners: Richard J. & Hilda Faziola City AttornQy Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1983 garaqe as a workshop/hobby room with partial storage, many of the items stored there presently will not remain on the site; concern about the use of the workshop and that utomobiles might be parked outside; applicant advised garage would be closed on the n ighbor's side, all expected storage items except large boat are on the �ot now; thi is an extremely heavy use of this large lot, find nothing about th�� property to s pport a finding of exceptional circumstances. Commission acknow dged the appli•ant's need for a place to store his boats but objected to the ize of the propos� structure. It was sugaested use of the existing garage reconsidered and a re'�ubmittal for the accessory structure be made. C. Giomi mo�{ed to deny the special permit and variance wit C. Cistulli;��notion approved unanimously on roll call vote advised. `, � 3. SIGN EXCEPTI�I TO ALLOW TWO AWNING SIGNS AT 327 L (CONTINUED FR01� 6/27/83) j � prejudice. Second Appeal procedures were AVENUE, BY THOMAS VANNONI CP Monroe reviewed th's revised request for awni /canopy signage which exceeds the Sign Code limitations. Reference staff report dated 6/30/83 and 6/7/83; report of site inspection 6/29/83 ith photograph; appl'cant's request for continuation date stamped June 7, 1983; Junc� 27, 1983 and May 3, 1983 Planning Commission minutes; revised sign drawing date s'��amped May 27, 1983; staff comments: Chief Building Inspector (6/2/83), City Engi�ieer (6/3/8 ; staff report dated 5/17/83; Sign Permit application filed 4/27/83; Si� Except' n application filed 4/28/83; sign drawings; City Engineer memo of May 17, 1 3; F re Marshal memo of May 16, 1983; Chief Bui7ding Inspector memo of May 13, 1983 w t achment; and aerial photograph of the site. CP discussed details of the revis �application and the addition of two window signs, code requirements, staff review stu'�y meeting question regarding neon lighting on the building. Two conditions re sugQested for consideration at the public hearing. Robert Cooper, representina the applican�,, was present. He pointed out that the lettering itself is only -1/2" to 8" high`�.(within code) but stacking the words and enclosing the lettering ithin the design makes the sign larger than 8". C. Graham opened the public hear' g. There were no audi�nce comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion: feel th the neon tubing makes the *w�iole building a sign, but it would still be within c e requirements. �� A C. Schwalin fou that this signage was no different tl�an other awning signs approved by Commission• that the size and length of the buildin��on both sides justifies the size of the wning signs; that a smaller sign would be ow,t of proportion to the building; d that Banyan Bay has improved the appearance�'°�f this corner. C. Schwalm then mov for approval of this sign exception with the fol'l�owing conditions: �1) tha the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of May 16,�1983 be met; and (2) t t the signs shown in the Sign Permit, as well as two 5� window signs, be the tent of signage on the site and the entrance awning be bui'Nt,�according to the P1a date stamped May 27, 1983. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved�unanimously on r 1 call vote. C. Garcia moved to amend the motion to include the de�,orative ighting of the building as a part of Commission's signage approval. Secpnd C. Cistulli; all aye voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. � 4. USE DETERMINATION TO ALLOW A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE C-2 DISTRICT AT �--- 903 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY AGENCY RENT A CAR (CONTINUED FROM 6/27/83) CP Monroe reviewed this request for a car rental agency ir the C-2 district. Reference staff report dated 6/30/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/16/83; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1983 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, July 11, 19�3 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Comr�issioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; Director of Public Works Ralph E. Kirkup MINUTES - The minutes of the June 27, 1983 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - The Chair announced City Planner Report iiems would precede adjournment to Conference Room B for the Ramada Inn study items. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. & 2. VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A rARAGE AT 126 CLARENDON ROAD, BY HENRY AND ROBIN USE CP Monroe reviewed this application for an accessory structure which exceeds permitted loi coverage, total area and height limitations. Reference staff report dated 7/5/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/31/83; drawings date stamped May 31, 1983; staff comments: Chief Building Inspector (6/17/83), Fire Marshal (6/13/83) and City Engineer (6/20/83); letters from the applicant dated May 31 and July 1, 1983; aerial photograph; July 1, 1983 letter from Leonard E. Abbott, Abbott and Sons Construction; June 30, 1983 letter to the City Engineer from Leonard E. Abbott with attached plan of existing elevations; Planning staff review of previous requests for oversized garages; and Planning Commission study meeting minutes (June 27, 1983). CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's justification for variance, study meeting requests, Planning staff summary of issues. Three conditions were suggested for Commission consideration at the public hearing. The applicant, Henry Use and his representative, Leonard Abbott of Abbott and Sons Construction were present. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were n� comments in favor. Fred Thomas, a long time resident at 105 Dwight Road, spoke in opposition: not opposed if accessory building is constructed to code standards; concern about creating an eyesore in this residential area and possibility of this large garage being turned into a second unit; what will the use of this structure be? There were no further audience comments and the hearing was declared closed. Discussion: possibility of moving the proposed structure in order to meet Building Code and height requirements; drainage requirements; existing garage is very full presently, new structure would not be closed in and would be visible from the street, perhaps applicant is attempting to store too many things on the site and should look elsewhere for a storage facility; applicant advised he intends to use the existing : = Burlingame Planning Commission P�inutes Page 3 July 11, 1983 staff comments: City Engineer (memo 5/30/83), Chief Building Inspector (memo 6/3/83) and Fire Marshal (memo 5/24/83); June 20, 1983 letter from Leslie S. Mayne, owner of property at 909 California Drive; May 15, 1983 letter from the applicant; Rent-A-Car Questionnaire received May 16, 1983; May 13, 1983 letter from Michel Chatard, La Body Shop; site drawings received May 16, 1983; June 13, 1983 study meeting minutes; and aerial photograph. CP discussed details of the request, code regulations, staff review, protest from nearby property owner, applicant's description of his operation, and noted study meeting requests had been discussed in the staff report. CP recommended against this request; if considered by the Commission, four conditions were suggested. Duncan Downing of Agency Rent A Car, applicant, was present. He advised that Leslie Mayne, owner of the property at 909 California Drive, had tried to rent his lot to Agency; Mr. Mayne has since moved his business. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Applicant discussed his business, a small car rental company with pickup and delivery service in which cars often go directly from one rental to another, as well as his talks with the Police Department who, he indicated, had told him they had no objection if no complaints were received. Commission discussion: applicant has been in business at this location since approximately November, 1982; all billing is done out of the Burlingame office (sales taxes are paid from 903 California Drive); other offices are located at Oakland Airport, Concord and San Jose; concern that business license had not been applied for in Burlingame and this application is after the fact; parking is a main consideration especially when abutting an R-1 residential neighborhood; have no objection to the use, but not at this location; applicant appears to be violating on-site and on-street parking regulations. C. Giomi moved to deny this conditional use permit. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 50 SF SIGN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SIGNAGE AT ->._ 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY AD/CO SIGN C0. FOR PUTNAM BUICK CP Mo roe reviewed this request for a 50 SF pole sign in the Auto Row area. Reference staff� ort dated 7/5/82; Sign Permit application received June 2 ; Sign Exception pplication received June 2, 1983; "no objection/co ' memos from the Fire Marsha 6/13/83) and Chief Building Inspector (6/1 ; June 20, 1983 memo from the City 'neer; listing of 50 California Dr' signage (existing, proposed and other signs on ); photographs and aeria oto of the site; June 27, 1983 study meeting minutes; a table comparing sting signage on California Drive Auto Row and on Rollins Road Row. discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applic s justification, comparison of existing Auto Row signage, Planning staff co nts. onditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. �-.,_ Chm. Graham opened t public hearing. There were no au��ence comments and the hearing was clos . Joe Putnam, applicant, explained his need for identification of the new Is franchise and advised this sign complies with the manufacturer's design re 'rements. He further advised they no longer sell Opels but do provide Opel s ice. Discussion: new franchise does require signage; sign has been kept as low as possible; possibility of reducing some of the existing signage; applicant stressed the need for �! Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 11, 1983 advertising Opel service even though they no longer sell them, that a new pole is needed since the building has been remodeled and the Isuzu showroom has no existing pole in front, that there is no signage in back of the building. C. Sch4�alm found this request would not constitute a grant of special privilege since additional Auto Row signage has been granted other firms with a new franchise and that Putnam needs this sign to identify its new dealership. C. Schwalm then moved for approval of this sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the installed sign should be as described in the plan date stamped June 2, 1983 and not exceed an overall height of 15 feet; and (2) that the sign be located as shown on the master plan date stamped June 2, 1983. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLO�J TRUCK STORAGE IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1645 ROLLINS ROAD, BY STAR EXCAVATION CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow outdoor truck storage on an unused portion of the Hiram Walker plant site. Reference �taff report dated 7/1/83; Project Applica- tion & CEQA Assessment received 5/23/83; photographs of the site taken 3:00 P.M. on June 28, 1983; "no comments" memos from the City Engineer (5/31/83) and Chief Building Inspector (6/2/83); May 31, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; January 25, 1983 letter from Star Excavation; applicant's project description; June 27, 1983 study meeting minutes; sequence of events in preparation and review of this applica- tion; aerial photograph; Towber letter to Star Excavation dated June 28, 1983; Star letter to Towber dated July 5, 1983 (received after preparation of staff report); and tentative parcel map date stamped May 23, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code regulations, staff review, Planning staff comments, applicant's description of the request, and referred to study meeting questions as discussed in the staff report. If approved, three conditions were suggested. Diana �liley (applicant) and Phillip Jaret (her attorney) were present. Mr. Jaret advised that the applicant was willing to meet all conditions of staff and do so as quickly as possible, specifically, improve the aesthetics of the site, completely ��ear the area of construction materials and not park trucks carrying flammable materials on the site. He presented recent photographs of the site. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. Discussion/determinations: tanker trucks are not brought into the storage area, vehicles are filled on the job site; Star is using Hiram Walker's security gate; site inspection day of hearing showed debris at the back of the site; applicant agreed to store only construction trucks and earth moving equipment; this is appropriate site if conditions are met; applicant has been using this site 1 to 1-1/2 years. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the storage area be enclosed by a solid fence or wall on the Rollins Road frontage and the east side of the property, as well as a perpendicular fence from the existing fence on Rollins Road to behind the existing industrial building; (2) that only construction trucks be parked in the area and no tanker trucks or maintenance trucks carrying flammable materials be permitted, and no construction materials of any type shall be stored on the site; and (3) that this use permit be valid until June, 1984 and be reviewed by the Fire Department for comoliance with Condition #2 every three months. Second C. Leahy. During discussion on the motion C. Giomi suggested a 4th condition: (4) that the applicant comply with all conditions within