HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.01.24
1
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
January 24, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Luzuriaga called the January 24, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m.
Chairman Luzuriaga then introduced Ralph Osterling, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner who was seated.
ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and
Luzuriaga
Absent: C. Bojués (note C. Bojués arrived at 7:10 p.m.)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Janice Jagelski; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire
Marshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES The minutes of the January 10, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were
approved as mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved.
C. Bojués arrived at this time.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
820 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (EFREM EYVAZOV, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked: half-timber patterns on second story appear random, need
further study. Problems with consistency of drawings depicting the dormer on the right side, does not reflect same in
floor plans and elevations. Could affect appearance of structure; landscape plan could use attention, plantings not too
well thought out with redwood trees on 5'-0" center spacing, appears to have a lot of paving; tudor design is a viable
approach in this neighborhood, but the house appears too contemporary and tract-style Tudor components need to
integrate first and second floors better; bring second story components straight to the ground, rather than stack on first
story; need a steeper roof pitch - there is ample height available to use, don=t let the declining height envelope dictate
appearance of house; the brick wainscoting appears layered on, work with detail to encompass the bay window; look at
examples of other recently approved Tudor-style houses, note level of detail and treatment of components, bulk needs to
be addressed. There were no further questions about the project from the commission. The item was placed on the action
calendar, for the February 14 2000, meeting if the needed information is provided to the Planning Department in time.
734 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
TWO-STORY HOUSE. (GERRY AND PAULA MURNANE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
2
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commission questions: would like more landscaping, the detail showing
added plant material, plans identify existing planting; what a strategy will be employed for construction, provide sample
sections and details to show construction method and materials, show detail around windows and gable ends; did
applicant intend to identify the siding as wood shake, or is this really wood shingle in conjunction with a composition
roof. Commission has no control over color palette, but curious whether color scheme has been considered; further
define the rear elevation and clarify whether the barge rafter is 2'-6" deep; the barge rafter on the garage can go to
property line; confirm the topographic elevations on site plan; figures given look too level. There were no further
questions from the commission. The item was set for the regular action calendar for the February 14, 2000, meeting
providing all the information is submitted in time.
1033 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT SPLIT.
(LOUIS ARATA, APPLICANT AND ANN PAVAO KRAEMER AND WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, PROPERTY
OWNERS)
CE Erbacher presented the staff report. Commission asked: can Commission designate trees to be preserved from
development impact;. CA noted: Planning Commission can and have them certified on the map. Commission asked:
could developer note whether any other trees will be removed beside trees identified in arborist report; want development
site plan to identify lateral root area of each tree and what would be removed for construction; note that Planning
Commission action would not approve house shown on plans; any new house to be built will require design review; when
house plans submitted, they should identify type of foundation proposed (continuous foundation vs. gradebeam, etc.) and
look at meeting the tree ordinance in effect at the time of construction of the house. There were no further questions
about the project from the commission. The item was placed on the action calendar for the February 14, 2000, meeting if
the needed information is provided to the Department of Public Works in time.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY
ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE
APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION
VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT.
At the request of the business owners, Chairman Luzuriaga removed from the consent calendar the conditional use permit
amendments for the food establishments at 290 Primrose Road and 234 Primrose Road.
AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA:
A. 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (LORENZ & LOUISA KAO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (36
NOTICED)
B. 299 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - (CHEESE PLEASE CATERING, APPLICANT AND SANDRA H. YORK,
PROPERTY OWNER)
C. 1215 DONNELLY AVENUE - (ST. CLAIR=S, APPLICANT AND HAMMER I L.L.C., PROPERTY OWNER)
D. 322 LORTON AVENUE - (ECCO, APPLICANT AND MELROZ LORTON LIMITED PARTNERS LP,
PROPERTY OWNER)
E. 224 PRIMROSE ROAD - (YIANNI=S, APPLICANT AND FRANCIS G. & O.M. DUFFIELD TRS,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
G. 347 PRIMROSE ROAD - (CAFE MILANO, APPLICANT AND NICK DELIS COMPANY INC., PROPERTY
OWNER)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
3
1152 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO
VARIANCES TO ADD A PATIO COVER. (CATHERINE GREER, APPLICANT AND MICHAEL & LINDA
BALLENGER, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Chairman Luzuriaga then called for a motion on the remaining items on the consent calendar.
Discussion on the motion: can the wording of conditions of approval for the project at 1152 Cabrillo Avenue be clarified
so that condition 3 reads A...should the house be demolished (more than 50% of its value taken away) whatever zoning
codes are in effect at that time shall control the replacement of the structure and accessory structures.@ C. Vistica noted
that he would not vote in favor of 1152 Cabrillo but had no problem with the rest of the consent calendar.
C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the
findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded
by C. Keighran. The motion passed 7-0 for all items except 1152 Cabrillo whose conditions were amended as follows:
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December
8, 1999, Site Plan and Elevations; 2) that the lot coverage and floor area ratio variances are granted based on the fact that
this is a 172 SF trellis open to the sky covering a patio; this area shall never be covered by a solid roof or converted to an
enclosed living area; 3) that the lot coverage and floor area ratio variances are being granted by the City because of a pre-
existing nonconforming condition on the property, which would impose an unfair burden on the owner to correct or
remove as part of the remodel; however, this condition shall be corrected if this structure is demolished and replaced,
therefore, the variance approved for lot coverage and additional floor area ratio shall automatically expire should the
trellis be removed; should the house be demolished (more than 50% of its value taken away) whatever floor area ratios
are in the City zoning code at that time shall control the replacement structures;4) that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal=s December 13, 1999 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame
The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Regular Calendar
290 PRIMROSE ROAD - (BEN & JERRY=S, APPLICANT AND KARIM A. SALMA TR, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 01.24.00, with attachments. City Planner briefly presented the staff report, reviewed the criteria
and Planning Department comments. Fifteen conditions were proposed. CP corrected condition 2 to reflect that there
were 25 SF of indoor on-site seating in this limited food service business and the seating area shall be enlarged only by
amendment to the conditional use permit. There were no questions of staff by the commissioners.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Roger Kaufmann, owner of Ben and Jerry=s at 209 Primrose Road,
spoke. He noted that when they picked this site for a store the did an economic study on a business with inside seating,
this was a factor in determining the viability of the business, changing the seating area to 25 SF could affect the business;
he measured the area available on site for seating and found it was 98 inches by 68 inches, don=t know how city got 25
SF but it may have been because often two of the three tables are on the sidewalk at the front not inside the store, maybe
the 25 SF is the area that was occupied by one table. He would like the on-site seating number to be 66 SF which is the
area occupied by the tables when all three are placed inside the store. There were no questions by the commissioners and
no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Deal noted that he would make a motion, have been in this business, could easily put three tables inside, have no
problem with increasing the on-site seating area to 66 SF so would move the amendment to the conditions, by resolution
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
4
with the conditions as amended: 1) that this business location presently occupied by a limited food service use, with 66
SF of on-site seating and 329 SF of roof deck seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a full
service restaurant or bar with approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the
changed classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2) that the 66 SF of indoor on-site seating of the
limited food service establishment shall be enlarged only by an amendment to the conditional use permit; 3) that an
amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 4) that there
shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 5) that
if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be
replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 6) that the food establishment at this site sha ll
occupy 520 SF at street level in the southwest corner of the property adjacent to Parking Lot J with a maximum of 66 SF
of seating area on the premise and access to 329 SF of roof deck seating area immediately above the tenant=s space on the
street level with a maximum seating for 32 people (141 SF of the roof deck is unusable for seating area because of the
placement of the air conditioning unit); 7) that no food preparation or food and drink sales shall occur on the roof deck; 8)
that the use of the roof deck area will be limited to eight tables and a maximum of 32 people, use of any kind of sun shade
which extends above the tables including umbrellas shall require review of the Building, Fire and Planning Departments
and any necessary amendment to this permit; 9) that the business may be open Sunday through Thursday 11:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 11:00 a.m. to midnight with a maximum of three employees including the proprietor
on site at one time; 10) that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the site and the business shall only sell ice cream
and food items typically associated with an ice cream store; 11) that all deliveries shall be made to the site before 9:30
a.m.; 12) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle inside
the door to the store and a second trash receptacle in the sidewalk area along Primrose Road in front of the store at a
location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; the latter trash receptacle shall be the model selected by the
Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Study and shall be installed no later than January 1997 or within 60 days of occupancy
of the site; 13) that the business operator shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the
City, all debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters in front of the store along Primrose Road and within 100 feet
of the store in each direction including within the portion of Parking Lot J adjacent to the sidewalk along Primrose Road;
14) that, if determined by the city to be necessary, the business operator shall wash/steam clean on a regular basis the
sidewalk in front of the premise from Burlingame Avenue south to the southern end of the street frontage of Parking Lot
J; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Municipal code and of the 1998 edition of the California
Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the
change to the on-site seating area to 66 SF and corresponding corrections to the conditions of approval. The motion
passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
234 PRIMROSE ROAD - (CLIFF WOODS, CHICKEN! CHICKEN!, APPLICANT AND FRANCIS G. & O.M.
DUFFIELD TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 01.24.00, with attachments. City Planner presented staff report. Eleven conditions were suggested
in the staff report. CP Monroe noted that condition 1 should be clarified to note that when one business replaces another
of the same type it may occur if the Aleased@ area occupied is the same or less. There were no questions from the
commissioners.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Cliff Woods, business owner at 234 Primrose Road spoke. He noted that
the objective of the food establishment ordinance is to restrict the expansion of food establishments within Subarea A.
When they took over this premise there were over 100 seats on the site, they reduced the number to 48 for a more
intimate dining experience. The kitchen facilities were too small, and they felt that was a factor in the success of the
previous business and also impacted their decision on the size of the seating area. Businesses need to change over time,
concerned about a restriction on this site which limits it to the current square footage of seating area when has a 2900 SF
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
5
site at his disposal to use; he would like to be assigned the same amount of seating area that was there when he bought the
business. In addition, the new ordinance eliminated the need for a take-out permit, so this condition should no longer
appear in the permit, may be misunderstood in the future. CP Monroe pointed out that for those food establishments
businesses now without conditional use permits, all the conditions in this application will be required except 6 and 7
which address site specifics of his remodel. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Comment from the Commissioners: understand request, understand that 652 SF is small when compared to 2900 SF but
am reluctant to change since it would set the precedent of using total establishment size as a basis for seating for all food
establishments and it was not the intent of the ordinance that future businesses could add all the seating that they want
without review; based on this request you would only need a conditional use permit if you wished to extend the square
footage of the premise; could add a note in condition 2 that the premise size is 2900 SF so it would be clear in future if an
expansion of the seating area were to be requested that it was low at the time this permit was issued; the point of the
ordinance is to fix the size and operation at a point in time, you can come in at any time and request more; this ordinance
was adopted to stop a black market in the buying/selling of restaurants rights in this area; owner noted that he had paid
more for the business site at this location because of the city=s limitation on number; other food establishments in the area
have come in and asked for expanded seating as a part of remodeling and received approval because commission was
sure that the change would not impact other uses, so if the business changes you can amend this permit.
C. Vistica moved approval of the conditional use permit as presented based on the concept that this is consistent with the
adopted ordinance and that the operator may ask at any time for something different, with the following conditions as
clarified by the city planner: 1) that this business location, occupied by a specialty shop with 652 SF of on-site seating
(562 SF indoors and 90 SF in a patio area but within the premise) may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same
location within the same (2900 SF) or less leased square footage subject to the condition of the existing conditional use
permit, or shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment with a new conditional use permit; and that
if this specialty shop food establishment is changed to any other type of food establishment classification, this site shall
not return to specialty shop use; 2) that the 652 SF area of on-site seating of the specialty shop shall be enlarged only by
an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for
delivery of prepared food from this premise; 4) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or
from any opening within 10' of the property line; 5) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to retail or
any other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 6)
that the business may be open 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week with a maximum of five employees at any one
time and no delivery of food shall be made from this site; 7) that the applicant shall provide and maintain at least daily,
more often if necessary, a trash receptacle, as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements, at the
door along Primrose Road, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8) that the applicant shall
remove once a day or more frequently, all take out debris on the sidewalk in front of the store, in the gutter, and in
planters and within 50' of store; 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.
The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the
conditional use permit with corrected conditions. The motion was approve on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were
advised.
1609 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of
staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
6
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, 3914 - 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, applicant, noted that the
roof pitch was reduced from 10/12 to 12/12 and a true ridge established in response to previous commission comments.
The second floor bedroom has been further extended to create a 2'-0" cantilever. Roof detail was modified to expose
rafter tails. Garage roof pitch increased and no longer appears flat. Commission added: can the applicant replicate the
house rafter detail on the garage; applicant noted that it would be okay to add rafter detail to the garage.
Ronald Daher, 1273 Balboa Avenue and Rosemary Psaila, 1277 Balboa, commented; will the Black Acacias along the
rear property line will be removed in order to construct the new fence proposed with this house, the roots are breaking up
his patio and are under his foundation he would like them removed; architect noted he would work with neighbor; also
other trees block his sunlight and he would like them either removed or trimmed; the applicant was unsure whether the
existing trees were part of the new landscape plan; CP noted that if trees were of protected size, a removal permit would
be required; Commission noted that tree trimming is outside the commission=s jurisdiction and the neighbor should speak
directly with the applicant regarding this issue; the developer erect a temporary barrier along the property line when the
existing garage is removed? The garage currently sits on the property line and there will be a gap in the fence between
the time the garage is demolished and when a new fence is constructed; applicant stated that they will erect a barricade
fence along the portion of the fence when the existing garage is demolished. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the applicant
did meet with him and showed him the plans and discussed the project prior to the hearing. There were no m ore
questions from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: Well designed house, designer understands concept of the Design Review Ordinance. Notes
that this house has a 10'-0" first story plate height which is normally not acceptable, but because this house is sandwiched
between two tall houses, the exceptional plate height is okay in this case; commend the applicant on the design which
does not include any >layer cake= detail, but don=t would not like to see this same plan used fora number of new houses
throughout Burlingame.
C. Bojués moved approval of the project with the stipulations that a temporary barrier fence be erected along property
line when the garage is demolished and that the applicant work out the tree removal and/or trimming with the neighbor
before receiving a building permit, by resolution with the amended conditions in the staff report as follows: 1)that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 18, 2000, sheets
A1 through A6, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations, and Sheet L-1, Landscape Plan; 2) that any changes to the size or
envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the
City Engineer=s November 22, 1999 and the Chief Building Official=s November 29, 1999 memos shall be met; 4) that
the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame; 5) that the applicant shall address the concerns of the neighbor at 1273 Balboa Avenue regarding the
trimming or removal of the black acacia trees, and that the applicant shall apply for a tree removal permit for any
protected tree they proposes to remove; 6) that upon demolition of the garage, the applicant shall erect a temporary
barricade fence along the property line where the garage stands and a permanent fence shall be erected in this location
prior to the approval of the final building permit inspection. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
On the motion: reiterate that house exhibits traditional forms and avoids the layer cake appearance demonstrates that
design review can work and be a positive process; would like to add the condition to repeat the rafter detail on the garage,
maker and second of the motion agreed that the Black Acacia is of protected size and removal will require the applicant
to go through the process defined in the tree removal ordinance.
Regarding the letter requesting that the commission ensure the house is built within the height limits permitted in the R-1
zoning district, confirmed that this house does conform with the 36'-0" maximum height allowed with a special permit,
this type of design is what the commission strives for with the design review process.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
7
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
360 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD A MEZZANINE TO EXISTING REAL ESTATE OFFICES. (MICHAEL
NILMEYER, AIA, APPLICANT AND WEM PENINSULA REALTY CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) -
CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 10, 2000
Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what
Condition No. 8 means. CA specified that the location was limited to real estate sales and leasing, and that it could not
accommodate a development company, mortgage lending or title insurance company. Commission asked for clarification
of whether the mezzanine area was a second floor; CA stated that it is important for the commission to treat eac h
application equally and to consider whether this request is an intensification of use, other projects could site what is done
here.
Why parking variance not included in original construction, CP replied original construction included storage area which
did not require as many parking spaces so use came in at provided on-site parking; what would happen if building
changed hands, what would become of the second story? CA reminded commission can=t condition a project based on
its occupancy and can=t require the removal of the mezzanine with end of this applicant=s occupancy; how Condition No.
5 would be enforced, what details would be included in an annual report, is there any standard to assure a true and
responsible report; use payroll tax. CA replied that a lot of independent contractors would not show up on payroll tax,
however, if the number of employees was manipulated, the declaration could be subject to perjury. Enforcement and
need to verify the number of employees would probably be based on complaints from the neighbors. will adjacent
businesses would be notified of the decision of the commission. CP said notice of decisions is not mailed, but adjacent
businesses are provided notice of the application and agenda of action hearing. C. Osterling noted that he had listened to
the previous tapes on this item so was able to act tonight.
How are in-lieu parking fees implemented, presently there is no in lieu fee for parking, it would be up to City Council to
adopt, with Saks project it was estimated that an in-lieu fee might be $30,000 per parking space, but an ordinance is
needed to establish fee and implement; when will the parking study be ready, the study to be available in February;
concerned about acting on a project with a large parking variance before discussion on an in-lieu fee, can conditions be
included for applicant to abide by future conditions; no. There were no further questions from the commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mike Nilmeyer, architect, 128 Pepper Avenue and Charles Moore, the
applicant, addressed the commission. He noted the CBC definition of a mezzanine depends of a percentage maximum of
the FAR of the building; if it exceeds certain percentage, then mezzanine is categorized as a second story; the proposal
includes a maximum of 32 people working in the building, the same number as currently there, but with addition of
private offices occupying more space which would be accommodated on the mezzanine level. With respect to requesting
an in-lieu fee at this time, the applicant would probably be acceptable to a $6,000 - $8,000 fee per space, but it is more
difficult for the city to negotiate in lieu fees if they have not already been established; applicant struck by the willingness
of this commission to listen; he is willing to have a certified policing of the number of employees at this site; the DRE
Registration is public record; and this information is accessible.
Commission asked: if 32 employees is a maximum, what is the expected average number of employees on site, is it
different between employees and contract employees; 4 employees and 28 sales/independent Realtors would work from
this office. 16 could be on site at any time; with 32 employees on site, there would be 167 SF/person, it wou ld be
crowded, at the upper end, he expects 20 people at one time; on special occasions, once a week there would be 32 people,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
8
they will not host parties or convene additional meetings beyond the scheduled operation, a maximum of 20 employees is
not feasible for the overall operation, but it is okay for the average.
Is there more space in each private office than the current operating pattern, there would be 28 work stations, maybe 16
of these would be private offices, rest would be open modular office spaces with an average size of 8' X 10', these would
be one person per office with modular work station and walls. There were no further questions from the public and the
hearing was closed.
Commission comments: the applicant said they would not increase intensity of site, but wanted to provide more space for
32 employees. Can the site be restricted to a 32 employees, can the site be restricted to a 32 employees, CA clarified that
the applicant would not be able to intensify the number of employees on the site without amending their C.U.P. ; still
concerned about parking, it is a large variance; would acting on this application now set precedent; should commission
wait for conclusion of the parking study? CA responded that it=s hard to determine what would set precedent but other
developers in the area could consider this an example. Applicant is trying to preserve condition of number of employees
not per se expansion; too many negative elements of proposal out of City control, numbers reflect 28 work stations (8 x
10') = 2240 SF where 3119 SF of area is proposed.
Control could be difficult to transfer to a future user; would a future amendment of the C.U.P. impact the variance,
variance would be affected by physical change if the square footage were increased; can a sunset clause be added to this
permit to limit the approval to 12 months or 24 months;
Commission comment continued: don=t know the availability of parking in this area; what constitutes an exceptional
hardship; is not being able to intensify use or enlarge a work space a hardship; find it hard to see the hardship, even
though not a fan of protecting cars in downtown area; whatever impacts exist for 32 employees will continue to exist, but
this proposal would make work conditions better; would like to wait for results from parking study and consider in lieu
fee, without the study can=t support the project.
C. Bojués moved denial of the project. C. Dreiling seconded motion. CA noted applicant would have to wait one year to
resubmit if project denied. C. Bojués withdrew his motion, the second agreed.
C. Bojués revised motion and second agreed and moved to denial request for a parking variance without prejudice.
Motion seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: not comfortable with an 8-space parking variance; have to plan for
today as well as plan for future; denial without prejudice provides option for appeal or wait for parking study; it is
necessary to act now; without decision application would be on hold.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the parking variance without prejudice. The motion
passed 6-1 (with C. Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised.
1411 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR DEMOLITION OF TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING. (JOSEPH KARP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) -
CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1999
Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for
clarification of colored renderings and which scheme was proposed for review? Scheme B, on Page 2 was proposed
design; a thorough effort to redesign the site and reconfigure parking, but is this a readily maneuverable parking area,
concerned about parking for SUV=s, CE Erbacher own a larger van and would consider these spaces a 3-maneuver
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
9
assault; unistall alternatives were too small for this situation, need to look at vehicle size demand; will this parking
configuration work out or is it creating a problem and not fulfilling a need. C. Osterling noted he had listened to the
tapes of the previous meeting for this project. There were no further questions from the commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney for the applicant, noted that this is an infill project
on a small, irregularly shaped lot. The proposal combines the best parking and building design. The applicant is not just
coming down to ask for a parking variance - they are donating land to the city to provide an economically feasible
building. The project exterior was redesigned to more effectively mirror the garden center using the prevailing brick
architecture adding a red brick facade. On the renderings Scheme A is the smallest and corresponds with the application.
It includes a short brick wall to help screen cars from view from Chapin. The other proposals include different parking
to building ratios. The proposed project has the smallest building with the post parking. Contrary to having to push the
parking stalls back two feet further on each side to accommodate the parking meters, the meters can be placed between
the stalls, as in the Donnelly lot. This is an unusual project in that the commission only makes a recommendation,
because the project includes a land donation, which requires City Council=s approval.
Commissioners asked: at last review, commission asked applicant to change the architectural style of the building from
the design proposed at the study meeting, but this is now just a different skin, not a different style, the Athin brick
veneer@ gives a look, it is not a brick building; it is intended to look akin to the Garden Center not bo be built in the
same way. Concern was that this site not to become Aback water@ to Burlingame Avenue and wanted to provide for
more pedestrian access across site and not have asphalt up to the walls of the buildings. Why wasn =t this addressed;
Option B, with more landscape addresses this; what about pedestrian amenities. Option B still doesn=t include attractive
pedestrian walkway, does not need to be 8'-0" wide landscape strip, but could serve as both access to building, provide
access to rear of Burlingame Avenue buildings and include garden-like landscaping; what is the net gain of parking
spaces with reorientation of spaces and easement? Project is short 9 (8 credit pus 1) public lot gains 1 space with
perpendicular parking on west side. There were no further questions from the Commissioners or comment from the floor
and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comments: at last meeting we hoped to see project with creativity, some has started with the front
elevation but not there; there is also good brick vs. bad brick - it=s a matter of selection; appears that City is giving up
property and a parking variance so that the building can be bigger; parking is extremely tight fit; want to see distance
between cars and building; building is too big, lost amenities from what have now in tot B-1; not enough landscaping,
ground cover under cars not enough; not clear on use of building, maybe accounting firm, but not shown as private
offices; not enough benefit to City to be justified with retrofit parking area for bigger building; planning study show
5000 SF building with parking on-site, not 8000 requested; parking for building should be self sufficient and not rely on
city lot. City giving away space without return; five variances on this project indicates it is too much, why can=t project
fit; parking lot lacks pedestrian access, landscaping, opportunity for garden connection between existing buildings, rear of
Malouf=s; could support variance, but project needs more work with pedestrian access emphasis; expecting smaller
building, front elevation okay, but rest is massive; not enough articulation; design removed existing landscaping to
provide more parking with no break in asphalt.
Building in a sea of parking; on secondary street need to penetrate blocks to facilitate use of other streets, this proposal
provides no alley pattern or back alley use like other towns like Los Gatos, even Stanford Shopping Center fabricated a
back alley shopping area to their benefit.
C. Dreiling made a motion to deny the project without prejudice based with direction on commission comments. The
motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
10
Discussion on motion: no problem with variances, in favor of variances, but project not worthy; size of building doesn’t
need to be drastically reduced space could be reconfigured, does need pedestrian space.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
701 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR NEW RETAIL USE
(FRAMING GALLERY) IN AN EXISTING BUILDING. (PETER GUMINA, APPLICANT AND 701 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE, ZONED C-2
Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if self framing
was to be allowed on the site, no only 40% of the floor area would be used for direct retail sales, the rest would be used
by staff to assemble frames; what is the parking situation on the site; during the hazardous waste clean up of this old gas
station site the parking requirements changed and this development was required to provide one ADA accessible parking
space on site which reduced the number of on site parking spaces from 4 to 3, Chief Building Official notes that since the
disabled accessible space is on private property is could be signed in order to allow others to also use it, so could consider
three parking spaces available for customers. There were no other questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Warner Schmalz, architect, 612 Howard Street, San Francisco and Peter
Gumina business owner spoke. Frame-O-Rama has been in the city at its present location 25 years, patronage is similar
pattern to bulk merchandise; be willing to accept a condition of approval to sign the ADA space so that others could use it
as well, there is 7 feet left over which someone could also get a car into so that there would again be 4 parking spaces on
site, 7 foot space may not be legal but if the ADA space does not need to be used for disabled all the time, it could be
viable at those times; need to move business because of the increase in rents in the Burlingame Avenue area, want to stay
in Burlingame; have done parking study by a licensed traffic engineer; in the last 10 years the business averaged 4.3
customers a day, it is rare to have more than one or two customers on the site at one time; there will be enough parking
since it is for customers only and this is a low intensity use.
Commissioners asked: how many employees do you have now and will you have, have two full time and one part time
and the number will stay the same; because the nature of the business has changed, customers no longer want to do their
own framing; is space the same size, no this is slightly smaller but adequate we only need 800 to 900 SF for a showroom
the rest of space will be used to make frames, think the slight down size will be all right without people doing their own
framing.
Chairman called for comments from the public, Mr Coffee, owner of the apartment building at 1210 Oak Grove, noted he
has been before the Planning Commission about several projects on this site and in the area; parking in this area is hard to
come by, people double and triple park on San Mateo Avenue, they park in front of the carports and garages of his
building; the applicant is not just asking for one or two spaces, he says his employees will park off-site in the residential
area, there is no place available; first business he commented on proposed for this site was a framing shop, then a dance
studio, both denied, the Japanese restaurant nearby was denied an expansion because of parking, Mrs. Bubbles leases
some parking, only one with parking except the Danish catering. When heard about parking study downtown thought this
area might be included, it is not; commission has duty to citizens and business but also to residents who have to have
some place to park, San Mateo Avenue is particularly bad. Would ask that the city do a parking study of this area and
commission not grant this variance or approve a business here until a parking study i s done. There were no further
comments from the floor; and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: a bulk merchandizing business would have the same number of employees as this business; did
the downtown parking study extend to this area, no because it was designed to address specific parking issues in the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
11
Burlingame Avenue area; think this proposed business is a lot like bulk merchandise, rarely see more than one customer
in this shop; there is parking across the street along California which the employees can use; given the number and timing
of customer visits am comfortable with the parking provided; why is parking requirement less for bulk merchandise,
because the goods take more space to display; am reluctant to grant a parking variance, commission could call this use
bulk merchandise, 60% of the space is storage or work room area; the apartment owner needs to be aware that something
has to be allowed to go into this building; think the conditions work well.
C. Deal moved to define bulk merchandise to include framing shops which have a maximum retail area of 40% of their
leased floor area, with the conditions and by resolution. C. Keighran seconded the motion.
On the motion: would it be easier to grant a variance based on limitations on the goods made and sold from the site, the
hardship is the way that the space in the building is used; this particular use would have a low impact. C. Deal withdrew
his motion; second agreed.
Continued discussion: if change assignment of framing to bulk merchandising, other businesses and zoning would be
affected. CA Anderson suggested that application might be continued to the meeting of January 31,2000, so that staff
could bring back alternative approaches based on commission=s discussion.
Chairman Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 31, 2000. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
Discussion on the motion: is one week enough to come up with needed alternatives and doesn=t item have to be noticed;
CA noted staff will try and when an item is continued to a date certain additional notice is not required.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The item was
continued to the meeting of January 31, 2000 there is no appeal available at this time.
1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE
UNIT SIGN, OVER HEIGHT POLE SIGN, 3 SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE, AND 416 SF OF SIGNAGE
WHERE 200 SF IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED. (UNITED SIGNS, APPLICANT AND COLOR COPY,
PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 2.14.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of
staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Hudack, attorney for the applicant, commented. He noted that at
study they had heard that the commission=s primary concern was that the sign would become a flashing neon eyesore,
can make two assurances: Color Copy=s business does not lend itself to 2 for l specials and technical restrictions on the
sign will keep the bulb wattage down and sign to black and white; they propose to change the copy on the changeable
copy area only once a day; he noted that there are other message boards and signs of similar size in the area, so this is not
special privilege, they are asking for less than others.
Commissioner asked if the purpose of the sign is not to attract the general public to the site why does the applicant need
changeable copy and you noted that you were not asking for special privilege, where in the area are there changeable
copy signs. Hudack responded need to advertise to executives, traveling on freeway the special services provided by
Color Copy; there is a changeable copy sign at Les Vogel which changes often, also at the Accura building which seems
to change once a minute, these sites are in this corridor and set a precedent. How often would you advertise public
interest messages; Hudack noted fairly often, Color Copy does not offer that many services so much of the time will be
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
12
available. What kind of things would color copy advertise on the changeable copy sign; Hudack noted specialty in annual
reports, eight color printing, that they are a Heidelberg House (term meaningful to their users), there would be four to five
words on the sign and they would stay all day giving brief technical descriptions of their service. There were no further
comments from the floor or public. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: concerned with the reasoning that because there are a couple such signs in the area, this sign
must be approved; if all the properties along here had signs of this size with changeable copy, the corridor would look
terrible, this sign is not good for the city; the freeway is a street through the town and we need to be concerned about how
it looks; do not see any basis for granting the exception, only one offered by the applicant is that the name of the business
does not make it clear what the business does, this is not sufficient. Applicant really wants to increase his advertising, if
they do annual reports the executive is not the one who decides on a printer, printing annual reports is based on
relationships; afraid that in order to attract attention they will do something outrageous on the sign, and depending upon
how outrageous it is, it will be detrimental to the city; there are a lot of small businesses in the area if this is done all
ought to be equally entitled, don=t see the hardship; city can=t control the messages, am concerned that in the future; as
you used Les Vogel=s sign-this one will be used to justify others, they will grow; do not see that the applicant has a valid
rational for the sign.
Continued discussion: not see as much of a problem, what is proposed is not as bad as other signs already there; there
will only be one message there all day, often they will have community messages, does not seem boisterous so maybe
OK; no problem with this sign, it is smaller than others around it; the duration of each message will be a full day, will
provide public announcements. CA noted that a public service@ includes non-profits and would not be limited to those
present in Burlingame. Am opposed to changeable copy, it is a dangerous precedent, compliance is a problem, a lot can
happen later when the sign is not carefully reviewed by the owner; feel that it will be an enforcement problem, could
become visually chaotic, these are the reasons that such signs require Planning Commission approval. If the tenant
changes can he put whatever he wants on the sign; CA commission can set the size of the letters and the timing of the
change of the copy and the amount of illumination; not opposed to signage, need it to convey a vibrant business life, am
opposed to the scale of this sign.
C. Bojués moved to deny this sign exception application. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
On the motion: this is not a loud, boisterous sign, it will allow commuters to see a different sign each day.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Keighran,
Vistica, Osterling dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised.
1405 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CARPORT FOR A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE. (STEVE LESLEY, APPLICANT AND
ATLAS PLASTERING, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 1.24.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked who has the
responsibility for enforcing NPDES. CA Anderson responded that environmental compliance is lead by the staff at the
wastewater treatment plan, they have staff that do compliance inspections and enforcement. There were no further
questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steven Lesley, project architect, spoke noting that with the remodel
proposed the site drainage will be changed and will connect to the nearest storm drain; when his client purchased the site
it was in disrepair and flooded regularly, does not want this to happen again, so will regrade the site and connect the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
13
storm drain at the front. CE Erbacher noted that still need to take impurities out of the water because the storm drains
empty into the bay as well as the creeks.
Commissioner asked: you are a new tenant, did you have a 20 to 25 foot tall structure on your last site, h ow was
equipment stored there; came to area to work at airport, was in Fresno before, had a bigger property for storage with less
exposure to the public street, don=t want stored items to be visible from the street and need them to be stacked out of the
weather, need the height because the property is too narrow. There were no further questions or comments from the
floor.
Commissioner discussion: can support with the condition that the creek is properly protected, understand the need for the
height; feel that in this case the 10' setback from side property line is not needed and because of the configuration of the
site that area can be effectively used; concerned about the architecture, lots of drivet used out of keeping with the type of
the building, so that the structure becomes an advertisement, is the design appropriate in an industrial area.
C. Bojués noted that he had no problem with existing building being placed at property line, this is a small lot prefer
moving to side property line protects creek, move to approve the side setback variance by resolution with the following
conditions from the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped December 6, 1999, Sheets 1 through 6; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s
December 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 3) that the following best management practices shall be adhered to during
construction, failure to comply with these practices shall result in the requirement to install on-site pretreatment facilities
prior to final inspection: a) store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly, so as to prevent their
contact with stormwater; b) control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints,
concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and
watercourses; c) use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment from dewatering effluent; d) avoid cl eaning,
fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated; e) delineate
clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive and critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses with field
markers; f) protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips,
sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; g) perform clearing and earth moving
activities only during dry weather; h) limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; I)
limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; j) avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site,
clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 4) that the following best management practices
shall be adhered to during operation of the facility, failure to comply with these practices shall result in the requirement
that the contracting business cease operation, that on-site pretreatment facilities shall be installed, and the application
shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and appropriate action taken to insure compliance: a) store, handle, and
dispose of construction materials and wastes properly, so as to prevent their contact with stormwater; b) control and
prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals,
washwater or sediment, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; c) avoid cleaning, fueling, or
maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated; d) limit and time
application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; e) avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site, clean
off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 5) that the applicant shall install oil-absorbent pillow
filters in the existing catch basins on site and shall change the filters every six months; 6) that the property owner shall be
responsible for cleaning up all the trash and refuse along the creek bank which front his ownership prior to receiving a
building permit and shall be responsible for maintaining the creek bank area adjacent to his ownership in a natural state,
complaints about the maintenance of this area or failure to maintain this area shall cause this conditional use permit to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building
and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on the motion: feel that the application should have a condition which requires them to clean up the trash and
refuse on the creek bank the length of the property, it looks poorly; both the maker of the motion and the second agreed to
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2000
14
adding a condition requiring that the property owner be required to clean up the creek bank along his ownership and
maintain it in a clean state.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the side setback variance with added condition.
The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
PLANNERS REPORTS
- CP Monroe reviewed briefly the City Council meeting of January 19, 2000.
- Because of the hour the commission asked that the discussion of the General Plan amendment for the segment of
Rollins Road between Toyon and Rose Court Extended East be moved to the special meeting of January 31, 2000.
Commission also noted that the discussion of how to count basement areas in FAR was also set for that meeting.
- Commission reminded CP Monroe that the lights on the wall at First Republic Bank still have not been removed;
the business is not in compliance with their conditions of approval. CP Monroe said she would report back at the
meeting of January 31, 2000.
- Commission noted that little time of this meeting was devoted to residential design review. Asked if staff could try
to track the time spent on each item on the agenda in the future so that the commission could have a better idea of
how the time is used.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
MINUTES1.24