HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.02.14
1
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
February 14, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 14, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Rubin Huren; City Attorney, Larry
Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher
MINUTES January 24, 2000 regular meeting and January 31, 2000 special meeting of the
Planning Commission were approved as mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved.
FROM THE FLOOR Al Manzoni, 1401 Burlingame Avenue, owner of Towles= restaurant spoke noting that there
was a conditional use permit for his food establishment on tonight=s consent agenda, he has
reviewed the staff report and would like to change the hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
seven days a week.
Tom Collins, owner of Moon McShane=s bar on Primrose, noted that there was a conditional
use permit for his business on tonight=s agenda. He has reviewed the staff report and would
like the conditions to be modified to show that he has 1122 SF of seating area, eight not four
employees, and that he is now providing food delivery service from the site and would like to
permit to show that he could continue to provide food delivery service. He felt that delivery
service would not be an issue since he has parking on-site at the rear for the delivery cars.
There were no other comments from the floor.
STUDY ITEMS
1357 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR
A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION. (JIM & DEBBIE PETRUCCI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. C. Deal indicated that he has had a past business relationship with the
applicant and would abstain from this item. The Commissioners asked: there needs to be more information on the
hardship on the property for the variance requested, it might be difficult to increase the dimensions of the garage but
why not reduce the number of bedrooms, on street parking is a problem in this neighborhood close to Our Lady of
Angles Church; how much of a wall must be open for a room not to count as a bedroom, can there be a door in the
opening. The item was placed on the consent calendar, for the February 28, 2000, meeting providing all the
information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
2
1434 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 18.22 FOR PROPERTY IN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
FLOOR ADDITION. (LOU AND LAURA MATTEUCCI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. C. Deal indicated that he has had a past business relationship with the
applicant and would abstain from this item. The commissioners asked: has there been any history of trouble with
flooding on this block; are there any other houses on this block now below the flood elevation; is this project subject
to design review. The item was set for the February 28, 2000 meeting providing all the information is submitted to
the Planning Department in time.
1509 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
(WILLIAM ALLAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. The commissioners asked: have looked at this design and the details
are going to make or break this design, could the applicant give us more information on the details of the eave, posts,
railings, windows and apron around the porch; no landscaping plan was submitted, need one in order to see the
relationship between the porch and the ground; would like to see what the porch railing will look like; would staff
confirm the front set back numbers existing on the block and for this property since the staff report has one number
and the applicant=s data is a different number; for this project the applicant needs to pay attention to the shingling
pattern, it should be changed on different parts of the house, could they submit a shingling plan; plans show the
distance between the finished floor and joists to be 9.5 inches, that seems too little, if it is made larger will affect
height, please confirm this dimension and explain; the applicant needs to address the front setback variance, would
not like to see this house too much closer to the street than the one next door to the south, if that neighbor is at 15
feet, then this proposal may not be too difficult; provide information on the gable end detail, it will be important to
the character of the structure also the vent detail; like the project, would like to make it great; if the front setback is
increased, will it affect the height of the structure. The item was set for public he aring at the February 28, 2000,
meeting providing all the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
HOUSE. (NIMESH AMIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report The commissioners asked: would like to see the landscape plan
strengthened so that it is more in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structure; this is a better project than was
seen before, would like to see dimensional detail on the precut foam molding being used around the windows; the
porch columns do not look like anything else, can they be changed to match the style; the FAR is so close to the
maximum, would staff recheck their calculations; this project has been improved to the point that we are down to
the details, on the north elevation there is a split roof and a one foot change in plate line, you could use a hip roof to
tie the roofs and plates together better; will the prayer room be used just by the family or will it also be used by
outside people who will come for meetings, the number of cars is the issue; if the chimney shown is to be used it
will need to be taller in order to get a proper separation, have the building department check and revised drawings
The item was set for public hearing at the February 28, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to
the Planning Department in time.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
3
735 - 741 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR LOCATION OF AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
THREE-CAR GARAGE AND LAUNDRY AREA (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND SAM
BARRETTA, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commission asked for the following information: am not convinced
that the parking arrangement within the garage will work for residential use, if this is to be a contractor=s shop it
should be made clear; the parking at the rear appears to have very difficult access, will it be hard to use; does the
applicant live on this site, if not why is the garage designed to accommodate his truck with its rack; concerned about
a garage designed to accommodate a truck in this residential neighborhood, its size is overwhelming, 10 foot plate,
4:12 pitch roof 220 electrical service, the number of electrical outlets, does the residential use require covered parking
as a shop. The item was set for public hearing at the February 28, 2000, meeting providing all the information is
submitted to the Planning Department in time.
1245 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH TO PROVIDE AN ENTRANCE, PORTICO AND DISABLED
ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS. (PAUL POPE, PRESIDENT, TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report The Commissioners asked: Burlingame is unique it has a lot of pretty
churches, why does this addition have to have a flat tar and gravel roof at the front of this beautiful structure,
understand the need for the facilities, but need to improve the appearance of the addition; can the church submit a
landscape plan; this is a significant building think the solution should be in keeping with the building; like the idea
of improving accessibility to the church, can city check if there are disabled accessible ramps at the corners of the
sidewalk in this area, if not what can be done to provide them. The item was set for public hearing at the February
28, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF SIGNS ON A PRIMARY FRONTAGE FOR A NEW WALL SIGN. (STEVE PETERSON, AD
ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LP, PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report The Commissioners asked: can this item be placed on the consent
calendar; would like applicant to provide pictures of what the signs look like; what is the height, size of letter and
dimension of the signs wall signs on the DoubleTree Hotel, Embassy Suites Hotel and Red Roof Inn; there is one
side left on this building that has no signage on it, will the applicant want a sign there. Because of the kind of
requests for information made this item was set on the regular action calendar for public hearing at the February 28,
2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
STUDY OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND IMPLEMENTING OVERLAY ZONE FOR THE
ROLLINS ROAD FRONTAGE BETWEEN TOYON DRIVE AND LARKSPUR DRIVE.
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report which addressed the direction that the Planning Commission had given
staff regarding the General Plan land use designation and zoning alternatives to be evaluated for the properties
fronting on Rollins Road between Toyon and Larkspur Drives. In reviewing the suggestions the Commissioners
noted: like the idea of an overlay zone to adjust the density in this transition area; would like the overlay zone to
allow more than one building on a site; would like the requirement of useable outdoor space enclosed by the building
to be presented as a 50 SF minimum per dwelling unit, but phrase it to encourage developers to provide more;
allowing multiple buildings would encourage a garden apartment complex which would be a better transition at this
location; do not want an interior courtyard to be a requirement but an option, if want 75 SF of private open space on
balconies should be able to do it; an advantage of the interior courtyard replacing private open space is that there
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
4
would be no balconies over looking the adjacent single family houses, the exterior of a short building can be made
interesting by arrangement of the skin; would like to amend the idea of 50 SF of at grade open space to require that
it be useable open space, providing some amenity to residents; the courtyard needs to be an option some lots will be
so narrow that such a space will end up as a sliver. CA noted that if it is a matter of choice between courtyard and
balconies, commission will not review projects compliant with overlay requirements and suitable sites could not end
up without a courtyard. Such sheltered space could be put at the rear yard with the building built as a horseshoe; can
we design the process so that all proposals to develop in this area come to the commission for review. CA noted
Commission has to define what items they want to review, the purpose of an over lay zone is to encourage
development which conforms to the criteria, extra things are covered in conditional uses. Could require all 2 story
buildings to get a conditional use permit or more than two dwelling units per site; two stories would be a good way
to review; overlay zone should include a purpose statement so applicants know the intent of the regulations, rewards
for meeting intents should be built into the ordinance; this should come back to the commission soon, since there is
a proposed project which might be affected. The General Plan amendment and overlay zone were set for public
hearing at the February 28, 2000, meeting.
Commission began consideration of the study items at 7:10 p.m. and completed the review at 8:10 p.m.
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.
Chairman Luzuriaga introduced the consent calendar; noting at the request of the business owner at 269 Primrose
Road, that item was called off the consent calendar; and because of issues raised, the proposed project at 1541 La
Mesa Drive was also removed from the consent calendar and placed on tonight=s action calendar. CP Monroe noted
that she would like the commission to consider minor amendments to the conditions of several applications on the
consent calendar: 3012 Hillside Drive, correction to the Fire Marshal=s comments that sprinklering of this structure
is optional and not required; 1121 Burlingame Avenue, change in the seating area from 180 SF to 249 SF; 1401
Burlingame Avenue, change in the hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Tuesday through Sunday, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.
on Monday; 1408 Burlingame Avenue, change in the hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week;
1123 Burlingame Avenue, change in the hours of operation to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. sev en days a week. Commissioners
noted that 1516 Marin Drive was an excellent example of an addition sensitive to the existing design of the house.
Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone from the public wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There w ere
no requests.
516 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR TWO SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION. (JOE COSTA, GARAVAGLIA ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND JOE PENNESE,
PROPERTY OWNER)
3012 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION. (BENNET WEINTRAUB & PATRICIA
TOMLINSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED C -
1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA:
A. 1100 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (LEFT AT ALBUQUERQUE, APPLICANT AND NATHAN &
MARILYN L. SCHMIDT, PROPERTY OWNERS)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
5
B. 1121 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (SWEET TREATS, APPLICANT AND FISHER SANDRA TRUST,
PROPERTY OWNER)
C. 1205 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (LA PINATA, APPLICANT AND JOSEPH & SANDRA KARP TRS,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
D. 1207 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (ROUND TABLE PIZZA, APPLICANT AND JOSEPH KARP TR,
PROPERTY OWNER)
E. 1213 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (KING YUAN RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND FERNAND J. &
S.D. WAGNER TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
F. 1401 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (TOWLES= CAFE, APPLICANT AND CAROL ETIENNE PEARSON
TR, PROPERTY OWNER)
G. 1407 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (HOUSE OF COFFEE, APPLICANT AND WELLS FARGO BANK,
PROPERTY OWNER)
H. 1408 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (ALANA=S, APPLICANT AND EDWARD G. ZUKAUSKAS,
PROPERTY OWNER)
I. 1409 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (BASKIN-ROBBINS, APPLICANT AND WELLS FARGO BANK,
PROPERTY OWNER)
J. 1420C BURLINGAME AVENUE - (SAKS/COMPANY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
K. 1425 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(GAU POANG CHINESE RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND JAMES
R. TORMEY ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER)
L. 1447 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (GARDEN CAFE, APPLICANT AND BANK OF AMERICA NT SA
ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER)
M. 1448 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (PARAGON RESTAURANT & BAR, APPLICANT AND JAMES
P. & RUTH MODISETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 28, 2000.
N. 1451 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (ISOBUNE SUSHI OF BURLINGAME, APPLICANT AND THOMAS
W. & DIANE L. AYOOB, PROPERTY OWNERS)
O. 1453 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (BURGER KING, APPLICANT AND THOMAS W. & DIANE L.
AYOOB TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
P. 297 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - (SAM=S ITALIAN SANDWICHES, APPLICANT AND FISHER SANDRA
TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER)
Q. 220 LORTON AVENUE - (THE ALIBI, APPLICANT AND ILA A. MACPHEE, PROPERTY OWNER)
R. 246 LORTON AVENUE - (PADDY FLYNN=S, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE INVESTMENT CO.,
PROPERTY OWNER)
S. 250 LORTON AVENUE - (MANDARIN CUISINE, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE INVESTMENT
CO., PROPERTY OWNER)
T. 260 LORTON AVENUE - (HOUSE OF BAGELS, APPLICANT AND RICHARD G. & DOROTHY
EHIKIAN TR, PROPERTY OWNERS)
U. 266 LORTON AVENUE - (NORTH CHINA INN, APPLICANT AND ROSALINDA W.H. KO,
PROPERTY OWNER)
V. 221 PARK ROAD - (DICEY RILEY=S IRISH BAR, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE J. AND GLORIA
A. HORN TRUSTEES, PROPERTY OWNERS)
W. 231 PARK ROAD - (NARIN THAI CUISINE, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE J. AND GLORIA A.
HORN TRUSTEES, PROPERTY OWNERS)
X. 240 PARK ROAD - (SAKAE SUSHI, APPLICANT AND BRUCE C. KIRKBRIDE ET AL, PROPERTY
OWNER)
Z. 321 PRIMROSE ROAD - (PIAZZA ITALIA CAFE, APPLICANT AND DSM PRIMROSE LP,
PROPERTY OWNER)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
6
1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN
THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (FANNY & ALEXANDER, APPLICANT AND
LORENZ KAO AND LOUISA ZEE KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS)
1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN
THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (NELSON=S COFFEE SHOP, APPLICANT AND
SANDRA FISHER, PROPERTY OWNER)
1420A BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN
THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (SAKS/COMPANY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments
and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports as amended by staff tonight,
by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed
7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
The Commission began consideration of the consent calendar at 8:10 p.m. and concluded their action at 8:15 p.m.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a 10 minute break at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
REGULAR CALENDAR
1541 LA MESA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (KEITH BORRAL, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 2.14.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner
noted that there was no landscape plan included and in this case the height of the trees should be shown, in hillside
areas there should be a tree height limitation because of view impacts. There were no further questions or comments
for staff from the commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Keith Borrall, property owner, spoke tried to put up story poles, the
weather was bad and it was too dangerous, took pictures from the house where the people had expressed concern
about their view being blocked, they will be most affected by the Cyprus trees in the yard, would be glad to remove
them if they would assist with the cost; would be willing to put up story poles again but not sure that it will help
people understand the addition. Commission asked, looked at the plans and the second story seems well integrated
but the porch is small, could you expand the roof eave to cover it. Applicant=s architect Noemi Avram, Gumbinger
Associates, 60 W. Third Street, San Mateo, responded, the reviewer suggested adding the porch to emphasize the
entry and break the long facade, she felt the change was an improvement. Commission noted that the entry is not
resolved on the right side, could have a softer line. Architect noted proud of the way the entry was resolved, difficult
problem because now all one sees is the driveway, wanted to do without a massive staircase. Commission asked
applicant if he wanted a porch; originally wanted a sun room; Commission suggested that could hip the roof over
the stairwell and get a vertical element. The applicant had no further comments.
Gilbert Fitzgerald, 1535 Alturas Drive, Marc and Jane Gradstein, 1548 Alturas Drive, Winnie Jong, 1537 La Mesa,
spoke. Overlook this house, concerned about impact on view so asked for story poles to be installed, understood
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
7
that they had been installed earlier but did not stay up, not aware of reason they were there until received notice,
could you ask him to install them again; property is directly below this house, don=t know whose balcony pictures
were taken from, can only access ours from inside the house through the dining room, must have done without
permission; bought house 2 years ago for the view and privacy, have a small bayview in two areas which will be
affected, will look out our bedroom into their bedroom no longer over house to view; like the proposed design; would
like to see story poles. Neighbor immediately to south of house with project, would like to see story poles, also have
three issues: view, would like to see rendering of what would see since story poles will not help for side view ;
windows, on the south side there are two windows and chimney, we have three windows facing this new wall, do
not want the windows to line up so look into each others houses; chimney, will it be the height of our windows so
smoke will come into her house. Commissioner noted that chimney is quite a distance away about 30 feet and
windows about 37 feet away; architect noted that originally had no windows in this wall, design reviewer asked to
add them to soften blank wall, willing to give up windows.
Commissioner noted that these windows would be high and quite a distance away, do not want a building without
windows on the side to soften the exterior and make house look livable. Neighbor requested a sight line study.
In rebuttal the applicant=s son commented that he took the pictures from the deck of the house above, the neighbor=s
daughter let him in, and gave him permission to take the pictures today. There were no further comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: the two sets of pictures submitted indicate that the house to the left will be affected by the
windows but the house up hill will be behind the trees so the impact on the up hill house is minimal; am not concerned
about windows, when they are 30 to 40 feet away its hard to see inside, am concerned about the view impact of the
mass of the addition on this house; think chimney will have little effect, like to see windows on the side of a house,
the view on one side will be slightly affected; hard to tell whether view will be affected without a strong
representation with story poles and looking, would like to see the poles erected; agree code requires to decide on the
basis of blocked view, would like to continue item so can look at property from other properties.
C. Deal moved to continue this item to the meeting of February 28, 2000, so that the applicant can install adequate
story poles using 2x4's to outline the addition horizontally as well as vertically to the proposed ridge, orange netting
should be placed between so that the mass is clearly visible, poles should be in place by the Friday before the meeting
on February 28. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of February 28, 2000,
and request the applicant to install rigid story poles by the Friday before the meeting. The motion passed on a 7 -0
voice vote.
Commission action on this item began at 8:25 p.m. and ended at 9:05 p.m.
269 PRIMROSE ROAD - (MOON MCSHANE=S PUB AND RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND LINO G.
NICCOLI, PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 2.14.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report and ten conditions were
suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tom Collins, owner of Moon McShane=s Bar, 269 Primrose Road,
spoke. He noted that he had owned this business at this location for 10 years, that he has 8 employees and 1122 SF
of seating area. He was not aware of how staff arrived at the 619 SF figure, but the area now used was almost the
same as that used by the previous tenant; he also is delivering food occasionally from the site to people and would
like his conditions amended to include permission to do food deliveries from the site. CA Anderson noted that the
present ordinance requires a separate conditional use permit for delivery service from a food establishment, this
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
8
present permit was not noticed with that request so the commission could not act on the request for delivery tonight.
If the applicant would like to provide delivery service from this site he would need to make a separate application to
the Commission which could be properly noticed. Commissioner asked how applicant measured the seating area,
applicant provided a diagram of the current seating area and arrangement of booths (fixed seating) and tables and
chairs, he included a back banquet room as well. At this time he does not need all the seating space, but he may in
the future. There were no further questions or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal moved to approve amendments to the conditions of approval for 8 employees and 1122 SF of seating area
noting that the number of employees seemed reasonable as did the seating area providing that staff could verify the
numbers in the field shown on the diagram submitted; delivery of food from the site is a separate issue and should
not be addressed in this action; the action includes the conditions in the staff report, as amended, by resolution. The
motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the number of employees and size of the on-site
seating area and approve the other staff recommended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Commission began its action on this item at 9:05 p.m. and concluded it at 9:15 p.m.
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)
Reference staff report, 2.14.00, 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.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, 665 - 3rd Street #330, San Francisco, architect
representing the applicant, requested that the Commission allow the house to be built based on the average of the
two adjacent homes; noted they had tried to respond to design reviewers comments and Commissions= comments at
the study meeting; misunderstood the suggestion about the brick wainscot at the front of the building, resubmitted
82@ x 11" building elevations at the meeting dated February 14, 2000 showing the brick wainscot on the front facade
wrapped around the window, removed the diamond glass as suggested by the Commission, building elements were
brought down closer to the ground by shifting the building masses, changed to half timber on all elevations, feels
that they have followed the design reviewer=s suggestions.
Commission comment: Commission noted that normally the color of a building is not discussed, but that color is
critical when design a tudor, asked the applicant what color he intends to paint the building. The applicant noted
indicated that traditional colors would be used, dark timber and light colored stucco, aged wood color for the timber;
Commission noted that the plans submitted at the meeting are better than plans in the packet, concerned with the
relationship of the 2' x 2' windows with the timber on the gable ends along the second floor on the west elevation,
the front elevation is a good example of how the windows should look with the windows located in the middle of
the gable end, windows at the gable ends could be improved on the west and east elevations; applicant noted that
some of the small windows are located in bathrooms, the property owner did not want the windows there, windows
are functional to interior space. Commission commented that in regards to the windows, the exterior needs to work
as well as the interior, felt that the front and rear elevations were fine; asked applicant if he was using 1' x 4' window
trim around the windows, yes.
Russ Jackson, 835 Walnut Avenue, noted that he was in favor of the project, but had some concerns he wanted
addressed; plans do not show that the subject property is 2'-6" above his property with a retaining wall, show
proposed garage 1' from property line; historically there has been a lot of water draining to his property from this lot
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
9
because it is higher, both surface and subsurface drainage; can=t have a typical foundation for the garage where it is
proposed to be located; lot slopes down to his property from Newhall Road approximately 2'-0", feels retaining wall
is not adequate to support the garage and drainage; Commissioner noted that the CE notes in his memo that all roof
and surface water must be directed to the street front, will have to submit drainage plan for approval at time of
building permit submittal; concerned with the relationship between the property and retaining wall; Commissioner
noted that a condition could be added to address this concern. There were no further comments from the public and
the hearing was closed.
Commission comments: in favor of the project, has come a long way, windows could use a little more study but sees
no reason to hold up the project, concern about landscaping was addressed, would like to add condition requiring
that the drainage and retaining wall be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
C. Vistica moved to approve the project/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 date stamped January 31, 2000,
sheets A.1.A sheets A.3.2 as amended by the Front Elevation, West Elevation, Rear Elevation and East Elevation
sheets (82@ x 11") date stamped February 14, 2000; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing window size or location, changing half timber
designs or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the drainage plan and all
retaining walls on the property shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer before a building permit is
issued, and all such improvements as installed shall be inspected and comply with the City engineer=s requirements;
4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official=s October 12, 1999 memo and the City Engineer=s October 13,
1999 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the req uirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
On the motion: will reluctantly support the motion, hopes applicant will take care of the details of the project, if not
this house could become a Aranchette tudor@. CE noted that there is no curb and gutter along this block of Newhall
Road, may require additional work to handle the drainage from this property.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The commission voted 7-0 to approve. Appeal
procedures were advised.
Commission began its action on this item at 9:15 p.m. and concluded it at 9:30 p.m.
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)
Reference staff report, 2.14.00, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what
the city=s policy is in regards to having a well on private property. CE noted that a well is allowed on private
property with a permit from the County of San Mateo.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Gerry Murnane, property owner and applicant, 734 Walnut Avenue,
noted he was available for questions. Commissioners noted that the plans show wood shake siding to be used and
asked the applicant if wood shake or shingles would be used. The applicant responded that he would use shingles
on the exterior of the building since wood shake would be too heavy. Commissioner suggested that a condition be
included to reflect this change in siding material. Commissioners asked what color would the shingle siding be. The
applicant noted that a dark color would be used for the siding.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000
10
Diane Silvan, 730 Walnut Avenue, noted she is the adjacent neighbor to the south of the project. She reviewed the
plans with the applicant, is in favor of the project and hoped that the Commission would approve the project. There
were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Commission comments: this house will look fantastic, is a fine product, this project will be an example for others to
follow; special permit for height and declining height envelope should be granted in order to allow the addition to
be compatible with the existing design of the house.
C. Keighran moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 2000, sheets A-
1 through A-9, and that wood shingle siding shall be used to match the roof shingles; 2) that any changes to the size
or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing size or location of
windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief
Building Official=s September 7, 1999 memo and the Fire Marshal=s September 7, 1999 memo shall be met; and
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.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amendment for the siding material.
The commission voted 7-0 to approve. Appeal procedures were advised.
Commission began its action on this item at 9:30 p.m. and concluded it at 9:40 p.m.
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) REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 28, 2000.
This item is continued to the February 28, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council Study meeting Annual Goals session, February 5, 2000, and Regular meeting of
February 7, 2000.
- Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee reported that they would have the work completed on the
Design Guidelines Booklet in time for distribution at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission
meeting on February 26, 2000.
Planners Reports began at 9:40 pm and ended at 9:55 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Keighran, Secretary
MINUTES2.14