HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.03.13City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-1-
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
March 13, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Luzuriaga called the March 13, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga
Absent: Commissioner Bojués and Deal
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Rubin Huren; City Attorney, Larry Anderson;
City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall
MINUTES The minutes of the February 26, 2000 (Joint Meeting) and February 28, 2000 regular
meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved.
FROM THE FLOOR Dan Levin, Glenborough, 400 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, spoke noting that he
would like the Commission to consider opening the study meeting for his project at 301
Airport Blvd. to public comment so that he can respond directly to any questions the
commission might have right then, rather than being uncertain about the concern and
having to respond in writing for the staff report. He would like to resolve any issues he
could at the study meeting.
STUDY ITEMS
301 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR A NEW 720 SF DETACHED GARAGE (STEVEN MALLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe summarized the staff report. Commissioners asked: what is the height of the existing garage roof ridge;
why do they need a 10'-8" plate line on the new structure; why do they need a 24' depth instead of 20' clear inside in the
new garage, already have a wider garage than required; the plans show two 12" oak trees which appear to be close to
the proposed paving, would like to have an arborist comment on how the new paving could affect them, also would like
to have plans show the canopy of these two trees; a metal gate is proposed, this should be wooden, the same as the
fence. There were no further questions and the item was set for the March 27, 2000, meeting for action providing all
the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
1404 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR EXTENSION INTO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-2-
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BILL VAN HUESEN, APPLICANT; JOHN AND DIANE PETERSDORF,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe summarized the staff report. The commissioners asked: because it is so close would staff double check
the FAR calculation. There were no further questions and the item was placed on the consent calendar, for the March
27, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
1313 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND
DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (CATHRINE MOREY, OWNER;
NEIL GABBAY, ARCHITECT)
CP Monroe summarized the staff report. The commissioners asked: why is the living room cantilevered over the area
where the garage is submerged; why is the attached garage so important that it detracts from what is a very nice house;
noticed that notes on plans called the roof asphalt shingle but the ele vations are drawn to show clay tile, tile works
better, what is the applicant intending; provide more detail on window trim and eave detail; is the room shown as a
study a bedroom by the city=s definition; the excavation for the subterranean garage places a cut 7 feet deep next to the
city sewer main, concerned about potential for damage, also applicant should do a video inspection of the line to insure
that no construction damage occurred; plans show a skylight on the front area of the roof, this skylight should be tinted
to reduce night glow. There were no further questions about the project from the commission. The item set for the
March 27, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
999 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A 3-STORY STORAGE FACILITY WITH A BASEMENT AND ROOF-TOP PARKING (JOHN HAUSEN,
HOWARD/MYRTLE STORAGE, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe summarized the staff report. Commissioners asked: on the surface the Negative Declaration makes the
project look good, as if it will not be too detrimental, however correspondence from neighbors and petitions indicates
that those nearby have real concerns, the negative declaration does not address these neighbor concerns, would an EIR
address them? CA Anderson noted that a Negative Declaration begins with an initial study which identifies potential
(quantifiable) effects CEQA states social and economic impacts area not environmental impacts. CP Monroe noted
that commission should look at the thresholds used in the negative declaration and determine if they are appropriate.
Commissioners noted: Negative Declaration on page 1-4 notes that the residential uses on Myrtle are nonconforming
with their C-2 zoning but the general plan shows the area as multiple family residential, does that inconsistency affect
the project; CP noted that the zoning on the project site is consistent with the general plan land use designation; the
Circulation Element of the General Plan shows Myrtle to be classified as an arterial, is that the City=s intention today;
what does the applicant intend to do about signage on the structure; one of the important resources city =s have is
developable land along transit corridors, using such for housing reduces traffic and congestion, this site is near the train
station, central to a transit corridor, developing this site as proposed removes a potential for solving an environmental
problem, is there a way for the environmental document to address this, it is a significant environmental problem;
question the light/shadow study in the document, when this structure is built it will be a wall to afternoon and evening
light, it will eliminate the view of the sunset for residents nearby and on the corners; do not feel that noise and traffic
were addressed, don=t feel that the traffic generation and automobile counts were correctly evaluated given the
proximity to the residential neighborhood and school; concerned about safety of trucks queued across the railroad
tracks; this is the entrance to a residential neighborhood, this tall building that looks like a prison will affect the
neighborhood=s identity; do not see any landscaping; in next staff report staff should include the plans and staff reports
for the original project.
Commissioner questions continued: sections and citations in the General Plan talk about this as a special area defined
as a neighborhood developed to create a link between neighborhoods, this building is a barrier between the downtown
and the residential neighborhood; staff should provide a discussion of the other uses possible on this parcel with this
zoning; project should mitigate blank walls, would like to see examples of other projects done with windows pasted on;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-3-
concerned about the size and prison look, the proposed landscaping is out of scale with the structure, what are the
applicant=s landscaping goals, this is inadequate for the residential character of the area. The commission continued
this item, noting that they would notice the neighbors before any subsequent meeting on this item.
1705 MURCHISON DRIVE , ZONED C-3 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION (CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, OWNER; JIM CHIN, SIGN-A-RAMA, APPLICANT)
CP Monroe summarized the staff report. Commissioners asked: this seems to be too much signage, can the applicant
eliminate some of these signs, asked for 10 where we allow 3 and 545 SF; where we allow 25 SF; does the CTA wall
sign need to have 6 foot letters where we allow 4 inch; one commissioner did not receive the graphic package in his
staff report; concerned about how this building will look with all these signs lit up, will look more like a motel than a
professional office building; need to look closely at reducing the number of signs; could staff provide background on
the sign ordinance as it applies in this zone, for example was it intended to make the area look less cluttered etc.; is
there anything about the site which is causing a problem with passers-by identifying it; the site is large, what has been
the signage given to other comparable sites in the area. There were no further questions on the project. The item was
placed on the calendar for the March 27, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning
Department in time.
The study portion of the meeting ended at 7:47 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone from the public would like to call any item off the consent calendar. There were
no requests. He then asked that the project at 2004 Davis Drive be taken off the consent calendar and placed as the first
item on the regular action calendar.
15 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION
(MICHAEL BUTLER AND SUSANNE MARTINSSON, OWNERS, BARRY RAFTER, APPLICANT)
709 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SECOND STORY
ADDITION (RAMONA MARTINEZ, OWNER; GEORGE S. DOLIM, APPLICANT)
405 PRIMROSE ROAD #212, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH SERVICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (PAMELA
CRONIN AND KATHLEEN ADDISON, APPLICANTS; HENRY HORN & SONS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED
C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA:
1190 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(SHIGEMASU RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND ALICE DUCASSE TR, PROPERTY OWNER)
1200 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(GRACE GARDEN RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND ALICE DUCASSE TR, PROPERTY OWNERS)
1230 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(GOLDEN CHINA RESTAURANT, APPLICANT AND THEODORE KOROS, PROPERTY OWNER)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-4-
1232 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(PIZZA ETC., APPLICANT AND THEODORE KOROS, PROPERTY OWNER)
1318 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(CAFE FIGARO, APPLICANT AND MARILYN OLCESE ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER)
1320 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(BUA THONG KITCHEN, APPLICANT AND ERNEST A. SCHEPPLER TR, PROPERTY OWNER)
1355 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(JUN RESTAURANT AND SUSHI BAR, APPLICANT AND MARIO AND HELGA N. CROCCO TRS,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
1150 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA
(MATSUSANO, APPLICANT AND KOWK L. WONG, PROPERTY OWNER)
C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar, with the project at 2004 Davis Drive removed, 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. Vistica. Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the
motion to approve and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
Consent item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
REGULAR CALENDAR
2004 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (STELLA HUNG, OWNER; LINCOLN LUE, APPLICANT)
Reference staff report, 3.13.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning
Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Lincoln Lue, architect, 1567-33rd Avenue, represented the project
with Stella Hung, the property owner. He noted that the house is presently very small, 2 bedrooms and one bath for a
family with three children, other houses in the area are much larger; the owner likes this design arrived at through the
design review process. Commissioner asked, before the city established design review we saw a lot of examples of
houses built to the maximum of the zoning limits with over bearing design, this house has some of these qualities e.g. a
front facade with a lot of items which come toward the street such as three rows of bay windows, did you consider
softening those features to blend better with the neighborhood; architect noted did not want to look like what was there
which is old fashioned, plain, wanted design to be more elegant, do not feel that this is a "monster" it meets your code
requirements, city standards do not allow monster houses, used a larger scale (1/8") in the drawings to show detail,
perhaps this makes the house look more imposing than the typical smaller scaled drawings; commissioner's noted that
there are ways in the design to address size not put second story right over garage, use less bulky trim and molding, go
for lighter appearance; architect noted that the site slopes to the rear so needed to elevate addition to meet ceiling
requirements; appears that increased the plate height for the entire house not just the area where plate was low; yes, no
longer a split level now a two-story house throughout; note eliminating the split level increased the sense of size of this
house compounded by addition of a lot of monumental elements that conflict with the neighborhood, does not conform
to the design guidelines; architect noted that an increase of 700 SF is not a lot, the house is within the city =s FAR;
substantial impact for the little square footage, not talking about a smaller house, issue is consistency with the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-5-
neighborhood. Architect noted that he could make the building look better. There were no more comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: case where the design reviewer felt that it would be a good idea to depart from the
neighborhood pattern, the design guidebook says the opposite, cannot approve when it is not consistent with the
neighborhood, need to reduce the monumentality of the project; square footage is OK, has a very overbearing, bold
look where we are trying for pedestrian friendly, too many windows, large stucco components, need to find ways to
soften look especially from the front and rear; tonight there is an item on the agenda about amending the design review
process so that the commission=s input can come earlier in the review and the design reviewer can have better
direction, this situation can be avoided in the future; am opposed to this addition, direct applicant to look at design
guideline booklet.
Chairman Luzuriaga moved for denial without prejudice of the project for the reasons cited. C. Keighran seconded the
motion.
Discussion on the motion: the key is to look at existing architecture, the answers are there, a lot of the existing square
footage is made to look larger in this design especially that over the garage, maintain the split level appearance; this
design may work in another neighborhood, but not in this one; staff should bring the revision back to study before it
goes to the design reviewer.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 5-0-2
(Cers. Bojués, Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
Action on this item was completed at 8:10 p.m.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTIES FRONTING ROLLINS ROAD BETWEEN
TOYON DRIVE AND LARKSPUR DRIVE, AND A REZONING TO ADD AN OVERLAY ZONE ON THE
PROPERTIES FRONTING ROLLINS ROAD BETWEEN TOYON DRIVE AND BLOOMFIELD ROAD.
CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 28, 2000
Reference staff report, 3.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria for action
and Planning Department comments. Commission asked if they could modify the provisions of the ordinance tonight.
CA Anderson said within in limits, yes.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: what does courtyard "at grade" mean; 50% landscaping over parking is too great a
requirement for the courtyard, prefer 25% of the required square footage in soft landscaping; the intention is to create
and encourage positive liveable interior area near the freeway, could be hardscape space like Spanish revival, the
landscape measurement should not be of the total courtyard but of the square footage required for each unit, so could
be less than 25% of the total. CA pointed, out based on minimum dimensions suggested at last meeting, the courtyard
would be 625 SF where with five units would only require 500 SF, this needs to be resolved for smaller projects; CP
pointed out that could result in applicants just using the balcony option of 75 SF per unit because it is less now that
each unit is required to provide 100 SF in a courtyard rather than the 50 SF previously suggested. Could take away the
balcony advantage, and just require all to have a courtyard; what about landscaping in the front yard, CP noted for
condominiums require 60% of the front setback to be landscaped, no requirements for apartments.
C. Osterling moved to recommend to the City Council the Negative Declaration on the General Plan Amendment, the
General Plan Amendment for the area fronting Rollins Road between Toyon and Rose Court extended east, and the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-6-
overlay zoning for the area fronting Rollins Road between Toyon Drive and Bloomfield Road as amended to eliminate
the 75 SF balconies often an option for private open space, require 25% of the required courtyard space to be in soft
(vegetarian) landscaping and require that 60% of the front setback be in soft landscaping by resolution as required for
the Negative Declaration and General Plan amendment. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. There were no
comments on the motion.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Negative Declaration on the General Plan
Amendment, the General Plan Amendment and the overlay zone to the city council for approval. The motion passed
on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Deal absent).
This item was concluded at 8:40 p.m.
1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW TWO-STORY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (PETER LAM, APPLICANT; DMITRI NADEEV, OWNER) (DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT JANUARY 10, 2000 HEARING)
Reference staff report, 3.13.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions
of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, project architect, 665-3rd Street, Suite 330, San Francisco,
noted that he followed the guidelines suggested by the Commission and made several revisions to the project, adjusted
the design, moved bulk of building to the center and rear of house, reduced the bulk, changed the roof lines and
reduced size of windows to match other houses in the neighborhood, put obscure glass in the lower panes of the
bathroom windows on the second floor to respect the privacy of the neighbor, and added redwood lattice and planting
to help screen a blank wall.
Commissioners asked: explain what composite tile is, will composition shingles be used; the applicant noted that he
may decide to use slate or composition shingle, would like to study it further, studied different roof materials, would
like to use a traditional style, have a thinner slate in mind, more like built-up composition roofing. That the plans do
not indicate the type of windows to be used and the detail of the windows; applicant noted that wooden casement
windows will be used with wood trim. Plant types are shown on the landscape plan but that they are different mixed
and at scales, hedges called out are mixed large and small, a broad range proposed, and some will not work, would like
to see large plants where needed, could add a condition to address the landscaping; applicant responded indicating that
the plant size and location will be determined by the landscape architect at the final drawing stage. This project has
come a long way, the design reviewer suggested that traditional stucco finish be used, traditional houses use a narrow
stucco mold, 4" trim around window, recalls adjacent houses have wider trim; the applicant noted that a 4" trim will be
used to match the adjacent houses. A composition roof would work fine for this project, would not use anything
heavier than composition roofing. Some simple suggestions could be added as conditions; the three windows at the
front on the first floor would work better if they were joined as one window unit; regarding the windows on the second
floor, one pops out and the adjacent windows are set in, the adjacent windows seem to crowd the roof plain, the
windows should be shortened by one foot and joined into one window unit; the chimney on the left over the first floor
portion of the house should be made asymmetrical so that it would not have to be so tall and still meet the 10'
separation requirement.
James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue, asked for clarification of the changes suggested by the Commission on the
second floor windows; south wall comes down two stories, seems abrupt, can two patio doors be changed to soften the
two-story drop, gentler drop on north side. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-7-
Comments from the Commission: this project is now consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood, agree with
joining the windows on the first and second floors.
C. Dreiling moved for approval of the design review with the condition that the three windows on the first floor be
joined together into one window unit and that the windows on the second floor above the entry also be joined together
into one window unit and made one foot shorter. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Discussion on the motion: want to make it clear to the applicant that there should not be any stucco between the
windows, should be factory mulled; what is the most efficient way to condition the landscaping. CP noted that the
condition should clearly state which areas should receive tall or short landscaping. Commissioner noted that he would
like to add a condition that large scale landscaping, 15'-20' in height, be planted in the rear yard, 8'-10' tall landscaping
be planted along the north side, including 8' tall screen planting along north side; the compliance with this condition
can be reviewed by the City Arborist at the time of building plan submittal. Commissioner asked if the roof type,
window type and detail need to be specified since they are not shown on the plans; not too concerned with the roof
type, window trim is more critical, Commissioner suggested a condition be added so that traditional stucco molding be
used. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment for the added conditions.
C. Dreiling moved to approve the design review, 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 11, 2000,
sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, and shall use traditional stucco molding around the windows; 2) that the three
windows on the first floor on the West Elevation shall be joined into one factory mulled window unit; that the two
windows on the second floor above the front entrance on the West Elevation shall be joined into one factory mulled
window unit and made one foot shorter; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, or to the first
floor that would affect the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that large scale landscaping, 15'-20' potential growth height, shall
be provided in the northeast corner of rear yard, 8'-10' tall landscaping shall be provided along the north side, including
8' tall screen planting along north side; and that City Arborist shall review the landscaping plan prior to issuing a
building permit to verify compliance with this condition; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal=s August 23, 1999
memo, and the City Engineer=s August 23, 1999 memo shall be met; and 6) that the recommendation of the Design
Review Consultant=s February 17, 2000, memo be included in the construction of the new residence, using traditional
stucco texture and high quality architectural details on vents, railings, trim and stucco; 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.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers.
Deal and Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item was completed at 9:08 p.m.
1509 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR
HEIGHT FOR NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (WILLIAM ALLEN, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 3.13.00, with attachments. City Staff and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Staff noted that a letter of objection, dated March 6, 2000, was submitted by
Patricia Gray, resident at 1616 Adeline Drive, after preparation of the staff report. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration. Commission asked if just the revised sheets were submitted, yes. There were no further questions.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Bill Allen, property owner, 1509 Cortez Avenue, the house that they
are proposing is a dream for his family, the existing house is approximately 1000 SF and pushed all the way to the rear
of the lot, too small, large redwood tree has dropped tree limbs on the house, reasons for moving towards the front of
the lot, trying to soften the site; Commissioner noted that there is a lot of critical detail shown on the porch, how will
applicant guarantee that the project will be built as shown; applicant noted that he wants the porch to be a focal point of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-8-
the house, he will live there and will make sure that the project is built as shown; Commissioner asked if the applicant
considered lowering the second floor plate height to 8'-1"; applicant is 6'-7" tall and would like the additional height;
Commissioner asked if the entire second floor will have pitched ceilings, the applicant noted that the center of the
second floor will contain vaulted ceilings, the bedrooms will have a flat ceiling, had to make the windows work so that
they would not conflict with the eaves. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Comments from the Commission: this is a beautiful house, exactly what Burlingame is trying to accomplish, glad to
hear porch will be the focal point.
C. Keighran moved to approve the design review and special permit, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 6,
1999, Sheets 1, and 3 through 9; 2) that the left side setback variance is approved for construction of the garage, only;
3) 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; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official=s September 20, 1999 memo and the City Engineer=s
September 20, 1999 memo shall be met; 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and
Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Discussion on the motion: Regarding the 9'-0" plate height, this is a large 9000 SF lot.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers.
Bojués and Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 9:18 p.m.
1204 BROADWAY, ZONED C-2 - AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (JUBAN, APPLICANT, ALICE
DUCASSE TR. PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 28, 2000)
Reference staff report, 3.13.00, with attachments. City Staff and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter after preparation of the staff
report, dated March 8, 2000, addressing the concerns stated at the last meeting. Eleven conditions were suggested for
consideration. CA asked if condition #5 limiting deliveries to the site from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. is enough time. CP
noted that this time slot has been used for other food establishment businesses on Burlingame Avenue, but that the
Commission could adjust the delivery hours after talking to the applicant. Commission had no other questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Gary Hirano, Vice President of Juban, noted that the premise is leased,
parking at the rear is open to the public; management and employees do leave the premise by 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. at the
latest; what happens after they leave is out of their control; does not agree with the condition on delivery, business
opens at 11:30 a.m., employees arrive at 10:00 a.m., would like to see the delivery hours from 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. CA
noted that Juban has a delivery area at the rear of the site. There were no further comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Luzuriaga noted that the complaints received at the last meeting were checked and there were no complaints logged,
and for this reason moved to approve the conditional use permit, by resolution, with the delivery hours amended to be
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and one following conditions: 1) that this business location presently occupied by a full
service food establishment, with 550 SF of on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a
limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment; the criteria for the new
classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2) that the 550 SF area of on-site seating of the full
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-9-
service food establishment may be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an
amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by
the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building
and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 4) that the applicant shall provide
daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 5) that
this business and its employees shall receive no food deliveries before 10:00 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. daily and shall not
cause the noise level at property line to be increased by 5 dBa over the ambient at any time; 6) that an amendment to
this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7) that there shall be no
food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8) 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; 9) that the business may be open seven days a week from 11:30
a.m. to 11:00 p.m., with a maximum of 10 employees, including the owner, on site at one time; 10) that the project
shall provide adequate filtering and venting to avoid dissemination of odors and grease on neighboring properties; and
11) that any changes to the site shall meet all requirements in effect at the time of the California Building and Fire
Codes, and as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers.
Bojués and Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item was completed at 9:25 p.m.
1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SECONDARY SIGN AT
1730 ROLLINS ROAD (RAYMOND JUNGWIRTH, APPLICANT; ARTHUR MICHAEL TRUST, OWNER)
Reference staff report, 3.13.00, with attachments. City Planner 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. Norm Book, attorney with Carr McClellan, represented the applicant
with Ray Jungwirth, 1730 Rollins Road. Noted just became involved in this application and had a threshold issue, staff
report states that this wall is not a secondary frontage by reason that the parking lot is on the adjacent property, CS
section does not seem to make this distinction; CP Monroe noted that CS 22.08.080 does not mention frontage but
requires commission review of any sign that is placed on a wall which abuts a side property line. CA Anderson noted
that CS 22.04.250 defines frontage as place where property gets access from, secondary is area which faces a point of
access or derives access from a point of access, the neighboring parking lot does not provide access to this building.
Asking for a 7.8 SF sign which is one-half inch deep, plans show the original building is 4 inches (plans are not too
clear) from the property line, the trim on the building overhangs the wall by one-half inch so surely sign will not be
over property line. Commission asked how long has PrimeTime been open at this location, since 1979; did not have a
sign in this location in all that time-why now, it will distinguish the two businesses and reduce misunderstanding about
which one you are entering; is there any confusion now, no; submitted photos of similar signs in the area.
From the floor George Corey, 700 El Camino Real, Millbrae, attorney for Royal Racket, Joe MacDonnel, Royal
Racket; was here in 1979 when applications were granted for PrimeTime and Royal Racket, have co-existed side by
side all that time, the ownership of PrimeTime changed in 1981 but the ownership of Royal Racket has stayed the
same; both operate about the same and compete for customers; way Royal Racket sees it, installed sign without a
permit, city required removal; secondary frontage needs to be on their own site; when sign was up three people came
into Royal Racket thinking they were at PrimeTime, when told no, they left their cars parked at Royal and walked to
PrimeTime, parking is a problem for both of these uses all the time and do not want to provide parking for the adjacent
use; feel that this proposed sign will lend itself to creating confusion, where there has been none for 18 years; both
clubs have thrived with three signs and about 200 SF. Commissioner asked to explain about enforcement, CP noted did
not seem to be a record of public enforcement. Applicant noted that they put mock up sign on wall to take a photo,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-10-
unaware of any complaint, took it down; want sign to help distinguish their property from the other, just because have
not had a sign there for 20 years does not mean it would not be beneficial. Told that they had no permit, then the sign
was removed. There were no further comments from the floor.
Commission discussion: in most of the photos submitted it is clear which building the sign belongs to, own a building
where neighbors sign is on my building, can understand confusion; find the placement of this sign confusing because of
the parking lot and the two similar businesses, when one travels north on Rollins Road eye is drawn to this sign and
tend to go into the immediate parking lot which is Royal Racket, can understand about not wanting to move your car
once you are parked, parking is a problem in the area. Applicant submitted photos of a number of signs, important to
know commission looks at each application on a case by case basis, when ask for an exemption we weight factors, in
this case the sign will cause confusion because these are two similar businesses; less is better, the present signage has
worked for 20 years; have they considered using an arrow to direct people if the sign is mandatory; is a blade sign
possible, yes if enough distance between the face of the building and the curb.
C. Vistica moved to deny the request for a sign exception to place a sign on the south wall of 1730 Rollins Road. The
motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the application. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers.
Bojués, Deal absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item was completed at 9:55 p.m.
REVIEW OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND PLANNING
COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE.
Reference staff report, 3.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria for action
and Planning Department comments. CA Anderson noted that under the provisions of this ordinance design review
items with other code exceptions such as a variance could be referred directly to the consent calendar or to a regular
action meeting depending upon the commission's determination. Commissioners asked: if the applicant can speak then
the public at large must be allowed to speak, yes can ask to limit comments to questions on the project but must allow
to speak; provides a way to guide the applicant very early on in the review process. CA noted that the ordinance will
expire in one year, may find that not need the early study process by then. Possible that this might lead to a design
review procedure which is more of a working session in a different venue from the Planning Commission; ordinance
would change noticing procedures; CP noted would have two different study calendars with the regular one preceding
the design review one. Applicant should not feel that the commission review is judgmental; need to give the design
reviewers some hint of commission concerns earlier and some support.
C. Vistica moved to recommend the ordinance revising the design review process to the City Council for action and to
adopt the resolution amending the Commission Rules of Procedure to alter the design review process. The motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: will staff keep a log of the processing time for projects, yes.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance change to the City Council and
on the approval of the resolution to amend the commission rules. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Deal
absent). This item ended at 10:15 p.m.
PLANNER REPORTS
- REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
-11-
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken at the City Council meeting on March 6, 2000.
- DISCUSSION OF TIMING FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON THE OFFICE PROJECT AT 301
AIRPORT BLVD. AND THE AGENDA FOR THAT MEETING.
CA Anderson introduced this topic noting that at their last meeting the Council expressed concern that there
was a month between the commission=s study of the proposed project at 301 Airport Blvd. and the action
meeting. The council was concerned that, if the project was appealed, this timing would put the council action
into the summer months, a time that is not popular with the public for hearings. The council was anticipating a
little more lead time for their action because of the need for them to study this complicated project. He noted
that under the Brown Act a commissioner can still participate even if he is not present as long as he is in a
public place. Commissioner asked if under the Brown Act an absent commissioner could submit his concerns
in writing before an action, yes.
CA Anderson noted that another option would be to have a study session open to public comment, so that the
commissioner could express his concerns. Feel this project is so complex and commission has invested s o
much time and study that it requires the full attention of the commission and all the commissioners should be
present for its action, should stay with May 3 action date. Commissioner who would be absent on April 10,
agreed that all should be present for action and noted that he would break his rule, and interrupt his vacation
and return for a hearing that night. Staff discussed the agenda and it was decided that 301 Airport should be the
only project on the calendar on April 10, 2000, and that the commission would hold a special meeting on
Tuesday, April 18, if the remaining commissioners could all be present, for the regular calendar scheduled for
April 10, 2000.
On the issue of an open study meeting on March 27, 2000, it was decided that because the audience could not
be effectively limited to expressing only questions about the project, it would become a public hearing, so in
effect there would be two public hearings which would not be a productive use of time. However, the
Chairman directed that the From the Floor be moved to follow the study items for this meeting so anyone in the
audience who wished to clarify any question to be addressed at the action meeting could have three minutes to
do so.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Keighran, Secretary
MINUTES3.13