Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1125 Burlingame Avenue - Staff Report�� CITY � � � BURLJNGAME �, m `4c,� , 'o �NAT[o JUNE� MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: RE: December 5, 2006 Planning Commission City Planner Planner's Report Meeting Date: 12/11/06 FYI — REVISION TO AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AT 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED G1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. Summary: June 12, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an application for a conditional use permit amendment to expand and change the classification of an existing food establishment (from specialty food shop to full service) at 1125 Burlingame Avenue, zoned G1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (June 12, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes). A building permit was issued in August, 2006, and construction is underway. As part of the conditional use permit amendment application, the project included exterior changes to the building fa�ade along Burlingame and Lorton Avenue. However, this project was not subject to commercial design review because the frontage along Burlingame Avenue is less than 25'-0" (20'-2" existing) and less than 50% of the fa�ade along Lorton Avenue was being changing (46.5% proposed). Exterior renovations included new clerestory windows and a new window system on both facades with three-inch solid red oak frame and a polyurethane finish and replacing the existing awning system with a new awning system with a fully welded metal frame with a solid dark green canvas awning. Now that construction is underway and the applicant has a better sense of the space, the applicant would like to make several changes to the building facades. The applicant approached Planning staff to discuss the changes. Given the recent unapproved changes made to the adjacent tenant space at 1123 Burlingame Avenue (La Corneta Taqueria), the applicant and Planning staffthought it would be appropriate to inform the Planniiig Commission of the following changes: Burlingame Avenue Facade: The vertical fixed window to the right of the entrance door will be eliminated. A mullion will be added to the top one-third of the sliding window system. ■ Lorton Avenue Fa�ade: A mullion will be added to the top one-third of the sliding window system. The sliding window system will be extended to replace the opening at the corner of the building. The vertical windows to the left of the side entry door will be eliminated because of security concerns (register will be PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 December 5, 2006 located here). Lastly, the large fixed window to the right of the side entry door will be replaced with a smaller window with mullions to match the sliding window system. This was necessary because a structural column was required at this location. The structural column also eliminated a portion of the clerestory window above. ■ Aw�ing: The color of the awning canvas, originally approved to be a dark green color, will be a dark color chosen by the applicant. The color has not been chosen at this time. 'Tangerine Dream' is planned for the building's exterior color. The applicant submitted the originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped November 22, 2006, are included for comparison. Planning staff would note that this item is bring brought to the Commission as an informational item. Because this project was not subject to design review and the changes do not trigger commercial design review, these changes do not require approval by the Commission. However, Planning staff will forward any comments to the applicant for consideration. Ruben Hurin Planner ATTACHMENTS: June 12, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Originally Approved aiicl Proposed Building Elevations (sheet A-2P, date stamped November 22, 2006) � City of Burlingame Planning Commissioir Unapprove�l Minutes Ju»e /2, 2006 would oppose the resent application because the conditions do not include a sunset clause; have made interpretation t t this is a third bedroom, plicant could add additional be ooms onto the house without increasing t parking demand; comfo le putting the $100,000 rider � it was tied to remodel or addition to the ho e; this is just another pa f the house; and if there were er to be any changes to the house or any b� ding permits altering th 'nterior of the house, then the e permits and variance should go away; wo d be a substantial remod at $100,000; would like to see mber substantially lowered; $50,000}�vould a better number. / C. Brownrigg move to approve the application, by esolution, with the following amend conditions: 1) that the project s 1 continue to be consistent wi the plans submitted to the Planning epartment and date stamped Marc 30, 2005, Site Plan, Floor Pl and Elevations; 2) that the accesso�%structure use shall be limited to a erapy room and sleeping qu ers for family guests or a caretaker tb stay as needed; 3) that if there is uilding permit for an additio or an alteration to the main structur r for any construction valued at $50 00 or more on this property, e accessory structure shall be dem shed and any use permits for the acc ssory structure voided; 4) tha he accessory structure shall never b used as a second dwelling unit, sh ver include a kitchen or co ing element, and shall not includ dditional or upgraded utility se ces without an amendment to t� conditional use permit; 5) that the t coverage variance being grante is based on the existing conditio on the property which were ap oved by previous permits; the ot coverage variance is applicable nly to the existing accessory struc re, cannot be transferred to an other portion of the property and wi cease when any portion of the exi ng structure or the accessory cture is removed; and 6) that the p ject shall meet all the requiremen of the California Buildin�� Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, s amended by the City of Burling e. The motion was second by C. Cauchi. Chair Br nrigg called for a roll call votc n the motion to approve w� the amended conditions. The motio passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Auran a d Deal dissenting and C. terl�ng absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. 5. 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A— APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AND CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (GOKHAN KAHRAMAN, KAHRAMAN LLC, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, DESIGNER; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (37 NOTTCEDI PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report June 12, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. SP Brooks noted that one additional condition is suggested based on a request from the Police Department regarding amusement permits. Although this project is not requesting an amusement permit at this time, a condition is suggested which would require that failure to abide by the conditions of approval of any amusement permit granted by the City Council for this site shall result in review of the conditional use permit for the entire site by the Planning Commission. The purpose of the condition is to aid in the enforcement of the conditions of the amusement permits, and similar conditions will be considered for all future food establishment applications in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial areas. Commissioners asked about a notation on the plans which indicates that a parking space at the rear of the site is dedicated to 1123 Burlingame Avenue, this site is 1125 Burlingame Avenue, is that an error? SP Brooks noted that this property contains several tenant spaces, and there was a previous application at 1123 Burlingame Avenue for a food establishment, and this parking space is intended for use by that tenant space. Commissioners asked in the future, would the applicant be able to add a dining area in the basement area. SP Brooks noted that since the basemcnt 5 Ciry of Burlingame Planning Comrnission Unapproverl Minutes June l2, 2006 area is not exempt from parking, conversion of this space from storage to dining area would require a parking variance, in addition to an amendment to the use permit for increase in seating area. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Gokhan Kalu-aman, 1045 Cadillac Way, Burlingame, applicant, represented the project, and submitted a tile sample and a paint sample, noting that they had originally proposed to remove the tile, it will now be replaced with tile like the sample. Commissioners asked about the window on the Lorton side which looks into the cooking area, there is an oven to the right of the window, what is the piece of equipment to the left, will it block the window? The applicant noted that this is a counter, which may be slightly taller than the window sill, but will not block the window. Commissioners noted that the added window and tiles are appreciated, is there a reason a window is not being added in the other blank space? The applicant noted that he had consulted with the structural engineer, and there is a main column on the building in this location and adding a window may trigger seismic requirements, so it would be a risk. Commissioners made suggestions regarding the two entry doors, it appears that there is room to add clerestory windows above the both doors, think if the opening were lined up with other openings, it would be a more graceful entry. Commissioners noted that although the Planning Commission does not regulate color, the chosen color looks okay in the small sample, but may be too bright when used on the entire fa�ade. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the 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 June 1, 2006, sheets A-OP, A-1P and A-2P; 2) that this business location occupied by a full service food establishment, with 875 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 change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 3) that the 875 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall only be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4) that this full service food establishment may be open seven days a week, from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of 11 full- time employees and three part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 5) 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 as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 6) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 7) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery ofprepared food from this premisc; 8) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 9) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use this conditional use permit shall become void and a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site; 10) that seating on the sidewalk outside the food establishment shall require an encroachment permit and shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 11) that failure to abide by the conditions of approval of any amusement permit granted by the City Council shall result in review of the conditional use permit for the entire site by the Planning Commission; 12) 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 19, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's April 24, 2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 17, 2006 memo shall be met; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. 0 • Ciry of Burlingame Plunning Commission Unapp��oved Minutes June Il, 2006 Commissioners comment although the project is being approved as submitted, the applicant could pursue the suggestion to include clerestory windows above the two doors, and if so, the changes would come back to the Commission as an information item. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. IX. DESIGN RE�IEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 62 LOM VISTA DRIVE, ZONF,D R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STO SINGLE FnMILY DVI��LLING AND DETACHED TWO-C�R GARAGE (JACK CHU, CHU DE�{GN & ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHIN-S�CJI CHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack Chu, 39 W. 43`d Ave, architect, represented Commission ¢ommented: •� Project does not work; if you look at other houses in the neighborhood, �� make sense; project is off to the wrong start and needs a complete re-wor %• Proposed house is big and bulky and lacks good qualities on the front; the any scale to it; the front elevation needs more attention and more wor , �ject. ign does not is boxy without • The design of this house is stucco with asphalt shingles; there is not �ng to delineate the style of the house; % • Should have a 9' plate height on the first floor and an 8'-1" pla height on the second floor; the proposed plate height is too large in comparison to other h ses in the neighborhood; • More detail is needed on the windows, what type are the . Should be noted on the plans; • The massing on the left side is not bad; some of the ssing is starting to get there; • There ar� consistent elements along the house, but e design is lacking in charm and detail; • Project should include a front porch element; th roposed entryway is complet uninviting; • Sho�rid look at design guidelines and come up ith an identifiable style; a Cra man style house might work better in this neighborhood; • This project does not propose enough 1 scaping; need to add more; d • Make sure scale is right along the veway; there is a discrepan between site plan and � landscape plan. There were no other comments from the�"oor and the public hearing w�closed. C. Auran made a motion to send this roject to a design reviewer wi the comments made. Thi otion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for vote on the motion to refer t�s item to a design revie consultant with the comments made. The otion passed on a voice vo 6-0-1 (C. Osterling sent). The Planning Commission's action ' advisory and not appealable. is item concluded at 8• 0 p.m. 7