The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1219 Burlingame Avenue - Approval Letter� � Planning Deparvnent January 20, 2000 Paul A. Ohm Tr Et Al 465 Edgewood Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Mr. Ohm, ��6, CITY O� BURLJNQAME *b��o^ ,,, e. CITY OF BURLINGAME Ciry Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 558-7200 Since fhere was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the January 10, 2000 Planning Commission approval of your conditional use permit amendment application became effective January 19, 2000. This application was for an existing food establishment classified as a Full Service Food Establishment in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area at 1219 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The January 10, 2000 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that this business location presently occupied by a full service food establishment, with 960 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; 2 � 0 5. � 7. E:� that the 960 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment may be enlarged only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from � any opening within 10' of the property line; 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; that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 21, 1993, Sheet A.O, Sheet A.l, Sheet A.2, Sheet A.3 and A.4; that the conditions of the City Engineers' January 3, 1994 memo and the Fire Marshals' January 3 and 18, 1994 memos shall be met ; that this use permit shall not become effective, nor a building permit issued, until the property owner has obtained written agreement(s) for access easement from the adjacent property owner(s) . January 20, 2000 � 219 Burlingame Avenue page -2- and approval from the Fire Department concerning the access easement requirements for the rear exit through the alley; 9. that the restaurant may be open Monday through Thursday from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., Friday and Saturday from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. and Sunday from 1:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. with a maximum of 16 employees, including the manager on site, at any one time; 10. that no seating shall be located on the mezzanine and no activities other than storage shall ever take place on the mezzanine; 11. that if any activities other than storage do occur on the mezzanine the stairway shall be required to be removed within 30 days; 12. that the existing wooden storage shed (9'-6" x 12') located in the parking area at the rear of the structure shall be removed and replaced with a 10' x 10' fire rated structure on a foundation . attached to the rear of the building, this new structure shall not obstruct required exiting and shall receive a building permit; 13. that the eating establishment shall provide and maintain trash receptacles approved by the City and consistent with the streetscape improvements at the door, or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 14. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 15. that the property owner shall stripe and retain three (3) diagonal parking spaces at the rear of the building for use of the tenants. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. incerely yours, arg ret��. City Planner RH\s 1219burl.cca c. Cafe La Scala, applicant 1219 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (55 FT ON BURLINGAME AVE COM 90 FT FR PARK RD POR OF LOT5 9 10 BLOCK SUPP TO TOWN OF BURLINGAME MAP NO 1 RSM B/28 CITY OF BURLINGAME; APN: 029-204-030) � ��;w.:vL�:i.'�� •i � �i`� ��{F-a ��v �+Y• ROU�INC'T FORM DATE: �'�%� � �j TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY � � '�1 ��'Lt�1 GGt-!i' ! o, I G'I � ¢ h� Stvt °�� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �� Z4� �CJ � REVIEWED BY,.ST-AFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: (� �J� �Cf �'j� � THANKS, Jane her' /Leah �� 3� 9 Date of Comments �e j s�ol �� b-F- �e.�. 21 l�l� 3 11 . , . I ; �(�,,J N, N � .� : -��- �� S� �� P�, a �� a y�F✓� .� �-�-� , � ��, � �� ,.� ��.:�,�s.� �-��I ��-o�� . . . ��C, C �� -�X) rt lT�/ f j t�F -�� WtC�cS� Sio�-w��E �s►-�.U�-�t�C� `IT� t:% 'r i�PG :� � C'�-��C /�I11J1cb �:v 11I� i�flt(�1 3Ui(.P1NiJ �Q'�S[-'N'� c�tiSCF..rc �US `l-C �� '�E pg.t�i� f�cL� �`�cr� vis�-nnr� �+� 5��. c.�� T1c��cr�n�� c�= Re�w� w»s o�sf„eJ�o .��E c..op� �-`�.�'H�6►T� �'J(3FxSN fk�JfKUL�TIC� V.iPI�-�t1�1 5�� c`,� COMP�l/�T�-P�� Co1J`��CZJCiZct� � FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: REQIIEST FOR �,��f %�� ` � �� -y � - Y�� .�:":y- w��,Gp'�- ' � . � �A��.: .��+11�� F.. -r �'S�it : •I ROU�ING FORM DATE: � ��' � � TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN �i� i . i �-- S� a� y�� .� ��'1tif�-�'� �� I �i� �- SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �� Z4� ��/� REVIEWED BY AFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY : � J-.� �G��l _ 31 �� ' � THANKS, i Jane her /Leah '� � Date of Comments . �2e � e�o� l a� � b� . z►, �q� 3. VI . � �, �� ,� �� . �,�.r,,,`. � �-.� � �,L.:�� lY S�i l � i� e�=� ��c. �,� -e�s3-e. �.t�./� � v�-�.�-4- -Q-,c �� 2► �a,v� lc-� �.a� sLw � � � �' �( o � c�� ..o � ►�-.�� `-� �� 5w.-��- 2�-< <?'-� � � s � F�- �-,�-�j ti..,� e. ,� , ^ � . ��„� ,�.1.� �-..�Q s (,.��..� � �.� �CQv�� ' . �� . . � � (� 1'�-.-�-s �^ .��-✓ 5 � �"� � �►^� � �-�rc �' ��— c�,,t L 1 t,�. v�,�,.�,,�,5 �-� ��c�., � 1�-�� s�� SUBJECT : REQIIEST FOR )�.` cA �' �Z�� t Git�` ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minules January 10, 2000 1405 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CARPORT FOR A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE. (STEVE LESLEY, APPLICANT AND ATLAS PLASTERING, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. The Planning Commissioners asked: why do they need a 20 foot tall opening in the carport; at time of site inspection (1.10.00) applicant was pumping a liquid from a truck into the creek, is this allowed; why was so much architectural embellishment put on this carport, seems a level of detail not necessary unless it is advert'isement for what this business does; project looks like a hanger, why is it so tall; the staff report indicates that the carport will be the same height as the adjacent building to the north, however there is a wall there now that is 4 to 5 feet taller than that building, will the carport roof be placed on the existing wall; approval should include best management practices for all activities on the site next to the creek; there appear to be a couple of catch basins on the site which discharge into the creek, are there fossil filters in them, how are they inspected and when are they replaced; the building appears to be 25 feet tall and the proposed facade not in keeping with the rest of the development on the site, please address. The item was placed on the regular action calendar, for the January 24, 2000, meeting if all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYAREACTED ON SIMULTANEO USLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISC USSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQ UESTED BY THE APPLICAN7; A MEMBER OF THE P UBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION I�OTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. 1516 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-CAR GARAGE. (CHRISTINA IP-TOMA AND BURT TOMA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERSI AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA: A. 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(LA SALSA, APPLICANT AND SANDRA H. YORK, PROPERTY 4WNER) • - B. 1152 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(NOAH'S BAGELS, APPLICANT AND GURDIAL S. JOHAL TR, PROPERTY OWNERI C. 1160 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(STARBUCKS, APPLICANT AND GURDIAL S. JOHAL TR, PROPERTY OWNER) D. 1219 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(CAFE LA SCALA, APPLICANT AND PAUL A. OHM TR ET AL, P30PERTY OWNERI E. 1309 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(PEET'S COFFEE AND TEA, APPLICANT AND GURDIAL S. JOHAL TR, PROPERTY OWNERI F. 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(BOCCE CAFE, APPLICANT AND GENSLER FAMII.Y LPI, PROPERTY OWNERI G. 1318 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(WORLD WRAPPS, APPLICANT AND SHIlZLEY KING TR, PROPERTY OWNERI H. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE -(N�DITERRANEAN GARDENS, APPLICANT AND SHIlZLEY KING TR PROPERTY OWNER) Cil}t of Bur/ingame Planning Comntission Min:�les January 10, 2000 1308 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COlVIl1�RCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLIS�-IlVIENT (THE CAKERY, APPLICANT AND GENSLER FAMILY L.P.I. PROPERTY OWNERI and 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - RESOLUTION OF CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL Ilv1PACT REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 488,000 SF OFFICE PRO7ECT, 1N THREE FIVE-STORY BUII.DINGS ON A 16 ACRE SITE. (DAN LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNERI C. Deal noted that he had no conflict of interest with any project on this calendar. He did note that although his name was on the drawings for 1516 Forest View he had no relationship with the applicant and had not received any money from them. C. Bojues 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 and by resolutions. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR 149 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT THE REAR OF TI� HOUSE (ANDREW & TRINA PASCAL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY ��x�lERSI Reference staffreport, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Andrew Pascal, applicant, 149 Pepper Avenue, and Bernardo Urquieta, architect, 2160 Lake Street, San Francisco were both present and available to answer questions. Commissioners asked; why grant the variance, have a big (10,000 SF) lot, addition is out of character with the existing building. Architect asked commissioner if he visited the site; yes, but was not inside the house. There are two issues that are important, one is that there are certain rules established by the interior design of the house, main corridor ends in the family room and it is in a specific place in the house, very little space on the lot from the family room to the neighbor; site design is difficult to express in the drawings, want to have addition lower than the trees along the side; met with neighbor, she did not want the impact of continuing the existing plane of the roof, wanted to have roof as low as possible, applicant designed a flat metal roof to respect the neighbors concern; design is in response to existing conditions and neighbors concerns. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: preserving the interior is important, not taking into consideration the exterior of the building, level of detail shown on the plans inside the house is good, but concerned that the exterior is being ignored, addition has an impact on the neighborhood, not just on the adjacent neighbor, skylights will be visible, seems like the addition has many parts, many things attached to it, could still have a good exterior which can work well with the interior; being asked to grant a variance on a large lot, reduced setback of only 3' for 32' in length, wall offset by one foot may provide an opportunity to create some articulation to eliminate what appears to be an 80' long wall 3' from the property line; long wall is extremely large and overbearing; front of the building is pleasing, has nice approach and front facade but falls apart at the rear, concerned only with exterior; see no justification for the variance; this is a small piece at the rear of the house, has minimal affect, if any, on the character of the neighborhood;, consideration and sensitivity shown to the neighbors is an important part of building a community; understand the concept of preserving the interior spaces, feel this is justification for granting the minor variance considering variances have been granted for other properties where essentially a house is torn down, rebuilt with a greater variance requested; this project does not fit in category of requiring design review and review should not be taken to that extreme, in support of the project as proposed_ 4