HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.09.28REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 1998
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Deal called the September 28, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga,
Vistica and Deal
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson;
Senior Civil Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Fire Marshal, Keith
Marshall
MINUTES The minutes of the September 14, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission were approved.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION AT 1008 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-l. (GEORGE W. McCRACKEN,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe presented the project briefly and the commissioners asked: there seems to be an
error in the FAR line of the project summary table; what do they intend to do about the
landscaping at the front when they move the eugenia; they need to work further with the
design reviewer, not comfortable with the bedroom and awkward rear elevation; reviewer is
correct the structure is awkward at the rear; the inconsistencies in the plans should be
corrected such as the elevations, the left elevation of the garage is wrong; unable to do the
declining height calculation because the data on the plans is not accurate; the interior clear
dimension of the garage should be 20 feet clear not the exterior dimension, should be
corrected. The item was set for public hearing on October 14, 1998 provided that the
information is complete and the design reviewer is able to review it within the prescribed
time.
-1-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 702
NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-l. (JOHN CALVIN, APPLICANT AND JOHN E. &
BRIGITTE ANDERSON, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe presented the project briefly and the commissioners asked: have they considered
building a detached garage at the rear of the lot; appreciate the photograph of the car in the
garage, beside the washing machine in the garage what is built in or stored on the right side
of the garage as you face the door; add a note on the plans that the new windows are to
match the existing windows; the bedroom at the back is supported by two poles which are
vulnerable to being hit as a car uses the garage, address this problem; concerned about the
windows, the proportions on the drawings are wrong, the existing windows are horizontal
and the new more vertical, should match; revise plans so that the new walls and the existing
walls are clearly differentiated; what kind of wood siding is proposed. The item was set for
public hearing on October 14 providing that the information is available in time to prepare
the staff report.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS AT
1430 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1. (REAL ENTERPRISE SIGNS,
APPLICANT AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION,
PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe presented the requested signage program and the commissioners asked: can the
words "let us make a fan out of you" change, yes; need justification for the number and
square footage of signs compared to the signage on other properties on the block and banks
in the area; will the banners be rotated and the wording changed; the presence of these signs
will make the property obtrusive, in fact they are pretty big given the number and the size of
the lot, need a better representation of how the new signs will look in place, need a view to
scale down the street and pictures of this type of sign on another site, also looking down the
street; would like realistic representation of the colors of the signs, there are a lot of blue
signs on the site now, will the new signs work with them; reason given for the sign request
is that this bank is new in town, will these signs be temporary; are all the banner/blade signs
promotional and will their lettering change, if so how often, be clear in the application about
which signage is permanent and which temporary/changeable; banner/blade signs are
inappropriate for permanent signage, what are the exceptional circumstances on the property
for this request; give reasons why this exception should be granted when no others in the
area have this type or amount of signage, reasons need to be associated with the property.
Item was set for public hearing October 14, 1998, if the responses to the questions are
complete.
-2-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS AND
FOR HEIGHT OF A GROUND SIGN AT 212 EAST LANE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA D.
(ALI KAZEMI, SIGNS OF ALL KINDS, APPLICANT AND ALIC'E L. AHO & JUDITH
A. SCHENKOFSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe presented the sign application request and the commissioners asked: what is the
history of use on this site, there seems to be a lot of turnover, how does that affect the
signage; what is the color scheme and design of each of these signs; seems like a lot of
exceptions, the justification in the application appears to be generic, need better site oriented
justifications; compare request to existing signage for auto repair and other uses on that
block; need to indicate the copy on each sign and the color for each sign; how do you justify
three times the allowed signage; need a three dimensional representation of the signs, what is
in place at this time; show somehow the signs to be placed on the structure, could put on a
picture to scale, would like the color and copy included on the scale drawings; the site plan
is wrong, correct it; cannot find sign N11 in the staff report, need to cross reference
numbers on the plans with sign description in the staff report table; what is the height of the
Honda sign on California, also the dimensions; need better justification for the height of the
pole sign, what is the height of the existing pole sign. The item was set for public hearing
on October 14, if all the information is provided to the Planning Department in time for
preparation of the packet.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A MASTER SIGN PERMIT AT 1155
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND
MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the signage request for the site and the commissioners
asked: need to justify the need for the number and square footage of the signage; what effect
will the lighting of these signs have on the adjacent residential uses; is the clock a sign; this
is a 9 tenant building but there are only 8 slots in the directory sign, why; why does the
name of the building need to be on the building twice; this is a car mall with 9 businesses
why is there no uniformity in the design of the signs (color and type face); will any of the
businesses have awnings, if so what color would they be; provide justification for the lack of
consistency in the design of the signage; what will the design and style be of the signage
identifying the building (signs A and B); feel the structure around the free standing ground
sign could be reduced in size; what does it mean to approve a master signage program for a
site or building; would like this item to return to study after they have had an opportunity to
respond to concerns; signs A and B identifying the building area different sizes, show a
detail of each and how they will work on the structure. The item was set for public hearing
on October 14,1998, if the information is provided to staff in time.
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE
AND ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED
BY A COMMISSIONER, APPLICANT OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
Chairman Deal noted that there are two items on the consent calendar, 526 Marin Drive and
1701 Carmelita Avenue, he then asked if anyone on the Commission or in the audience
would like to call any items off the consent calendar. C. Deal commented that he would like
item #6, 526 Marin Drive moved to the regular calendar for public hearing. It was further
noted for the record that C. Deal would be abstaining from any discussion or vote on 1701
Carmelita Avenue. Mr. Norman Luna, 1041 Cortez, the next door neighbor asked what was
proposed at 1701 Carmelita. The roof and grounds were just completely renovated, why a
second story after a new roof. Commission suggested Mr. Luna go into the lobby with the
applicant and discuss the application.
Both consent items were moved to the regular calendar for public hearing.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 526
MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND ROBERT
MACOMBER JR., PROPERTY OWNER)
APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1701
CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KIERAN P. & NOREEN H. O'SULLIVAN,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
REGULAR CALENDAR
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 526
MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND ROBERT
MACOMBER JR. , PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 09.28.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed
the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department continents, and study meeting questions.
Three conditions were suggested for approval. Commission discussed the design review
comments and there was a consensus that this application needs to be revisited and conditions
need to be added regarding landscaping.
C. Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 655 Skyway, Suite 110, San Carlos,
was present to answer questions, he indicated the homeowner would be willing to comply
-4-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
with any added conditions. Todd Cole, 735 Niantic, Foster City was present on behalf of
the home owner and to let the commission know the owner was called out of the country on
business to Jakarta.
Commission comments: there should be an added condition directing protection of the tree
in the driveway; very nice project, great reduction of impact, uncomfortable with
conditioning window type and articulation, should be shown properly on the plans; rear deck
on the second story is a concern, everyone using it is on display, becomes a recreation area
overlooking other yards; concerned with the balustrade detail heavy and too wavy, too much
motion, too busy; garage doors separated by only a post, add some stucco. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting on October
26, 1998. Commission would like the applicant and the design reviewer revisit this project
and revise the plans to indicate the changes rather than having to condition the changes.
The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Discussion on the motion: if it is possible to schedule a meeting between the applicant and
the design reviewer it was felt to be preferable to come back to commission at the October
14, 1996 meeting. CA Anderson clarified that if they are unable to get everything necessary
to the Planning Department in a timely manner the item could be continued again to the
October 26, 1998 meeting. The maker and the second agreed since there were no neighbors
present to be inconvenienced by continuing the action a second time. C. Deal called for the
vote, the motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1701
CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KIERAN P. & NOREEN H. O'SULLIVAN,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
Mr. Luna withdrew his objection and item #7, 1701 Carmelita was returned to the consent
calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
APPLICATION FOR FRONT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1701
CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KIERAN P. & NOREEN H. O'SULLIVAN,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
Chairman Deal called for a vote on 1701 Carmelita Avenue, noting the findings in the staff
report. The motion was carried unanimously 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
-5-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
REGULAR CALENDAR
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION REGARDING A TREEHOUSE AT 215 CRESCENT
AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (HERBERT B. & C.G. WILLIAMSON, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 09.28.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed
the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. There were no
commission comments.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Herbert Williamson, 215 Crescent Avenue, the
property owner was present to answer questions. He called attention to the letter he sent to
the Commission. Commission asked if there is any electricity in the treehouse. The
applicant noted that there was an extension cord from the house up into the tree hose. There
is no fireplace in the treehouse. George Canon, 1545 Howard Avenue, a neighbor, discussed
how he walks by the treehouse every night and he "Love's it!" There was no one else in the
audience to speak either in favor of or against this determination, there being no further
comments from the floor the public hearing was closed.
C. Key moved that the commission uphold the determination of the City Planner and City
Attorney, noting this structure is not subject to the zoning code; is not in the city's
jurisdiction and the city would not be liable. It was suggested that shades be put up on the
windows facing west to facilitate privacy.
The motion was seconded by C. Coffey, and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR EXISTING FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR
FRONT SETBACKS AND FOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-
1. (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND BIJAN & PARI AMINI, PROPERTY
OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 09.28.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed
the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions.
Three conditions were suggested for approval. CP Monroe read a letter submitted September
24, 1998, from Kenton and Tamara Wong stating their objections to the wall erected right up
to the sidewalk. Commissioners asked if the wall was shown on the plans correctly because
it did not extend to the house in the field inspection as shown on the plans; asked the history
of the encroachment permit, Senior Civil Engineer Syed Murtuza commented that an
encroachment permit was originally issued for a redwood fence, after commission study
meeting they found that applicant was stuccoing the fence and put a stop work order on it,
the encroachment permit was then amended to stucco the redwood fence; encroachment
permits are not required to go to council; asked City Attorney commission authority
regarding the fence/wall, CA noted that the applicant has asked for a variance and design
review is required, the fence/wall is a part of the application because it is a part of the
ME
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
because it is a part of the landscaping which is addressed in a design guideline. There were
no further comments from the commission.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos,
architect, represented the property owner, at this meeting was the first he heard that he
should meet with the design reviewer and discuss changes to be made, in other cities meet
with a board and sit around a table, then do what they suggest or deal with the issues at the
meeting; if they modify the angle cut off on the first and second floor will cut off visibility
from the kitchen into the family room also hard to put a table in the eating nook; the angle is
not a bad design element; not aware of the fence until after last meeting, owner got
encroachment permit from Department of Public Works, spent $8,500. to build the concrete
block wall, now you suggest tearing it down, could be better, yes, but not done in bad faith.
Commissioner asked why go from redwood to stucco, immediate neighbors told owner that
they did not like wood, expensive but changed for them, city staff drew the plans and he did
what they asked him to do; there is a problem on the plans which show wall connecting to
the house but in fact it is 8 feet off the house, fence design and construction was done by
another designer. SCE noted that the encroachment permit was for a redwood fence, not
aware that it had changed to wall until it was almost complete; if city had seen at the
beginning plans would have been required for the wall and a building permit; the wall was
brought up at study, Department of Public Works signed this letter changing the material
after the study meeting.
Property owner Bijan Amini, 1411 Avondale, Hillsborough, spoke about the time line on
constructing the fence and the change to a stucco wall. There were no further comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: think that the design could accommodate design reviewers
recommendation for a 90 degree angle; could remove closet in garage to increase the useable
parking area; concerned about the fence, it is obtrusive; have a fence with no landscaping,
could put a vine on it, landscape plans do not address at all how to give it a better
appearance; the wall was a key factor in the discussion of the project at study, it was
mentioned by the design reviewer, nothing was done, it could be lowered, plants could be
placed on it; communication issues with the Public Works Department should be looked into;
feel that the new angled walls are designed to fit within the side setback requirements and
inconsistent with the rest of the house and could be resolved with a series of straight walls,
over view of existing building is steps of squares; no effort has been made to adhere to
parking requirements which could be easily done by removing closet, accurate garage
dimensions would also help; cannot approve without doing something about the fence/wall;
have no trouble with the request for the variances because they are all existing conditions,
they are not intrusive to the neighborhood or the general architectural design in the
neighborhood; the applicant trying to respond to neighbors when he redid the fence to a
stucco wall, only one neighbor has said that the stucco wall is an eyesore; need the
landscaping on the Ray Drive side of the house, gave the fence permit before the planning
commission first reviewed the project.
-7-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
Commission discussion continued: there are a few times when a wall at an angle works on a
house, this is one of them, you are really not going to notice that the extension is out of
conformance with the rest of the house; the garage is existing to remove components to make
it better for parking does not make sense since it is existing; do not think the fence/wall is
properly done, they got an encroachment permit for a redwood fence then they built
something else which requires a building permit, it was done after the fact. Commissioner
asked if motion could be done in parts. CA Anderson responded if act on parts of the
application it could be affected dramatically by the new ordinance.
Chairman Deal reopened the public hearing. John Stewart commented that they would prefer
to continue the matter. Commissioners commented on possible dates. The public hearing
was closed.
C. Key moved to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of October 26 and
that the project be referred back to the design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
On the motion: feel if going to send back to the design reviewer we need to be specific
about what is to be reviewed, just the fence/wall or the entire house and site; CA Anderson
noted that when the project comes back to the Commission the circumstances may have
changed so the commission may give direction about what they want addressed but they
should not act on some of the variances, otherwise will loose ability to ask for a solution to
the wall.
Chairman Deal asked each commissioner to give the applicant direction for the items to be
reviewed: diagonal corners of structure do not reflect existing structure, should be resolved
and space inside modified; direct design reviewer to consider how the garage could be made
to better accommodate two cars without a lot of inconvenience; like to see landscape on
fence/wall; wall is bulky, high, massive want it landscaped and/or altered to address these
problems; landscaping on fence/wall should tie into the fence/wall and beautify the structure;
landscaping on fence/wall needs to take into consideration how close the fence/wall is to the
edge of the sidewalk; if the fence/wall is stucco over redwood it will be easy to remove if
block wall it will be harder, need to screen; like to see fence/wall removed, if retain need
landscaping plan that will soften it.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the action on the application
to the meeting of October 26, 1998. The motion was passed on a 7-0 affirmative vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 3-STORY, 15-UNIT
APARTMENT BUILDING AT 518-524 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3. (DIODATI
CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND ARMANDO AND GIOVACCHINO DIODATI,
PROPERTY OWNERS)
and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AT 518-
524 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED R-3. (DIODATI CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND
ARMANDO AND GIOVACCHINO DIODATI, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 09.28.98, with attachments. City Planner, Sr. Civil Engineer and
Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and
study meeting questions. Nineteen conditions were recommended for approval. There were
no commission comments. CA Anderson noted to the commissioners that the mitigated
negative declaration was before them tonight because the project required commission action
on the Tentative Map for Lot Consolidation, otherwise the mitigated negative declaration
would have been approved by staff and attached to the building permit. CEQA does require
a negative declaration on any multiple family project which has four or more units. This
project is not a residential condominium but an apartment complex. As such, the building
does not require a conditional use permit. There were no further comments.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Joe Diodati, 1730 Quesada Way, Armando
Diodati, 1264 Drake, property owners, Neil Gabbay, architect, and Andrea Alfonso, Wilson
Architects, landscape architect, were present to represent the project. They had nothing to
add but would answer questions. Commission asked: what kind of privet was selected,
Lundstrom which gets about 4 feet tall; can it protect the views from adjacent properties into
this site, no, can change plants to increase height; planting on the southeast corner on
Primrose, open view, rosemary is low to the ground, need something higher to screen view
of cars, need to protect hedges next door,can increase height of this vegetation also, better if
shaded area, problem because the planting area is narrow but can find a few species that will
fit; not like the idea that applicant would make a "reasonable attempt" to save the existing
hedge, need assurance, condition 5 addresses by requiring arborist study and protection
measures, would like to add that if the hedge does not survive it be replaced with other
plants that are full grown and mature. Comments to the architect: the window type and
flow of the building is much nicer with the proposed revisions, what do the semi -circular
windows on the first floor do, provide light and air into the at -grade parking behind, improve
sense of security; will light from the garage spill out these windows at night and be a
problem, will comply with the city's lighting ordinance; with an open balcony barrier passers
by can see all the stuff stored on the balconies, originally had solid balcony walls but need
the open rail to match the style of architecture; can you use a wooden post with more depth
than metal, using a half inch to inch steel rod or picket cannot use wood because of a fire
rating problem, would have to sheet rock and stucco i.e., make solid.
Comments to property owners: received a letter from a tenant asking if they could get 90
days notice of when they had to move, what will the notice time be, not sure how long to get
a bank loan, wrote them a letter saying we would give them 30 days notice, waive the last 30
days rent and return their cleaning deposits; would it be OK to give them 60 days notice,
yes; could a bicycle rack be placed in the basement to give people a place to store bicycles
instead of on the balconies, will do if can find a place that does not block required exits or
required parking. Told tenants 30 days ago that we were going to build on the sites most
were waiting for tonight to decide timing.
In
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
Architect noted that bicycle rack could be placed on the east side of the parking area under
the stairs behind parking stalls 11 and 12, would require moving the door into the storage
area. Owner noted that they have owned the building for 10 years and have been a partner
with the owner in the building next door for the same time, recently bought out next door
partner. Owners are also concerned about how the building looks.
Comments from the floor: Sheila Meyers, Floribunda and Primrose; Bill Senteney, 1632
Walnut, San Carlos, who owns 1233 Floribunda; Priscilla Storms, 1232 Floribunda, Gwen
Laney, 1229 Floribunda, John Bucker, 1218 Floribunda, Erica Hofsticker, 518 Primrose, #4,
Stephanie Bell, 516 Primrose Road; Michael Ramus, 1820 Chula Vista, all spoke. Saw three
other buildings removed on Floribunda and become residential condominiums, now another,
the charm is gone. Own 1233 Floribunda, have talked to property owner, appreciate efforts
of the Planning Commission to look after his tenants' welfare, like trees to separate the
properties a bit; feel the proposed project will fit into the neighborhood, will enhance
property values and be an improvement.
Public comments continued: Like to look at trees and lawn on this property, natural not well
groomed they are an asset to the neighborhood, this is the third apartment building to impact
Floribunda within the last year, traffic on Floribunda has increased a lot, it has become a
main drag from El Camino Real to California Drive, it is hard to back out of a driveway;
could have an impact on rents in the area too, have increased a lot in the past few years hard
on those of us on fixed incomes, have lived in the area 30 years and will have to move, this
is a stable neighborhood that is its legacy; new project will face swimming pool of our
building, how many trees will be displaced- 16?, where will the people park, there will be
two people per unit but only one parking space, people hot rod on Floribunda and the
location of the drive way on Floribunda is dangerous; exiting buildings are somewhat
historic, their architecture is significant, need to consider the increased number of old
buildings being removed in this area, the palm trees are big enough to be protected trees
under the city ordinance they are not addressed in the negative declaration; I will need to
move need 60 days to relocate, upset about the destruction of these two buildings, beautiful,
old; some tenants moved in just this last summer, unfair to ask them to move again so soon;
live on adjacent property, apartment kitchen and dining room will look into new garage and
parking area, feel its a done deal, this is an imposing structure and will reduce sun and light
and view of the sky for her, will change the feel of the neighborhood, extent of opposition is
that 9 people waited until 10 p.m. to speak; visitors are charmed with this area, see lack of
respect for it by city approving a lot of construction and increase in traffic, you should look
to the future, apartment city or charming as it is.
The applicant concluded the hearing by submitting a letter from a tenant who was in support
of the project. There were no more comments and the public hearing was closed.
CA Anderson pointed out that the commission's action tonight would be to approve the
mitigated negative declaration or call for an environmental impact report to be prepared.
The project is not before the commission since, as designed, the apartment development
meets all the city's requirements; what is before the commission is the tentative map needed
-10-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
in order to merge the two lots which make up the project site; applicant must file the map
before he can obtain a building permit. Commission asked if the conditions can be amended.
CA Anderson noted that the conditions could be amended if the applicant agreed. CA noted
that this is the only time that the negative declaration/tentative map will come before the
commission. Issues addressing landscaping are a part of environmental aesthetics and can
be conditioned as long as an impact on the environment is addressed.
C. Key moved to approve the mitigated negative declaration by resolution with the added
conditions that trees be added to the rear and interior side of the lot that will be visible from
the adjoining properties and will provide a screen between the properties; that condition 5 be
amended so that if the existing large hedge is damaged during construction it shall be
replaced by mature plants which will soon replace this privacy screen; that a bicycle rack be
placed in the at grade parking area in an area behind parking spaces 11 and 12, located in
such a way that it does not obstruct required emergency exiting and required parking spaces;
that the driveway at Floribunda be posted "right turn only" and that the property owner shall
install and maintain this signage and shall be responsible for enforcement of adherence to the
proper turning movement; that a flashing warning light shall be installed at the Floribunda
driveway at the sidewalk to warn pedestrians of approaching cars exiting the site; that all
tenant shall be noticed 60 days before they are required to relocate; that taller landscaping
shall be provided along the property line shared with 516 Primrose Road to visually screen
the tenants on this property from the adjacent parking and improvements on the project site;
the conditions of approval as amended are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 21,
Sheet A.1 through A.7, PL-1 and Site Survey, including building materials and exterior
finishes; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include
expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that
the conditions of the City Engineer's July 27, 1998 and September 21, 1998 memos, the Fire
Marshal's July 27, 1998 memo and the Senior Landscape Inspector's July 29, 1998 memo
shall be met; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and
Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that trees be
added to the rear and interior side of the lot that will be visible from the adjoining properties
and will provide a screen between the properties and that the applicant shall provide an
arborist's report with recommendations for the protection of the tall hedge located on the
property line adjacent to 516 Primrose Road, if the existing large hedge is damaged during
construction it shall be replaced by mature plants which will soon replace this privacy screen;
the recommendations of the arborist's report shall be adhered to during construction; 6) that
a bicycle rack shall be placed in the at -grade parking area in an area behind parking spaces
11 and 12, located in such a way that it does not obstruct required emergency exiting and
required parking spaces; 7) that the driveway at Floribunda shall be posted "right turn only"
and that the property owner shall install and maintain this signage and shall be responsible
for enforcement of adherence to the proper turning movement; and that a flashing warning
light shall be installed at the Floribunda driveway at the sidewalk to warn pedestrians of
approaching cars exiting the site; 8) that all tenant shall be noticed by the property owner 60
days before they are required to relocate; 9) that taller landscaping shall be provided along
-11-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1998
the property line shared with 516 Primrose Road to visually screen the tenants on this
property from the adjacent parking and improvements on the project site; 10) that the design
of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code,
1995 Edition; 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 12) that the project
is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water
Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application; 13) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District; 14) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the
Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and
enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted
at the time of building permit application; 15) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers
and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection
for the building permit; 16) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours
established in the municipal code; 17) that the method of construction and materials used in
construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit
does not exceed 45 dBA; 18) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are
affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local
capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's
expense if necessary; 19) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be
checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 20) that
abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 21) that this project shall comply with
Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22) that an arborist's report showing
how the street trees shall be protected during construction, to be approved by the Parks
Department, shall be prepared and implemented; and 23) that should any cultural resources
be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a
professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert
have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Discussion on the motion: sympathize with those opposed, commission is sensitive to the
character of areas in the city, change happens in our life time; these people have done a good
job working with appearance and scale, the traffic impact will be minimal, people will notice
something different but not beyond what is appropriate; property is zoned R-3 (multiple
family residential) applicant has an inherent right to put a multiple family development on the
site, commission tries to make sure that it is not massive, it is always the case that not
everyone is happy; in this case the architect and owners care.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions the
mitigated negative declaration. The motion passed on a 7-0 affirmative vote.
C. Key moved to recommend the tentative map for lot combination to the city council for
approval. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote
-12-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1998
on the motion to recommend the lot combination map to city council for approval. The
motion passed on a 7-0 affirmative vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM
AT 1404 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (AMIR SHAHMIRZA, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 09.28.98, with attachments. Sr. Civil Engineer and Commission
discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting
questions. A commissioner asked if this type of project could be placed on the consent
calendar in the future, staff noted yes. There were no questions of staff on the project.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Coffey moved to recommend approval of the final map to the city council. C. Key
seconded the motion. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend
approval to the council. The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 7-0
affirmative vote.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed the actions taken by the Council at their September 23
meeting.
CP Monroe handed out to the commissioners copies of the revisions to the R-1
district regulations adopted by the Council at the September 23 meeting, noting
that they would not be effective until 30 after the date of adopting. She also
handed out a sheet which will be given to applicants explaining how plans
submitted during the transition period will be handled.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
MINUTES9.29
-13-
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary