HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda FS - PC - 1998.10.14REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 1998
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
IWAim
• •:� :
Chairman Deal called the October 14, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal
Absent: Commissioner Bojues
Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior
Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Planner, Maureen Brooks
MINUTES The minutes of the September 28, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that Item No. 12 was withdrawn; Item No. 13
was continued to October 13, 1998; Item No. 15 regarding public
comments on the Draft EIR for 301 Airport Boulevard, if anyone
wants to speak from the floor, we can accept comments on that
item at that time. The order of the agenda was approved.
David Nani representing Mike Harvey Honda said he was not aware that the sign application for his
project had been continued. He wanted to know why. Staff noted that the applicant had not
responded to the Commission's study questions.
Richard Lavenstein, 63 Bovet Road, #520, San Mateo, wished to express his concerns about the
Draft EIR for the office development at 301 Airport Blvd. He noted that he owned several
properties on Beach and Lang Roads, adjacent to the project. He felt that the properties in the area
would be at a disadvantage in terms of traffic if this project was built. In his review of the document
he noted the extent of this impact is shown on page III-B-9 significant criteria, paragraph 2 first
sentence, "if the project creates an unacceptable level of service"; III-B-27, B-10 paragraph 2,
indicated that there is no capacity, III-B-28, Table III B 11, shows Airport/Coyote Point LOS F, this
was the only place evaluated that went to LOS F; III-B-29 mitigation notes that the intersection of
Coyote Point and Airport Blvd. is in San Mateo so the mitigation must occur outside of Burlingame,
the report also notes that the cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable. As a
property owner he would ask the Planning Commission to see that the report reflected his concern
and to consider it.
Grace Izmirian, 298 Sierra Drive, owner of 199 Airport Blvd., concerned about the size of the
project and the increased traffic problems, Commission should look carefully at it.
-I-
City gjBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
Chairman Deal announced the memorial dedication of a tree in Washington Park for past
Commissioner Mike Ellis to be held Saturday, October 31, 1998. A bench in Mike's name will also
be added at the site.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK, RIGHT SIDE GARAGE SETBACK AND
PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AT 118 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DANIEL BIERMANN,
APPLICANT AND JEFFREY C. & MOLLY M. LANE, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: what plans do the owners
have for use of the cabana; there is a problem with the garage, this is a five bedroom house which
almost dictates a two car garage, design reviewer statement about "major construction for minor gain
in parking" needs to be explained because the parking requirements affect the entire neighborhood
and the applicant must justify, by means of a hardship on the property, providing less; not removing 6
aluminum frame windows, why not, since this is new construction; provide a photo of two cars in the
garage with measurements clarified in plans and packet; would like an answer on the window
replacement; how far is it from the garage to the Magnolia tree; is there a solution of building a new
garage to code or closer to code and retaining the Magnolia; drawings should be clarified by showing
how the second story lines up with the first, show property lines on the second story floor plan and
any ground floor area not covered by a second floor; problem with the reasoning that a variance is
justified because the next door setback is nonconforming, address variance findings; double check
elevations of four corners of the property, unlikely that all four are 0'-0"; it looks odd to keep the few
aluminum windows on the first floor when all the rest are wood frame; there is no west elevation on
Sheet A5; roof steps down in three places, can the roof be simplified; is there an electronic garage
opener in the garage now; when was on the site the driveway gate was locked, how are cars put
behind the gate, it looked very difficult to use; what facilities are in the cabana i.e. bath, kitchen etc.;
how were the corner elevations shown on the plans arrived at; why can't the garage be increased, this
is a very large lot compared to many in the city; why is the northwest elevation wall not articulated;
can the family room wall be moved in 6 inches so that a variance for side setback is not needed; what
would be the effect on the breakfast nook of meeting current side setbacks. There were no further
questions and the item was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998, if the information is submitted
to staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2723
EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JEFFREY D. &
LORI C. ADAMS, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: applicant should go back to
the design reviewer to reduce the bathroom or reconfigure it and comply with the design criteria; all
right as submitted; feel that applicant should make another try to comply with guidelines so not have
an awkward condition with the walls at the rear; agree need to address problem at rear, not care how
-2-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
resolve inside floor usage the exterior is the issue; have looked at an alternative sketch but do not
know depth of eave overhangs, but this might work. There were no further questions and the Item
was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998 provided that the information is submitted to staff in
time.
APPLICATION FOR A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT
1157 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES D. & SHARON M. RIDER,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: there were two cars parked on
the site at time of site inspection both overhung the sidewalk so far that they blocked pedestrian use
of the sidewalk, they only need one uncovered parking space, could the corner be squared or
something else be done to provide one parking space on site in the driveway off of the sidewalk;
what is the step or vertical cut in the roof shown on Sheet 3 on the left side of the house; clarify how
staff determined that Cambridge was the rear of the lot, how would making Cambridge the front
change the variance requests; if the design were to respect the setback requirements how would it
affect the design; the way the roofs are laid out is worrisome, is there a simpler solution; what is the
dimension between the house and Highway Road, add to the plans; what are they going to do with
the existing landscaping with the remodel, how will the edge along Cambridge be treated; not need a
landscape plan, but a written description or some indication of how they plan to plant the area; would
like to have a floor plan of the existing house so can see what changes are being made. There were
no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998, providing the
information is submitted in time.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, AREA AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS
AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND
FRIEDKEN BECKER, NORTHPARK PROPERTIES -PROPERTY OWNER
CP Monroe reviewed the signage request briefly and the commissioners asked: would like to see a
representation of the sign in context on the site, perspective drawing if possible or a well represented
scale elevation; what would happen if the sign was 6-0", to code, instead of 6'-6"; can the signs be
externally lit, internal illumination is a problem in this area; does the applicant really need all that
illumination. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the item was set for
public hearing on October 26, 1998, providing that the information is submitted on time.
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICES FOR A
CANDY STORE AT 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (CALIFORNIA
CANDY COMPANY, APPLICANT, AND SANDRA YORK VINCELETTE, PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the take out permit request and the commissioners asked: same
application as before, can it be put on the consent calendar; will the bench on the street be relocated
to the new frontage, will the applicant need an encroachment permit; will the new conditions of
approval encompass the requirements of the old permit; this application shows shorter hours of
operation than last time, does the applicant intend to do this; does the former permit go with the
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1998
jewelry store; last application showed 60 customers a day, now 25, why fewer. There were no further
questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998,
providing that all the information is submitted on time.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (MORTGAGE
BROKER) AT 1008 CAROLAN AVENUE #C, ZONED C-2. (WILLIAM MOTT, APPLICANT
AND MICHAEL R. & KRYSTYNA M. HARVEY, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly reviewed the request for a conditional use permit for a financial institution and the
commissioners asked: can this item be put on the consent calendar; can we get a history of the car
rentals, i.e. monthly number rented and are they providing 25% of fleet parking (i.e. monthly rentals)
on site; what has the experience been of this car rental use at this site. There were no further
questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998,
providing that all the information is submitted on time.
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING
WHERE OFFICE EXCEEDS 50% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING AT
1400 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND
CAL-TEX PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe reviewed the request for a conditional use permit for an increase in office space over
50% and the commissioners asked: will the modular trailer at the rear of the site be removed; will the
eating area at the rear in the parking area be removed; would like to see a to scale parking layout
diagram, the area at the rear appears very narrow; show within the parking layout for the site where
the covered parking place will be and how it will work with the rest of the parking; what is the status
of the trailer, does it have proper permits. There were no further questions from the commissioners
and the item was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998, providing that all the information is
submitted on time.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CAj .ENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND
ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR ACHONIS REQUESTED BYA
COMMISSIONER, APPLICANT OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
There was one item on the consent calendar, 1920 Hillside Drive. C. Key called the item off the
consent calendar for public hearing. The consent item was moved to the regular calendar for public
hearing.
ME
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT
1920 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (PAUL & TAMARA FERRARI, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 10.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria, and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for
approval. CP Monroe noted that staff would amend Condition No. 6 to have the City's Senior
Landscape Inspector review landscape plans and have landscaping installed before final inspection
and add Condition No. 8 eliminating the 4:12 pitch of the roof at the kitchen window. There were
no commission comments.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Tamara Ferrari, 1920 Hillside Drive, applicant and
property owner, was present to answer questions, and commented that what was proposed in
condition No. 6 regarding the requirement for a landscape plan, would require more expense to
prepare and they did not want to install until work was complete on the house. Commissioners asked
will a fence be installed along the property line; the applicant responded that as soon as the yard is
graded the fence will go in.
Commission noted: aware that there is a water table issue in the neighborhood, a soils report had
been prepared for a nearby property, there is a former creek or pond which runs through that
property, if going to excavate as you propose need engineer to address installing a drainage system;
recommend they get soils report prior to excavation for the basement.
SE Murtuza commented that he had spoken with the applicant regarding the concern over the
subterranean creek and was assured by the applicant that a project engineer has been hired and a soils
study will be done, the applicant will take precautions so dewatering will not affect adjacent
properties or work will be stopped if a problem is seen. The applicant submitted a letter from the
neighbor and noted that the windows will be double hung.
Chairman Deal closed the public hearing.
Commission comments: no problem with the project, but wanted to make the applicant aware of the
water problem; noted that the commission may want to discuss condition no. 6, may not need to
complete landscape installation by final inspection, but need to assure that a minimum is
accomplished; as far as the landscape plan goes, can understand that landscaping is put in last, it is
inherent that they will landscape, shouldn't have to do a plan, it's not appropriate in this context, no
major trees affected.
C. Coffey moved to approve the design review application by resolution finding it consistent with the
design guideline criteria including the following conditions, amended to delete Condition No. 6, the
requirement for a landscape plan: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to
the Planning Department date stamped October 6, 1998, Sheets 1 through 9; 2) that any changes
from the approved plans to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding
dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, changing exterior materials and windows or
-5-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1998
modifications to the first floor exterior walls before or during construction shall be subject to design
review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 2, 1998 memo shall be met;
4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 8, 1998 memo shall be met; 5. that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that the applicant shall install windows in the addition that are
consistent with the design and size of existing windows in the residence; and 7) that the applicant
shall correct the Section B on sheet 8 to reflect the elimination of the 4:12 pitch at the kitchen
window. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
Chairman Deal noted that he agreed there was no need for landscape plan. Chairman Deal called for
a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review application with amended conditions. The
motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 526 MARIN
DRIVE, ZONED R-l. (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND ROBERT MACOMBER JR.,
PROPERTY OWNER)
.(CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28.1928)
Reference staff report, 10.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration. CP Monroe recommended an amendment to condition No. 4 that the City Arborist
evaluate the elm tree and determine if a professional arborist's report to identify construction
protection is necessary and that he or the Senior Landscape Inspector review landscape plans. The
commissioners noted that in the design guidelines, as the extent of the remodel and size of the
structure increases, the need for landscaping is greater; this is a large addition, would seem that more
landscaping is needed.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 655 Skyway, Suite 110, San Carlos,
applicant was present to represent the project and noted he was available for questions.
Commissioners asked: the applicant is proposing 5 gallon trees in rear yard, will take a long time to
grow, would like to make a suggestion that 24" box trees be used. Applicant noted have not chosen
type of tree, concerned about time its taken to review this project so would accept any
recommendation. There were no more comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented that there is not much landscaping shown in the front, are we talking about
the trees in the back; agrees with concept to provide more landscaping when more is built; would like
to see 24" box trees in the back; would like to see some substantial shrub, in the 15 - 25 gallon range
in the front to soften the edge of the foundations at the front facade and at the corners of the house,
in the small area to the left; the applicant should put hedge across the front to soften the stucco;
regarding comment on back yard, the existing Maple is to remain, to require ten 24" box trees will be
a forest, may be overkill; the trees are needed now, will provide screen now, maybe some could be
removed in ten years when they mature; should plant more than they need and cut down as they
mature.
C. Coffey move to approve the design review project, by resolution, finding it consistent with the
design guidelines criteria and with the following amended conditions:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1998
1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped October 6, 1998, Sheets 1-6 with window and trim detail as shown on Sheet 5; 2) that
any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the
footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s) or changing trim, adding
a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, or changing from two separate garage doors shall
be subject to design review; 3) that the project shall include two single wide garage doors and shall
be separated by a wood post approximately 8" wide; 4) that the existing 18" elm tree located in the
planter strip adjacent to the driveway apron shall be protected during construction as determined by a
qualified arborist whose plans are approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before issuance of a
building permit; 5) that the applicant shall provide 24" box trees, the number and variety to be
reviewed and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector; and 6) that this project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
Comment on the motion:, Think there are too many trees in back yard, 24" boxes are expensive and
will need a permit from the city to remove some in 10 years; condition should be amended so that the
number of 10 is not required but that the Senior Landscape Inspector will determine the appropriate
number of 24" box trees based on the species chosen. Maker of the motion and second agreed to the
amendment of the condition.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review application with
the amended conditions. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedure§ were advised.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT
1008 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (GEORGE W. MCCRACKEN, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 10.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for
consideration. The commission asked staff is difference in the requirement for roof drainage, away
from the neighbors or to the street. Staff responded that its the same requirement, just a different
reference point. A question was raised on the declining height envelope, it is noted that there is an
exception for this project, but there is no information on the base boundary survey, want to ask
applicant how the size of the exception was determined.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. George McCracken, 1008 Morrell, applicant and property
owner was present to represent the project. He noted that the project designer was not present and
he could not answer the question on declining height envelope. Commissioner noted that there are
omissions in elevation points, there is not enough information to determine the declining height
envelope; rear was changed from a simple hip to a cut gable; noted that solution provided is worse
than before; offered a sketch to show how roof could be made to blend; had questions on drawings,
better if designer here since not all information is available.
-7-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
Comments from the floor: Bill McDonald, 1005 Larkspur, stated he is not against the project
entirely, but wants to understand, all homes are one-story in neighborhood, this project has a lot of
square footage and a second story, total change to neighborhood. City Council passed new zoning
regulations which will limit floor area ratio, larger houses will be harder to get but this application
was submitted under the old regulations. It was noted that the project is being reviewed for mass
and bulk under the current design review process.
Don Cory, 833 Alpine, expressed concern for the garage placed 6" from property line, what happens
if neighbor wants garage right next to it, how will it be built and maintained; states garage presents a
cheap appearance as compared to house, would like to see it moved from property line.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: This project is not yet ready to vote on, there are a lot of inconsistencies in
the drawings, the dimensions across site don't add up; not sure how the roof plan works, needs
attention; shows small hip dormer at corner, doesn't match elevations; asked question regarding back
up area, is less than 24 ; would like to see landscape plan since the project represents substantial new
construction, the landscaping shown is minimal; no dimensions given on driveways and walkways,
would like clarification.
C. Vistica moved to continue the hearing to November 9, 1998, and to give direction to clarify and
correct the drawings. The motion was seconded by C. Key.
On the motion: Noted clipped gable is wrong direction and suggested to change back to original hip
design; concerned with landscaping, more extensive landscaping should be provided; to address Mr.
McDonald's concerns noted that property owners have rights defined by the zoning code, if outside
boundaries can ask for variance, must respect rights; neighborhoods are changing, homeowners need
additional space, codes permit expansion, try to protect through design review process; clarified that
the proposed house size is 2895 SF, not 3600 SF; commissioner gave staff drawings with notes
regarding what needs to be looked at, the drawings need to be to scale and agree with each other,
need consistency.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the hearing to November 9, 1998,
The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent) voice vote.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 702
NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JOHN CALVIN, APPLICANT AND JOHN E. & BRIGITTE
ANDERSON. PROPERTY OWNERS) (41 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 10.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for
consideration. There were no commission comments.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. John Calvin, 1316 Mills, project applicant and designer
was present to represent the project, he had nothing to add to staff report but would answer
questions. Commission asked why the detached garage proposal was considered impractical; the
-8-
City of Bur&ngame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
applicant responded that the slope of the lot would require pumping of storm water runoff to be
pumped to the street.
Comments from the floor: John Watterson, 716 Newhall Road, Ida Russo, 708 Newhall Road and
Katherine DuFour, 712 Newhall Road, all spoke in favor of the proposal, live in a two-story house
applicant almost has a two-story house, needs the room for his family, two teenaged boys, no
problem to neighbors, deserving; lived on block since 1941, house was there then, lot subdivided into
3 by previous owner; applicant does not leave cars on the street, needs room, want them to stay in
neighborhood.
William Swen and Kay Swen, 656 Fairway Circle, Hillsborough, spoke in opposition to the project
citing loss of privacy in their rear yard caused by this construction 100 yards away; will be able to see
into rooms at rear of their house, Hillsborough not allow second stories in this area.
Commission asked what is the explanation for not providing the detached garage, drainage issue is
not a hardship; noted that design review opens up the garage issue, now is the time to correct, trying
to get good, solid project; regarding the cantilevered second floor, putting a reflector on the support
posts is not an acceptable solution; could extend the lower wall on the first floor and move garage
door out.
Applicant responded that the project does not have anything to do with the garage, didn't want
additional expense; noted that eliminating the posts and cantilevering can be engineered, but it adds
to the cost and prolongs the project; notes that the posts are 2 '/2 feet wider than the garage door.
There were no additional comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: going back to before this lot was subdivided into 3 lots, there was the
ability to maneuver into the garage, that has been lost and garage has ceased to be useable; trying
to find other solutions such as detached garage; has no problem with four bedrooms, need to
provide adequate parking; tried to suggest ways, applicant hasn't met expectations; commission
has tried to establish communication, tried to get a solid project and give direction, applicant not
responding; if you want to add a second story, need to address parking, would favor a detached
garage that could function as a regular garage; concerned with posts and garage, rest of project is
O.K.; regarding neighbor privacy, we don't base our decisions on privacy, zoning does not
address, house in question is two lots away; project is within requirements for parking, posts are
tenuous, but can be corrected, applicant appears to be reluctant to believe we're trying to help; in
terms of mass, bulk and appearance, project is in pretty good shape.
Additional discussion: notes that the applicant has substantially fulfilled requirements of design
review, has an issue with posts, redesign and make it look like it belongs to the house; extending
garage will make it look like it was built this way; sometimes when you do one thing, other
things go along with it; seen the project twice, tried to give direction regarding the garage and
direction hasn't been looked into; posts are a safety issue, if hit the second floor could come
down, would like to see walls extended on the first floor at garage to support bedroom; regarding
the bulk, mass and architecture, applicant has made improvement, could further improve the
in
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
garage. CA Anderson noted that if project were denied without prejudice tonight it would be
subject to the new R-1 regulations.
C. Keighran moved to approve the project, by resolution, for the reasons cited with the following
amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department date stamped September 22, 1998, sheets 1 through 9, and 11 and 12, and
date stamped October 7, 1998, sheet 10, including building materials and exterior finishes, and
the windows shall match the existing window style; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Official's August 24, 1998 memo and the City Engineer's August 24, 1998 memo shall be met;
3) that any changes to the size or envelope of 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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that the garage walls shall be extended to
support the second story addition and the garage door shall be relocated to the new wall extended
from the face of the second floor above and that an automatic garage door opener shall be
installed; and 6) that the washer and dryer remain on the left side and the workbench be relocated
so that the front 18' of the right side of the garage is clear. The motion was seconded by C.
Luzuriaga.
On the Motion: request that the condition be amended to also require an automatic garage door
opener. C. Keighran and C. Luzuriaga agreed to this amendment to the motion. It was noted
tried to see how a single car detached garage would fit, would be tight, think this is an alternative
solution, even though they will have to back into garage. Requested the motion be amended to
add a condition that the washer and dryer remain on the left side and the workbench be relocated
so that the front 18' of the right side of the garage is clear. Cs. Keighran and Luzuriaga accepted
the amendments to the motion.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review application.
The motion was passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Key dissenting, C. Boju6s absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
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) -APPLICATION WITHDRAWN -
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 ALICE L. AHO & JUDITH A.
SCHENKOFSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED)
Chair Deal noted that there was incomplete information on the application and it has been
continued to the Commission's October 26, 1998 hearing.
-10-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1998
APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR A MASTER SIGN PERMIT AT 1155
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND
MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) (45 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 10.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested
for consideration. There were no commission comments.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Alan Coon, 535 Sylvan Way, San Bruno, architect,
was present to represent the project. He clarified his request, wanted one each tenant signage,
one building identification sign, the directory sign and the clock. Did :informal survey what was
typical of sign size on Broadway and Burlingame Avenues; hard to say how big each will be until
up, two styles of type on building identification sign, choose whichever you want; would like to
see all different types of signs, no theme; all will look different, some lit within, others back lit;
directory sign is needed because some tenants at the rear don't have visibility from California
Drive. Commissioner noted generally master sign program is uniform and looks very attractive
like Crosby Commons; would like to see what it would look like if signs were not on the
projected plane of the building, what about signs under the awning providing more identity at the
pedestrian level; would like to see more uniformity; concern about appearance if no standard for
appearance of tenant signs if unknown; how was length of tenant sign determined by architect
based on scale of structure; when on sidewalk under canopy, can't see signage, won't know what
tenants are there, no store identification under canopy; will be a problem, stores will want
window signs, master sign program would have to be amended; likes clock; maybe one building
identification sign is enough.
Applicant noted: wanted to provide contrast of unity and variety, different colors adds to vitality,
unity is in height, location and size of signage; colors would be associated with tenant's logo
identification; will consider fewer identification signs; want direction from commission and will
come back, objective that each tenant has identification, that the building has one identification
sign and that there is a freestanding directory sign. There were no more comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: item should be continued and give direction to applicant to come back
with revised project; agree with one identification sign on Broadway, concerned about business
signs, doesn't want rectangular boxes, 9' length might be too much; agree need signage for each
store, one building identification sign and directory sign; has concern regarding lighting on signs
and size; need to deal with placement of individual tenants signs on fascia versus in windows, this
program is not pedestrian friendly; likes the layout on the building but tenants will need sign
above door.
C. Luzuriaga moved to continue the hearing and action to November 9, 1998 with the direction
given. The motion was seconded by C. Key.
On the Motion: the sign proposal appears nice and subtle, is concerned with letting tenants put
whatever they want in designated space, would like the applicant to explore the possibility of
-11-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
locating the signs lower; would like to see illuminated letters, not by neon, standard color
throughout, perhaps brass with different type styles, reduce the SF of the tenant sign and add
small window signs applied to the glass; afraid it might get too garish with no control of color;
worried about contrast, if a standardized sign is used, then individual tenants could put logo at
door; would like clock to have subtle lighting at night; could reduce each tenant sign and adding
door identification; would like to see uplighting or downlighting (indirect) of all signs rather than
backlit.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the hearing to November 9,
1998. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bcju6s absent) voice vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF 5 OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 636,000 SF OF GROSS FLOOR
AREA AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CARL DANIELSON,
GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GOLDEN CROWN LAND &
INVESTMENT, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 10.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
Draft Environmental Impact Report and noted that at this time we will be taking input from
Commissioners and the public and the information would be forwarded to the environmental
consultant for response in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioners asked: if there are any plans to add a southbound exit on to SR 101 in the vicinity
of the northbound Anza exit; under significant effects, if another project comes in after this one is
completed, will there be capacity available, or would this project stop all future development;
what percent of the capacity of the freeway interchanges will this project and the office project
just completed at 577 Airport Boulevard consume; in Section 4, page 1, there is a discussion of
potential business brought to Burlingame by this project; what percentage of potential business
(economic activity) does this project represent at buildout; when the commission is discussing the
alternatives, can one of the alternatives be chosen over the proposed project; do we have control
over the overpasses and SR 101 improvements; the Broadway interchange is past capacity now,
when we look at the additional trip generation, cumulative impact would require improvements;
and asked what percent of additional office space within the Airport Blvd./Bayshore Highway
area does this project represent.
Additional questions: the DEIR is nicely prepared, reads well; is concerned with southbound
traffic to SR 101; want to know if the commission can pick alternatives; the tables showing
mitigation measures refer to City making some improvements and applicant contributing, how
will City pay for these improvements; would like to compare this project to a completed project
in the vicinity of similar scale to this project, which could go see; is concerned with the impact to
southbound traffic on SR 101; would like see what the landscaping would look like along the
Airport Boulevard frontages; the site is difficult to get to; would like an abridged report on what
lessons the cities have learned as continued to grow, what the unanticipated impacts have been;
the visual impact is called out as less than significant, this could be challenged since the project
exceeds several of the design guidelines; would like to see additional views of the proposed
-12-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 1998
project, from a taller building on Burlingame Avenue, view from the location shown in photo
III/E.2, and a view from the Plymouth/Bloomfield area toward the project, preferably from a
second story; would like a comparison with a similar project in area and height, such as Unysis or
Hitachi in the Oyster Point area; would note the focused egress from the site would meter traffic
and the site is some distance from freeway ramp, are positive points regarding the project
compared to Oracle project.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1998.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken at the City Council meeting on October
5, 1998.
REVISIONS TO FORBES SIGNS AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
Commission had no comments on the memo regarding revisions to Forbes signs at 577
Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4.
Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
NUNUTE.s10.14
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary
-13-