HomeMy WebLinkAbout350 Beach Road - Staff Report (2)�
�
%"� � :\.
�
'�
�"� *ki,�
� �`� yu��n r,,- ..
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The City of Burlingame
CITY IIALL 501 PR1IvIROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
TEL: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
- November 7, 2002
Mr. Dan Levin
Glenborough Partners
400 S. El Camino Real, Suite 1100
San N��teo, CA 94402 "'
Dear Mr. Levin,
At the City Council meeting of November 4, 2002, the Council introduced and scheduled a public
hearing and second reading of an ordinance to rezone the property at 350 Beach Road from the C-4,
Waterfront Commercial District to the O-M, Office Manufacturing District. A public hearing will be
held on December 2, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
��(1����(j� �
Margar.et Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
3506eachlvgsetcca.
c: City Clerk
��; CiTY �
�
�,��
� 06
w+q� ;0
`�P Tfa.wnab•
TO:
DATE:
STAFF REPORT
�GENI3A
TI`EM #
MTG
DATE 11.04.0�
goNo�L� ��ox �vv cr� courrc�,
OCTOBER 24. 2002
�to1v�: CITY PI,ANNER
��rr�D �
BY
APPROVEII
BY _
susaECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 350 BEACH ROAD
FROM G4 WATERFRONT COMI��RCIAL �O 0=M OFF'ICE 1VIANiTFACTURING.
Introduction:
City Council should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to rezoning the newly created
property addressed 350 Beach Road from C-4 district to O-M district. Staff would recommend that this item
be set for public hearing at your meeting on November 21, 2002. Introduction requires the following council
actions.
A Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the ordinance.
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance.
D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed
adoption.
BACKGROUND•
The applicant, Glenborough Partners, recently applied to the Public Works Department for a lot line
adjustment to the parcel at 301 Airport Blvd. in order to sepaxate from the larger parcel the 18,000 SF area
with street frontage on Beach Road. At �ne time the access to the drive in theater was ���.n this location on
Beach Road. The lot line adjustment, approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on October 15,
2002, created the 18;000 SF area fronting on Beach Road as a free standing parcel with the address of 350
Beach Road.
Because this area was originally a part of the larger parcel which had street frontage on Airport Blvd. it was
zoned C-4 Water&ont Commercial despite the fact that the properties on both side and across the street were
all zoned O-IV� Office Manufacturing. The severance of this portion of the larger parcel creates a spot of C-4
zoning in the midst of an area zoned O-M. It was suggested in the environmental document for the project at
301 Airport Blvd. that if this parcel were to be used separately from the larger portion of the parcel with
Airport Blvd. frontage it should be rezoned to O-M so that the zoning and future development of the site
would be consistent with the Beach/Lang Road area.
No project accompanies the request for rezoning at this time. The applicant indicates that they are simply
completing a piece of housekeeping remaining from their previous action at 301 Airport Blvd. In that project
it was suggested that having a main access from Beach Road to a major development on the drive-in site
w�uld be detrimental to the e�sting land uses on Beach and Lang Roads.
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 3S0BEACH ROAD FROM G4 WATERFRONT
COMMERCIAL T'O O M OFF7CE MANIJFACTURING Nove►nber 4, 2002
General Plan Compliance
The General Plan shows the area between Airport Blvd. and US 101 as o�ice use (including the Lang and
Beach Road areas). This means that both ihe C-4 and O-M zones can be applied to implement this general
plan designation. Therefore the change in zoning will not affect the compliance with the General Plan and no
General Plan amendment is required. ,
Environmental Review
The Environmental Impact Report for the 301 Airport Blvd. office project (SCH 98041109) addressed the
severance and rezoning of the portion of the parcel which fronted on Beach Road. Therefore no additional
environmental review is necessary for the proposed rezoning action.
ATTAC�NTS:
Planning Commission StaffReport, 350 Beach Road Rezoning from C-4 to O-M, October 15, 2002, with
attachments
Ordinance
City of Burlingame
Rezoning from C-4 to O-M
Item # t 1
Action CaIendar
Address: 350 Beach Road Meeting Date: 10/15/02
Request: Application to Rezone an 18,000 SF parcel located at 350 Beach Road from the C-4 zone
district to the O-M Zone District (C.S. 25:16).
Applicant and Property Owner: Dan Levin, Glenborough Partners
Lot Area: 18,000 SF/0.41 Acre
General P1anBurlingame Bayfront 5pecific Area Plan: Office Uses
Adjacent Development: Office and Office/Warehouse Use
APN: 026-350-130
Zoning: C-4
CEQA Status: Falls within the scope of Environmental Impact Report No. 98-2P (SCH #98041109
certified by the City Council on August 7, 2000 consisting of:
Draft Environmental Impact Report, September 14, 1998
Re�:i.:��ulated Draft Environmenta��npact Report, January 21, 1999
Response to Comments Document, April 15, 1999
Addendum/Supplement to the Response to Comments Document/November 12, 1999
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report, March 16, 2000
Addendum to Final Environrnental Impact Report, June 21, 2000
Summary: The applicant, Glenborough Partners, applied to the Public Works Deparhnent for a lot line
adjustment which will result in the creation of two reconfigured parcels: a separate 18,000 SF. parcel at
350 Beach Road; and a larger parcel (15.82 Acres) at 301 Airport Boulevard. The applicant is requesting
that the new 18,000 �F parcel at 350 Beach Road be rezoned from C-4 to O-M.
In August of 2000, the City Council approved an office project on the whole site. As a part of that
proposal; the portion of the site fronting on Beach Road was proposed to be developed as a day care center.
The conditions of approval for that proj ect required that a separate parcel be created for the day care center
site, and that the new parcel be rezoned from C-4 to O-M to match the zoning of the surrounding parcels
on Beach Road. Although approval for the office project expired in August, 2002, the applicant Iias
cliosen ta ��dlow through on creating the. separate parcel on Beach Road. The Planning Deparhnent
required that the applicant request rezoning ofthe smaller parcel at the same time as the lot line adjustment
applieation is processed.
General Plan and Specific Area Plan: Both the Burlingame General Plan and the Bayfront Specific
Area Plan designate this property and the surrounding properties on Beach Road for office uses. The C-4
and the O-M zone districts are both consistent with this plan designation. The G4, Waterfront
Commercial zone district.was created to apply to land uses and site development which will benefit from
tfieir proximity to the open water areas of the San Francisco Bay and will be beneficial to the public use of
this irreplaceable natural resource. The O-M, Office/Manufacturing district, was created as an office/light
industrial park area which.will serve as a transition between the C-4 Waterfront Commercial and the M-1
Light Industrial District. In its uses, the O-M District is consistent with the intent of the General Plan to
provide professional and administrative. offices, distribution, service, light industrial and other uses
supported by access to San Francisco International Airport and the adjacent hotel, restaurant and other
bayfront commercial activities. _
Rezoning from C-4 to O-M 350 Beach Road
Since the new parcel will not be directly adjacent to the bay; it is more appropriately placed in the O-M
zone district. In addition, it will be subject to the same use requirements and property development
standards (setbacks, heigh.t, lot coverage) as the O-M zoned properties which surround it on Beach Road.
If the new parcel were to remain zoned C-4, development under the C-4 regulations would be inconsistent
with the pattern of the existing O-M zoned properties in the area, since it would be the only parcel on the
block zoned C-4. It should also be noted that the creation of the new parcel on Beach Road would
preclude.the 15.82 acre parcel from gaining access from Beach Road. This will. help minimize the future
traffic impacts from development of the larger site to the businesses on Beach Road.
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector, the Fire Marshal and the City Engineerhad no comments
on this project.
Study Meeting: At the September 23, 2002 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commissioners
asked if the rezoning will still allow a day care center on the s.ite. Planning staff would riate that the day
care center would require a conditional use pernut in the O-M zone district for "a commercial use similar
in nature to one for which a pernut is required" in the O-M or any.other district (C.S. 25.43.030 (17). A
day care center would also require a conditional use permit on the same basis in the C-4 zone district.
The Commission also asked if the parking requirement is different for a daycare center in C-4 as opposed
to O-M zoning. Staff would note that parking requirements are generally determined by use, not by the
zone, so the requirements would be the same in either district. The O-M district does have a provision that
for class or school use, the parking requirement is one space for each 300 SF of gross floor area, where the
general requirement for a school use is one space for each 50 SF of classroom area.
The Commission asked if this pr.oposal would be considered spot zoning. Since the zoning of this parcel
would be the same as the parcels which surround it on Beach Road, and since the zoning is consistent with
the General Plan and Specific Area Plan designations, it would not be considered spot zoning.
Findings for a Rezoning:
In. acting on the request to rezone the property from C-4 to O-M, the Plauning Comniission sl�ould state the
reasons why they feel such action is appropriate and consistent witb the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Code Section 25.04.010 states that the zoning ordinance is established for the following purposes:
■ to promote pulilic health, safety and welfare;
■ preserve a wholesome serviceable and attractive community which increase the safety and security
of home life;
■ promote harmonious character and economy among property, building construction and civic
services;
■ establish regulations to limit the location, uses, height, bulk, occupancy, lot coverage, street
setback, yard sizes and occupancy of building structures and land;
■ encourage remodeling of existing residential structures; .
■ preserve residential neighborhood character of single family structures and accessory structures
and
■ provide for the best general civic use to protect the common rights and interests of all.
-2-
Rezoning from C-4 to O M 350 Beach Road
Public Not'ice:
A rezoning request requires notice of the public hearing to be made to all property owners within a
500' radius of the site instead of 300'. This application has been so noticed.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be takeri by
resolution and sliould include findings for the record. The reasons for any action should be cleazly
stated. Planning Commission action on the rezoning is a recoininendation to the City Council. The
Commission's action on the lot line adjustment, which should be taken separately, is final with the
Planning Commission unless appealed.
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
c: Dan Levin, Glenborough Partners, applicant
U.•1SR-COMMEI350 Beach Road SR.doc
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Pri�nrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�e_org
���; CITY ��
��+E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�,,..m
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Pernut Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address: �d ���c(-F %�o/ac0
�4-�—i�Tr,�oiV; l7�nr L��^t
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
Name: G�-��/"bORb trG H� ���'�.5 Name:_ S�M�
Address: yO6 5`f -�L C�iin�o ��
sui-r� /� �
City/State/Zip: .5A-n/ M�cr� �� 9�iYo.Z
Photte (w): � � � � �5�3 -q30�
(h): f C SZ� ) �33 - 5� �IOJ � '
(fl: �Cs'o� 3�/3-3719
ARCHITECT/DESIGNEA
Name: �/�
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):_
��)�
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone
�h)�
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
PROJECTDESCRIPTION: JZEZON'E �l2oM C—L/ Ta a1�'1 ��t/
Ct�J�cTIIl1iGT O/li in11 T7-f Lt7T Ll iti� �}-D ST"M�llfr'
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: �����e� 0� n� Date:_ �/ 9�� �
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owner's signature: �,.���� �„ n�- � Date: �/ ��a Z
Date submitted: cl��%�O Z
PCAPP.FRM
September 10, 2002
Ms. Maureen Brooks
Planning Department
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Maureen:
GLENBOROLIGH
REC�����
SEP 1 0 2002
CITY OF BURLINGANIE
PLANNING DEP?_
You suggested that a brief letter might be helpful in explaining our proposed lot-line
adjustment and rezoning application.
As you know, we always envisioned creating a separate parcel of approximately 18,000
square foot at 350 Beach Road. We have decided to do this now by making the lot line
adjustment that is described on the submittals the Public Works Department has reviewed.
The property was always two separate lots and we are simply moving the line that defined
those lots.
Concurrently with the creation of this separate parcel, the Planning Department had always
required that the zoning be changed from C-4 to O-M. This change would make the
zoning of this parcel consistent with all of the other property on Beach Road.
Accordingly, we are processing the lot line adjustment and the rezoning simultane��sL�.
If there are any questions, please feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS
Y G�
BY: DANIEL LEVIN
400 South EI Camino Real • San Mateo, California 94402-1708 • 650343.9300 • fax 650.343.9690
0
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
2
• Would there still be a� variance if the prim ontage of the site were at side facing US 101;
• y is the sign so large, with so much informatio on it (web site, phone n ber), appears like a
billb ard, could be 10% to % smaller and still be vis le from the freeway;
• Does t commission have the uthority to change the pri frontage designation; d
• How large 's the Scuba Lessons si ? Does it meet our signa requirements now?
Since there were no �i-ther comments Chair eighran set this item on the lar action calendar whe all the
questions had been add�ssed and staffhas had a hance to review them and epare a staffreport. This em
concluded at 7:17 p.m.
301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD/350 BEACH ROAD — ZONED C-4 —(GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
A. APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO CREATE A SEPARATE 18,000 SF
PARCEL AT 350 BEACH ROAD. PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
B. APPLICATION FOR REZONII�G FROM G4 .E O O-M FOR THE 18,000 SF PARCEL AT 350
BEACH ROAD PROJECT PLIINNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
CP Monroe presented a s�uzimary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Will the rezoning proposed still allow a daycare center on the 350 Beach Road site;
• Is the parking requirement different for a daycare center in C-4 as opposed to O-M; and
• Is this proposal spot zoning.
September 23; 2002
Since there were no further comments, Chair Keighran set this item for the regular action calendar by the
Planning Commission when all the information has been submitted . This item concluded at 7:23 p.m.
VIIo ACTION ITEMS
VIII.
3.
ConSeIlt Ca ndar - Items on the conse alendar are considere�
separate discussio and/or action is reguested b he applicant, a men
commission votes on e motion to adopt.
There were no items o the consent calendar.
be routine. They are
,Qf the public or a co;
simultaneously unless
eicnrior to the time the
ACTION
II�ATION ON V�HET ER PERSONAL SER�
AND BEAUTY SPAS N SCHETKOWITZ,
QUALIFY A�
LICANT; LOEZ
AII, SALES AT
� LOUISA KAO,
Reference sta report September 23, 2002, ' h attachments. CP Mo e presented the repo reviewed
criteria and sta omments. Commissioners q stions: have any conditi al use pernuts for lth and
Beauty Spas been r uested? CP noted none. What as the recommendation r arding class size wh this
was reviewed before. P noted that the code defines asses associated with a r ail use as three or m e
people, such classes requ' e a conditional use permit in S area A; the purpose of a c ditional use pernut i
so that the class use can be arefully regulated to have the st impact on parking in t area.
2
RESOLUTION APPROVING REZO1vING
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for an office project and
daycare center on this site, which included evaluation of dividing the property and rezoning of an
18,000 SF parcel from C-4 to O-M and this project falls within the scope of that Environmental
Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, application has been made for a rezoning from C-4 to O-M at 350 Beach
Road, zoned C-4. Glenborou�h Partners� portion of APN• 026-350-130 (see attached le�
description, E�ibit "A";
WI-�REAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City ofBurlingame
on October 15. 2002 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission
that:
1. On the basis of Environmental Impact Report No. 98-2P (State Clearinghouse No:
98041109) certified by the City Council on August 7, 2002, and comments received and addressed
by this commission, it is hereby found that the project is within the scope of that Environmental
Impact Report.
2. It is recommended that the Council of the City of Burlingame approve said rezoning �
from C-4 to O-M. Findings for such rezoning are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said
meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copyof this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
C .: 1�7'/�-�►T���l
Planning Commission Resolution 350 Beach Road
Rezoning
I, Ralph Osterlin�, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning.Commission held on the 15th day of October , 2002 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY -
�J
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL TO BE REZONED FROM THE C-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO THE O-M ZONE
DISTRICT
A portion of the Northerly half of Section 18, Township 4 South, Range 4 West, Mount Diablo
Base and Meridian, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point which is due North 540.68 .feet and due West 495.00 feet from the
inersection of the centerline of Burlingame Avenue and the centerline of the siXty foot,right of
way along the beach deeded to the City of San Mateo; thence from said Point of Beginning
South 150.00 feet; thence West 120 feet; thence North 150.00 feet; thence East 120 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
-3-
P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 '�
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE ZONING MAPS INCORPORATED
IN THE ZONING CODE BY RECLASSIFYING
350 BEACH ROAD TO O-M DISTRICT
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced
in Section 25.12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows:
0.41 acres more or less (approximately 18,000 s�uare feet) which is a portion of the
Northerly half of Section 18, Township 4 South, Range 4 West, Mount Diablo Base and
Meridian, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point which is due North 540.68 feet and due West 495.00
feet from the intersection of the centerline of Burlingame Avenue and the
centerline ofBurlingame Avenue and the centerline ofthe sixty foot right ofway
along the beach deeded to the City of San Mateo; thence from said Point of
Beginning South 150;00 feet; thence East 120 feet to the Point of Beginning
and commonly known as 350 Beach Road (a portion of APN 026-350-130), is
reclassified from the C-4, Waterfront Commercial District, to the O-M, Office-
Manufacturing District.
This reclassification is generally shown on the exhibit to this ordinance.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
day of , 2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meetirig of the City
Council held on the day of , 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
-2-
87.00' WIDE STREET DEDICATION
(YOL 5610 O.R. PG. 291) �
A /RP.OR T
' M
�
�
Qa
Z� N
0
po �
�� �
J
S� J
v�
L� N Q
O� J
W� U
{� Q
Qa Q
�o �
�
m
X
w
�
z
W
�
w
�
<
w
W
�
a
Z
Q.
�
0
lil
z
z
a
U
�
Z
0
�
�
¢
m
�
EAST
� ~�"`• 928.86'
�18:00'
1
,
�—�— OLD LOT LINE
1
BOULE.VARD
sa�s.ss• p
..f`' �
Q
�
I W
PARCEL 1 - �� �- �
.t=�CEL � DOC 99Q10885
o J
0
rn O
�
�� �1 m
oi
N
�
�� PARCEL 1= DOC 99010885
c
0
Io
� z PARCEL 2 '
POB Par. 1
t,..-•• EAST 943.26� NEW LOT LINE
�` 394.26' '`' 120 00' 411.00
�18.00' � :oo :o � POB Par. 2
ANZA AIRPORT PARK Z � � Z UNIT NO.� 1 61 f� 21 I
� 2�.�0�
EAST
BEACH ROAD
\
�. �asoos
�3 -02 �
ctw� �,�P
OF CA�tE��
EXHIBIT 6
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
�
�
0
a
�
e
0
0
N
F
lal
W
Lt
� Z
(iJ
a
o ,�
Z
O
��
U �
N
0
W �;
o�
�
W�
Wo
�
<n o
w�
o�
�' J
0
o._
O..�i
.F
�
PAGE 2 OF
oa,rE: os/a2/i
BOHLEY �8�5 so�►-, �� s��-; surrE �so scA�: �-=200'
SAN MATEo, CA 94402
CONSULTIhIC 650-358-1484 • F:4X 650-358-1487 DWG: lLA .
JOB No. 200220
�.
� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 1 S, 2002
and city names where located; only have web site address left. This is a really big sign, not for finding
businesslocation but a billboard. The Hyman sign is the same length as this; but the letters are 22 inches
tall while your logo is 77" and your letters larger than 20 inches. Currently you are parking a semi-truck
trailer with a your logo in the front yard, is that legitimate. Applicant noted the city has approved a 10
space parking lot at the location where the semi is parked (have not yet installed paving); plan to park the
semi sideways so that could have some signage, right now there is none for the building. What is the size of
the truck? It is almost the same size as the sign we are asking for. There were no further comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:. see difficulty in deternvningprimary frontage, others have much reduced signage,
think 70 SF of signage would work well, would like to see this substantially reduced; would bend some on
frontage issue if it would increase flexibility and signage could be done within the code requirements.
C. Bojues moved to continue the item to give the applicant an opportunity to explore wflat signage program
he could propose with a change in the primary frontage and having no variance requests. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran. _
Comment on the motion: Not comfortable with redesignation of the primary frontage, nice to front on US
101 but don't see the extraordinary circumstances called for in the variance fmdings, think should deny this
request.
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion failed on a 2-4-1
(Cers. Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Vistica dissenting, C. Osterling absent).
Further discussion: sign code should hold true for this site, the applicant is trying to make a billboard of the
side of the building, the code does not allow a billboard as it was intended, such an exception is an obvious
advantage to the applicant. The logo is crisp and clear, it could be read at the 45 SF the code allows, do not
see the hardship. Sign is much too large, it is a billboard, even the surrounding signs are smaller, would like
to see comply with the master signage requirements.
C. Brownrigg moved to deny this application without prejudice to give the applicant an opporhu�ity to revise
his request and return. ,,.'�'he motion vr �ts �econded by C. Vistica.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed an a
voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
�' 11. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD/350 BEACH ROAD — ZONED C-4 —(GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (20 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAiTREEN BROOKS_
a. APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADNSTMENT TO CREATE A SEPARAT'E 18,000 SF
PARCEL AT 350 BEACH ROAD
b. APPLICATION FOR REZONING FROM C-4 TO O-M FOR THE 18,000 SF PARCEL AT 350
BEACH ROAD
Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and city staff comments. She.noted that the Commission's action on the lot line adjustment is final
and appealable to the City Council; the action on the rezoning is a recommendation to Counci�. There were
no questions from Commission .
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes
October I5, 2002 'F.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dan L m, represented Glenborough Partners, the property
owner and applicant; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexingto . Applicant was asked where the day care facility would
be located if the site was used for somethin else. The applicant noted that the loti line adjustment had
nothing to do with whether a day care cent would be built, this is a housekeeping matter left over from the
review of the 301 AirporE site; no specif use for the site at 350 Beach Road is proposed at this time. There
were no further comments and the p lic hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved on the facts
rezoning of the site at 350 Be
of 301 Airport Blvd. The re�
Vistica. �
`he staff report that tlie commission recommend to the Gity Council the
Road from C-4 to O-M because it was required as a part of the future use
; is also consistent with the General Plan. The motion was seconded by C.
Chair Keighran calle for a voice vote on the motion to rezone the lot at 350 Beach Road from C-4 to O-M.
The motion passed n a 6-0-1(C. Osterling absent) voice vote. This action is a recommendat�on to the City
Council and is n appealable.
C. Vistica ved approval of the lot line adjushnent to create as a separate legal lot and par i�he property
fronting o L�each Road addressed 350 Beach Road. The motion was seconded by C rownrigg.
�eighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line
at 350 Beach Road. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterlin
ures were advised. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. �
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
it to create a separate
voice vote. Appeal
12. 1637 CORONADO WAY — ZONED — R-1— APPLICATI FOR DESIGN REV�W FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (JENNIFER AND DOUG ULRIC , APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
' RICHARD COOK & LOUIS BOBROWSKY, ARCI�iTECTS) (79 NOTICED} PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE KEYLON /
Planner Barber brieflypresented the projeet d�cription. There were no questions of staff.
-�__�._�_ _ __ , �
, ; _
Chair Keighran opened the public
were available to answer any quest
how it is in keeping with the rest o}
with existing house by using same
arohed windows and pediment r�
from the floor and the public 1}ean
�-> .., -
�t. Doug Ulrich, property owner, and Richard Cook, architect,
s. ommission asked architect to explain voeabulary of the design and
. neighborhood. Architect noted that they tried to tie together addition
iish materials and tieing bay window elements together. Introduced
radd interest and break up the mass. There were no other comments
was closed. /
Planning Commission had e following comments and concerns:
• Looks Iike 2 diff nt houses with differsnt elements, e�sting
carried tlu-ough o second level, second story doesn't go with
• Concern with all vertical element at the rear, very boxy;
• Small amou t of square footage added, but looks large;
• Appreciat that addition is pushed back, not over garag ,
• Need to dimension interior and exterior elevations;
• 9 foot plate heights, with 2 feet in between floors is,�
to reduce; and /
is nice elements that can be
and not necessary, adds to height, need
14
' `�
� City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 15, 2002
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dan Levin, represented Glenborough Partners, the property
owner and applicant; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington. Applicant was asked where the day care facility would
be located if the site was used for something else: The applicant noted tfiat the lot line adjustment had
nothing to do with whether a day care center would be built, this is a housekeeping matter left over from the
review of the 301 Airport site; no specific use for the site at 350 Beach Road is proposed at this time. There
were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved on the facts in the staff report that the commission recommend to the City Council the
rezoning of the site at 350 Beach Road from C-4 to O-M because it was required as a part of the future use
of 301 Airport Blvd. The rezoning is also consistent with the General Plan. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to rezone the lot at 350 Beach Road from C-4 to O-M.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. This action is a recommendation to the City
Council and is not appealable.
C. �%istica moved approval of the lot line adjustment to create as a separate legal lot and parcel the property
fronting on Beach Road addressed 350 Beach Road. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line adjustment to create a separate
parcel at 350 Beach Road_ The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 1030 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
12. 1637 CORONADO WAY — ZONED — R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (JENNIFER AND DOUG ULRICH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
RICHARD COOK & LOLTIS BOBROWSKY, ARCHITECTS) (79 NOTICED) PROJEGT PLANNER:
CATHERINE KEYLON
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
-,,;,;�-- -
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Doug Ulrich, property owner, and Richard Cook, architect,
were available to answer any questions. Commission asked architect to explain vocabulary of the design and
how it is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Architect noted that they tried to tie together addition
with existing house by using same finish materials and tieing bay window elements together. Introduced
arched windows and pediment roof to add interest and break up the rnass. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Looks Iike 2 different houses with different elements, existing house has nice elements that can be
carried through to second level, second story doesn't go with the house;
• Concern with tall vertical element at the rear, very boxy;
• Sxnall amount of square footage added, but looks large;
• Appreciate that addition is pushed back, not over garage;
• Need to dimension interior and exterior elevations;
• 9 foot plate heights, with 2 feet in between floors is unusual and not necessary, adds to height, need
to reduce; and
14
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes
October I5, 2002 �
and city names where located, only have site address left. This is a really big sign, not for finding
business location but a billboard. yman sign is the same length as this, but the letters are 22 inches
tall while your logo is 77" and letters larger than 20 inches. C�urently you are parking a semi-truck
trailer with a your logo in front yard, is that legitimate. Applicant noted the city has approved a 10
space parking lot at the cation where the semi is parked (have not yet installed paving); plan to park the
semi sideways so could have some signage, right now there is none for the building. What is t1�e size of
the truck? It is a ost the same size as the sign we are asking for. There were no further comments from the
floor and th ublic hearing was closed.
r�ission discussion:_ see difficulty in deternuning primary frontage, others have much reduced signage,
70 SF of signage would work well, would like to see this substantially reduced; would bend some on
ige issue if it would increase flexibility and signage could be done within the code requirements.
C. Bojues moved to continue the item to give the applieant an
he could propose with a change in the primary frontage and �
seconded bv r', Auran. , �
it explofe what signage program
variance requests. The motion was
Comment on the motion: Not comfortable with r esignation of the primary frontage, nice to front on US
101 but don't see the extraordinary circumsta es called for in the variance findings, think should deny this
request.
Chair Keighran called for a roll vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion failed on a 2-4-1
(Cers. Brownrigg, Keele, Ke' an, Vistica dissenting, C. Osterling absent):
Further discussion: si code should hold true for this site, the applicant is trying to make a billboard of the
side of the buildin , the code does not allow a billboard as it was intended, such an exception is an obvious
advantage to t applicant. The logo is crisp and clear, it could be read at the 45 SF the code allows, do not
see the hard ip. Sign is much too large, it is a billboard; even the surrounding signs are s ler, would like
to see co ply with the master signage requirements.
C. Brownrigg moved to deny this application without prejudice to giv e applicant an opportunity to revise
his request..a�ad=�rn: The motion was seconded by C. Vistic . `
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the moti o deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a
voice vote 6-0-1(C. Osterling absent). Appeal cedures were advised. This item concluded at 1U:20 pm.
11. 301 AIRPORTBOULEVARD/350 ACH ROAD — ZONED C-4 —(GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY R) (20 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
a. APPLICATION FO LOT LINE ADNSTMENT TO CREATE A SEPARATE 18,000 SF
PARCEL AT 35 EACH ROAD
b. APPLICATION FOR REZONING FROM C-4 TO O-M FOR THE 18,000 ARCEL AT 350
Reference staff report October 15, 2002, with attachments. . CP M oe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and city staff comments. She noted that the Commission' action on the lot line adjusfrnent is final
and appealable to the City Council; the action on the rezonin 's a recommendation to Councit. There were
no questions from Commission .
13