Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.06.22REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 22, 1998 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chair Key called the June 22, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Deal, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Kirk Snodgrass, Deputy Fire Marshal MINUTES C. Bojues moved approval of the minutes of the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as mailed. C. Coffey seconded and the motion carried on a voice vote 7-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Key announced that it was the time for the Commission to elect officers for the year. She thanked the commissioners for the opportunity they gave her to serve as chair for 14 months, and staff for their assistance. She noted that it was a year of long agendas, long meetings and initiation of commission subcommittees because of the heavy work load. She looked back on the year's activities including major zoning changes, establishment of design review and on going study of restaurant regulation and felt a real sense of accomplishment. She then asked for nominations for Chair for 1998-99. C. Luzuriaga nominated C. Deal for Chairman. C. Coffey seconded the nomination. C. Deal was elected chairman on a voice vote 7-0. C. Deal then moved to nominate C. Coffey as Vice - Chair. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. C. Coffey was elected Vice -Chairman by a voice vote of 7-0. C. Keighran then nominated C. Luzuriaga as Secretary of the Commission. C. Vistica seconded the nomination. C. Luzuriaga was elected Secretary by a voice vote 7-0. Chairman Deal took over and continued the meeting. -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS June 22, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1112 CAMBRIDGE AVE., ZONED R-1. (KENNETH & PATRICIA A. MERRIGAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: since this proposal is very close to the line which would make it "new construction" what assurances does the commission have that the lot area, existing square footage of the structure and square footage of the addition are correct; if this variance is granted how would it affect future additions to the house i.e., what would be allowed under current code; document more clearly how the areas were calculated for this project; adding so many bedrooms why not require more parking; design review is new and is concerned about how a project looks, this addition could be integrated into the structure better, looks like a box, exactly like an addition to the main structure not integrated into the design of the house; the rear is 36' wide and 18' tall with no break, there is existing articulation on the front why is there none on the rear; the addition provides no sense of the existing building and could fit the character of the existing structure better. The project was set for public hearing at the meeting of July 13, 1998, providing the applicant could revise the plans and respond to the questions in time. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW ATTACHED DOUBLE CAR GARAGE AT 1540 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TOM PARATORE, APPLICANT AND KEITH R. COULSTON, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: area calculations in planning report and on drawing do not match, which are correct; if so close to lot coverage why does applicant want such a big garage; would like to see a roof plan, how does the roof connect to the house, is it in character with the existing house; how will all drainage be taken to the street; the proposed length of the garage is 20'-2" clear, how will the moment frame be installed at the front of the garage and the 20' interior length be retained. The item was set for public hearing at the meeting of July 13, 1998, if all the information is available in time. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING EXCEPTION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY, 34.-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (NOEMI K. AVRAM, GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT, AND TOP TOYO LOTUS CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 34-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 530 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. (NOEMI K. AVRAM, GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND TOP TOYO LOTUS CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the key points of the revised project and the commissioners asked: do all dwelling units on the second and third floors need two fire exits; what would happen if the corridor at the rear on the second and third floor were blocked by fire; can cars exit at the front of the building if someone is using the loading zone at the front door; why can cars not enter the project from Almer Road; why was the project not designed with the only exit on to Almer Road; have three parking spaces below grade and two at front for guests, is this enough guest parking for 34 dwelling units since there is no on -street parking on El Camino; commission must look at code required parking and neighborhood needs, parking is impacted in this area (Almer and Floribunda) because many multiple family structures built before current off-street parking requirements, how can this project provide better for guests; how will guests access the below grade guest parking; placing a disable accessible parking space at the front actually results in only one guest parking space there; whole configuration at the front of the building is tight, project loads the front of the site, can the front be more open, relocate ;some of the units to the rear; clarify how the property owners pump will drain to the new 8" stormdrain line and how that line will be installed. Item is set for the July 13, 1998, meeting if all the questions can be answered in time. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 345 LORTON AVE., #104, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (M. URBAN, M.D., D. BECKER, M.D., Y. KOSS, M.D., & N. MAVIS, M.D., APPLICANTS AND BOB A. & CAROL J. TESSLER PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented briefly the request and the commissioners asked: because this is an intensification of this use at this site and the area is impacted with parking the applicant should provide a parking study of available on -street and parking lot parking within a one block radius of the site, this study should address availability during the time that the: applicant expects to be operating their business. The item was set for public hearing when the information is available. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONTINUE LONG-TERM AIRPORT PARKING USE AT 615 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (JONATHON S. WU, APPLICANT REPRESENTING ALL PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the request and explained how the temporary permit works in the case of long term airport parking and the commissioners asked: is there a city requirement for number of spaces for an airport parking lot, what dimensions are required for parking stalls; are all the parcels now available for airport parking. The item was set for public hearing on July 13, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVING SCHOOL IN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1300 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, SUITE 195, ZONED C-4. (IRENE B. LEON, OLYMPIC DRIVING SCHOOL OF SAN MATEO, APPLICANT AND FOX INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the request and the commissioners asked: how long is each class; Saturday and Sunday use will overlap with the hours of the movie theater, how will the parking work during this time; how do students get to the site; if the site was conforming to current parking requirements how many spaces would be required; is the school operating on this site at this time, it was on Monday when did site inspection; there are a couple of abandoned cars on the site now, how can these be removed; have we received any complaints about parking with the existing uses. The item was set for public hearing on July 13, 1998, pending all the information being available in time. VIII. 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. 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) (40 NOTICED) C. Key called this item off the consent calendar for a public hearing because of a concern about the access to garage at the rear of the site. REGULAR CALENDAR 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) (40 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 06.22.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 Chair Deal called for a public hearing. John Anderson, 702 Newhall, and John Calvin, Designer/Contractor, 722 Acacia, indicated that they are working on the comments from the Chief Building Inspector; commissioner noted that concern was about the unusual driveway and garage placement which requires backing down a long, narrow drive to park at the rear of the property, garage is not used as a garage; can you turn around at the rear and exit in the forward direction, have a garden at rear cannot turn around if there are two cars parked at rear, but it works for us, do not propose to change it and remodel adding bedroom, study and bath does not require change to the existing parking; have lived in house since 1982 and have backed down driveway; commissioner noted plans unclear from elevations looks like three different projects, what is occurring; show chimney on one elevation, but not on front, show second story cantilever but cannot figure out how addition works with it; contractor noted the main addition is over the existing exterior walls, there is already a cantilever and would continue with bedroom, south elevation shows extension of foundation under cantilever, failed to put chimney on front elevation, should be added; commissioner noted this is an intensification of the use of this property, commission can ask people to add to parking, have you thought about opening up the garage at the front of the property, applicant noted not proposed to do and not required; Commissioner commented on the fact that the drawings were out of sole so hard to figure out what is going on, did applicant get copy of planning submittal guidelines, yes; three-quarters of the information required is not on these plans, this is information the commission needs in order to evaluate a project; the corners are not set, elevations not provided for four corners, no depth dimension for lot, scale is in error since windows and doors not correct heights, no gutters shown etc; cannot make a decision because of lack of information. Kate Shya, 656 Fairway Circle, Hillsborough commented on the application, she lives behind the project in a one-story ranch style house, if add a second story they will lose the privacy of their back yard and all the structures in Hillsborough will suffer the same; Hillsborough is very strict about second story additions; opposed to the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: am unclear about how Fairway Circle is affected since there is another property in between those houses and this house; this is a four bedroom house with a very unusual narrow and long driveway which one must back down and the garage cannot be used as a garage, so asking for four bedrooms without parking; have no problem with what want to do, issue is parking; this is an intensification of the use of this site, the existing garage is not useable, am opposed to a remodel that does not correct that problem; has a nice garden, can put garage at front, remove asphalt in rear and have a bigger garden and get more parking, its an advantage; design review requires compatible parking, there is no parking here, feel needs parking, has a way to provide all required. C. Coffey noted that in light of the comments and the fact that the drawings are not to scale move to deny the project without prejudice and direct the applicant to take the comments into account and provide useable garage and parking and submit plans which comply with all the dimensions and scale requirements on the planning submittal handout. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Canmission Minutes June 22, 1998 Comment on the motion: not consider myself a layman and I had a hard time reading the plans, need to be revised; applicant should consider relocating the garage entrance to the front of the property in the "back" of the existing garage. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice the design review. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, PARKING (1 COVERED SPACE WHERE 2 ARE REQUIRED) AND FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 112 CENTRAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PETER H. DODGE,", APPLICANT AND CHRISTOPHER P. & MARY S. DENTEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) 1(55 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 06.22.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked staff to clarify the dimensions of the one covered parking space provided, staff noted that The width of the existing garage exceeds that required for one covered parking space but the length is too short to meet current requirements, so a variance is needed for dimension. There were no other questions from the commission. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Peter Dodge, architect, 2789 - 25th Street, San Francisco, commented that the Denton's want to add about 1000 SF, tried to make compatible with the house, existing neighborhood and to fit the scale; parking variance is for one car in the existing garage, provided a study showing that the two cars owned by the Denton's could be parked in the existing garage if a larger door were installed; other alternatives were also shown building a new single car garage with a carport at an angle or a new 2 car garage but these alternatives would take up most of the rear yard, decreasing the garden -and recreation area, ask for the variance to keep the fabric as it is, would not add bulky structure at the rear; commission asked would two standard cars fit in existing garage, would not fit but applicant's smaller cars would. Colleen Page, 111 Central; Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline, Susie Kvitkovic, 144 Costa Rica, Howard Page, III Central, Mary Denton, 112 Central spoke: support plans, in keeping with neighborhood, have done a lot of work on house since they bought it and all has been very good; opposed cannot make findings far variance there are no exceptional circumstances on the lot for the parking variance. The lot is flat and like all the adjacent lots; denial would not damage enjoyment of property, bought a two bedroom could add 750 SF without a variance and that would provide additional bedroom; 'would be detrimental to neighboring properties, not providing adequate parking for a 5 bedroom house, there is still additional lot coverage available so could add 400 SF in a family room. without parking if this variance is granted; two other houses under construction to add second stories on Central at this time, they are adding less and are more in keeping with the neighborhood; Design Reviewer did not consider two of the 5 guidelines: window placement to promote privacy, this project has FBI City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 6 windows, a set of French doors and a balcony looking down into my yard, can see into applicant's kitchen now so will obviously have a clear view of this second story addition; and no landscape plan submitted, planting plan indicates addition of a lemon tree, an orange tree and an azalea, it will take 50 years for these to get big enough to screen this addition from her property. Request deny variance for parking prefer the location of the garage in the left rear comer of the lot, this would screen her yard, suggest scale back addition to 750 SF, a level where no variance would be required, and enforce landscape plan requirement for addition, would like upstairs plan reversed, with 6 windows and balcony on front and two small dormers facing rear yard. Additional rear setback to second story normally would be matched by additional rear set back on adjacent property for an increase in total separation between buildings, but in this case the rear of 112 Central abuts the side of the adjacent property at 1527 Newlands so the separation is less (side setback plus rear setback), this is key to privacy issue i.e., rear setback to rear setback provides much greater separation and privacy. Stood in backyard at 1529 Newlands and looked at place where new addition would be when on site the perspective foreshortens the distance; applicant wants everything is providing no parking, bigger house than allowed; why are we considering this, design review is not protecting privacy. These are wonderful people and they have done good things to the house so far, let them continue. Issue is consistency of the neighborhood: there are 10 houses on Central, of the 10, 7 have second stories, 2 are currently adding second stories, three are one story; of the 10, 8 have nonconforming one car garages, one has a two car garage under the house, and one has not parking on -site at all; all the lots are 50' x 100% design reviews guideline number 4 would no allow commission to deny on the basis of privacy alone, will insure privacy with extensive landscaping plan once we know placement of garage, without the variance did not know location of garage so could not prepare plan. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: when look at plat plan of Central this is a unique property, all are not alike, three properties back on to 1527 Newlands, house on the other side of Newlands property was a stable and is set very far back on the lot; have no problem with the declining height exception will have little effect on the existing two story house adjacent:, there are no windows involved; there appears to be no solution to the garage that works except 2 cars in the existing garage, the existing house sits in the way unless the whole backyard is used for driveway and parking; landscaping is a real issue, need fast growing trees that will not lose their leaves, need to be larger when planted so dogs will not destroy; should consider a condition that a landscaping program be approved by the city before a building permit is issued; would like the wooden gate across the driveway replaced with an iron gate which is motorized and opened by a remote control to improve access to and encourage use of the garage behind the gate. C. Luzuriaga noted that housing subcommittee is looking at ways to address situations just like this, want to look at whole project; applicant has gone beyond and above to maintain character, this will benefit the street; need to address privacy issue with mature landscaping; declining height is an existing condition, have to remove side of house to conform; have kept detached garage which will increase light and space between properties and it is good that the project is less than the floor area ratio maximum; and on this basis move to approve by resolution, with -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 the conditions in the staff report and two additional conditions: that a landscape plan with additional screening of non -deciduous 24 inch box trees shall be planted along the rear property line in such a manner to screen the view from the second story of 112 (ventral into the adjacent property on Newlands and that this plan shall be submitted with the building permit application and the effectiveness of the chosen vegetation to become established and screen the view shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector along with appropriate irrigation plans before issuance of a building permit and installation shall be inspected and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before the building permit can be finaled; and that no gate shall be placed in or across the required driveway area. The amended conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 20, 1998, sheets A-1 through A-4, and date stamped May 26, 1998, sheet A-5; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 4, 1998 memo with the May 26, 1998 addendum and the City Engineer's May 4, 1998 memo with the May 26, 1998 addendum shall be met; 3) that a landscape plan with additional screening of non -deciduous 24 :inch box trees shall be planted along the rear property line in such a manner as to screen the! view from the second story of 112 Central into the adjacent property on Newlands, and that this plan shall be submitted with the building permit application; that the effectiveness of the chosen vegetation to become established and screen the view shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector along with appropriate irrigation plans before issuance of a building permit and that the installation shall be inspected and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before the building permit can be finaled; 4) that no gate shall be placed in or across the required driveway area; and 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. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Discussion of the motion: want a larger garage can we require of another owner if future expansion is proposed to this addition, CA noted land use approval cannot be conditioned on ownership; could commission require garage expansion if any future expansion of house, no cannot bind future planning commission or council; feel fine about existing garage with existing garage with four bedrooms, garage is tied to these plans; question potential limit on gate placement, prefer gate not in driveway, in driveway it will limit use since use could result in animals getting out or endanger children, if put off redwood deck not need to motorize, if allow variance want to maximize use of driveway without gate; agree need to increase use of driveway; have put a lot of thought into the addition, follows character on the block, need landscaping adjacent to rear fence; the height of the house next door is same as this, so declining height no issue; great project in terms of building and presentation, problem is parking, not address neighborhood compatibility because so short of parking, need to make driveway as useable as possible; request clarification, CA noted can amend motion to require removal of existing gate; issue of privacy is not one zoning addresses, landscaping is about privacy and can mitigate problem with landscaping. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with two amended conditions. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES J. SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 06.22.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. C. Luzuriaga noted that he would abstain from this item since he lives within the noticing area. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Charles Schembri, property owner, spoke, noting that he had nothing to add to the staff report. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key noted that the front setback is existing, the addition would not change it, the same for the side setback, the structure is already at this location, existing parking dimension is very close to what is required for two cars, observation on site is that the swing of the door does not affect cars parked in the garage, parking fits at the front of the area and the dimension is existing and has been used for a long time; for these reasons move approval of the application by resolution with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 30, 1998 Sheets Al, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject further to design review and commission action; and 3) that the 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. Coffey. Comment on the motion: would like to add condition requiring that the swing of the door be reversed so that it swings out; been in garage it is beautiful and wonderfully maintained; not see existing door to side yard as a detriment, with car in garage can still get door open, most cars in the garage will not extend as far into the garage as the door. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve which passed 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES TO REMOVE EXISTING REAR STAIRS AND REPLACE THEM WITH A NEW REAR DECK AT 922 CAPUCHINO, ZONED R-2. (BENNY & PROCSY M. YADAO„ APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM MAY 11, 1998; REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO JULY 13, 1998 922 Capuchin continued to meeting of July 13, 1998. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 APPLICATION FOR A FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (KAVANAGH ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND MID -PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) (114 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 06.22.98, with attachments. CE and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. CE Erbacher presented the staff report and there were no questions from commission. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. The determined to proceed with the public hearing. public hearing was closed. applicant was not present. The commission There were no comments from the floor and the C. Key made a motion to recommend this map to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend which passed on a 7-0 vote. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for action. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING HOTEL (ADDITION OF 140 ROOMS, NEW MEETING ROOMS AND BALLROOM AND THE EXPANSION OF THE HOTEL LOBBY) AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (EDWARD J. GEE, APPLICANT AND HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (16 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 06.22.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirty conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the date of the site plan added to the submittal, May 18, 1998; in negative declaration the finding for the initial study is not filled in, will be based on commission's decision this evening; does the 8 % landscaping in the parking areas include the parking areas under the building too, yes. There were no further questions. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Edward Gee, architect, 315 Bay Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, represented the project, he noted that the hotel is in place, access is now difficult, to be competitive need expansion of meeting areas and to add ballroom; addition gives an opportunity to enhance the hotel open up blank back to bay views, which will be enjoyed by public spaces and new rooms, provide a more interesting entry, will enhance landscaping on pedestrian walkway access to bay pathway system and provide a better wind break for users, increase the income to the city and applicant. Commissioners asked about indication that lot coverage request was less than previous addition proposal, that is an error requesting 69 % now, previous proposal request 42%; previous proposal had greater FAR because added a two story parking structure at rear of front entry, this project fills in over existing below grade parking; landscaping within the parking area increased from first submittal for this addition from 6.5 % to 8 %, percentage of all parking areas; in addition increase landscaping in pedestrian access area which is visible from much of new parking area; parking layout changed, why, because BCDC -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 required that pedestrian access to bayfront be retained at 32' in width, this reduced the back up areas to 25' in the front area and reduced available area available for landscaping within parking areas; has a water use analysis been done, no conservation plan will be submitted with building plan and reviewed by Senior Landscape Inspector at that time. Applicant said that they will have some problem complying with condition 27 requiring no more than 45 dBA in sleeping rooms during pile driving, noted that the condition applies to the new rooms when ready for occupancy; how does density of rooms per acre compare with other hotels in bayfront area, Marriott and Hyatt greater, DoubleTree addition brings to same density as existing Crowne Plaza. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted that it may appear to people in audience that the commission spent a lot more time on the residential applications than this major project, but much detailed review has been put into this application in terms of environmental review, project analysis and evaluation, visual and traffic analysis, all professionally and thoroughly done, so most of the commission's questions have been addressed. He then moved to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that no negative impacts on the environment would be caused given the mitigations based on the initial study, comments and responses to comments made on the document and the comments made at the public hearing. The motion to approve was seconded by C. Key. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion which passed 7-0. C. Coffey then moved to approve the application for a 144 room and 19,001 SF of ballroom/prefunction/meeting space addition to the hotel at 600 Airport Boulevard by resolution based on the findings that the addition sits within the confines of the existing hotel and a comparable addition to this property was previously approved by the Planning Commission including the necessary traffic allocation with the 30 conditions in the staff report with the addition to condition one of the May 18, 1998, site plan and clarifying that condition 27 applies to the newly constructed hotel rooms. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: ask for a density of 115 rooms per acre, not largest density on bayfront; 144' height on existing building, so matching is not a problem, in addition to 8 % landscaping in parking areas which is an addition over present, adding; planters in pedestrian walkway to bay access path which will be visible from parking area; filled as much as can for site, FAR 1.73, not detrimental to area, have traffic capacity (Marriott and Hyatt are greater density), lot coverage 69 % been existing for project, been there a number of years and was accepted in two previous approvals, therefore in keeping with the Bayfront Plan; 100' setback where need 144', hard to get, not detrimental, will provide addition to bayfront landscaping to reduce impact, will open up blank rear wall of building to bay views, and increase people's enjoyment of bay from public areas as well as from rooms. Chair Deal called for a voice vote to approve the project with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 18, 1998, Sheet A.1, and May 6, 1998, Sheet A.2, through A.15, and that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 2) that the conditions of the Fire -11- City of Burlingame Planing Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 Marshal's January 5, 1998 and February 9, 1998 memos, and the City Engineer's January 14, 1998 and March 13, 1998 memos shall be met; 3) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and No. trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight; 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that the overall height of the addition as measured from the average top of curb (-3'-8.5" elevation) shall be 144'-0" to top of parapet and mechanical equipment shall not exceed 5 % of the roof area; 6) that No. room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and No. rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes and No. kitchens shall be installed in any rooms; 7) that guests, visitors or employees may not be charged for the use of on -site parking without review and permission of the city, this would include all valet parking arrangements; 8) that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east -west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on -site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; 9) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 10) that the traffic allocation for a 140-roam addition to an existing 404-roam hotel (115 rooms/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of this project shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval expires on the project and if the hotel use is ever replaced by another use; 11) that the applicant shall be required to obtain necessary permits and to meet the requirements of the required permitting agencies including: Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Lands Commission, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 12) that the proposed structure shall be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake; 13) that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1995 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 14) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections and, in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, all utilities shall be inspected and repaired, and the site shall be repaired; 15) that finished floors for the new structure shall be at least 10' above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater to minimize future flooding in the area; 16) that the hotel addition shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation 10 feet ( + 10.0' MSL), or 1.6 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break; 17) that the project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 18) that all runoff created during construction, future discharge and storm drain collection from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, and all applicable -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 19) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 20) that the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 21) Payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Anza area shall be required to mitigate cumulative traffic and circulation impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 22) that the project sponsor shall provide an airport shuttle service, which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes; 23) that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 24) that if the hotel proposes to charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot, an amendment to the special permit shall be required, and the special permit shall include conditions of approval which provide that employees can park for free, that the hotel shall contribute to the City's freebee shuttle service, and that the rates charged for short-term parking shall be limited and the charge geared to penalize those non -hotel guests/visitors who would abuse the availability of parking; 25) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction as stated in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035); 26) that notwithstanding the Burlingame Municipal Code requirements, No. piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 27) that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; 28) that the project applicant would pay a fee to the City per square foot of developed space to offset costs of treating the additional wastewater and its proportional share should the sewer pump station serving this area require resizing; 29) that should any cultural, archeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated, and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified :professionals acceptable to the City, can be implemented; and 30) that Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion was approved on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A KITCHEN APPLIANCE SHOWROOM AND TRAINING FACILITY AT 877 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED O-M. (LARRY LAMPKINS, DACOR INC., APPLICANT AIVD GUNNAR HAWK, PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 06.22.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioners had no questions on the staff report. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 C. Key moved to continue this item to the next meeting when the applicant could be present since she had some questions for him on the project. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: no reason to continue, commission has the option to proceed based on the information provided, reviewed response from the applicant it is inadequate, if continue will take time do not need to take, there have been many opportunities for applicant to contact staff regarding the application, he knew he was to be on tonight's agenda. CA noted that the motion on the floor could be amended to an action. C. Key noted she was trying to be kind, she would be happy to drop her motion. Commission noted should give applicant the benefit of the doubt for one meeting, if not appear at next meeting could consider denying the whole application. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item to the next meeting. The commission voted 5-2 (Cers. Keighran, Coffey dissenting) to continue the item. Staff was directed to call the applicant. There is no appeal for this action. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE STORAGE FOR HERTZ CAR RENTAL BUSINESS AT 1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1. (THE HERTZ CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND SEVEN SPRINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (34 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM MAY 11, 1998 MEETING Reference staff report, 06.22.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commission noted error in conditions permit to January 1999 not December 1999, staff agreed CA noted should tie to January 31, 1999; asked what gate was being required to be removed, staff noted the gate! in the fence at the rear between the property on Adrian Road and the drainage easement. There were no other questions from the commissioners. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. James Riche, 33 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, was there representing the Hertz Rent-A-Car Corporation, he noted that they had chosen the January 1999 expiration date to be sure to give enough time for completion of the construction of the car rental parking facility at the airport; commission asked if staff could extend permit administratively if the airport facility was not completed when this permit expired termination, CA stated that staff would not know when airport facility was made available to this applicant and this action will be recorded with the title of the property, the title would be clouded by such an open ended condition; commission noted that if this permit needed to be extended because of failure by the airport, all the applicant would have to do is make an amendment request before the expiration date on the permit; commission noted if an extension was requested it was an ideal type of item for the consent calendar; this request is for 1649, Adrian only, have you made application for use of the portion of 1730 Rollins (adjacent), yes but will involve at least three environmental studies which will take some time; is your attendant on site at 1649 Adrian every day, yes when the keys are left in the cars, if the keys are removed we take advantage of -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 Color Copy's security, attendant is always on site when cars are being moved, this is about 25 to 30 hours a week; will the portion of the site in the drainage easement which is part of 1730 Rollins Road be allowed to be used during the time when application is being made, no Hertz has no permit from the city or other regulatory agencies to use that area; other lots in area are used for car storage, they have permits; this lot is a pay -for -use lot so it is the last lot of the lots available to Hertz (pay a flat fee to Prime Time but pay by number of cars stored to Color Copy); if cannot use the drainage easement, where will you put the cars, originally asked for 210 car storage for both lots, Color Copy will not hold 210 cars, only 100, have a facility on Airport used for moving cars in and out of fleet, it is not heavily used at this time of year, hope to be able to use part of it, have space under the Millbrae interchange until BART needs to use it; can live with the off peak limitation on moving cars, because generally moved the night before for morning rental demand; will the airport accommodate all the cars you now are parking here and elsewhere, have 200 to 2000 cars to park depending on the day of the week (mid -week is the lowest, Saturday and Sunday the closest to 2000), Hertz. does 37% of the rental business at the airport so entitle to 37 % of the space in the new parking facility, total rental business (including moving cars in and out of fleet) requires 3000 parking spaces, this is less than 37 % of the spaces available in the airport facility. Do not know exactly when the airport facility will be available, delayed by weather, now hurrying up on the main terminal, and all available contractors are employed so have a further delay on the car rental garage facility; observed on site visit that the exit doors from the Color Copy building were blocked by rental cars, Hertz needs to keep these clear. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted that this business operates in conjunction with the hotels and airport which serve the region, and we need to be a good neighbor, have not seen any disruption of Adrian Road or of the Color Copy site, not an intrusive use of additional available area not used for required parking, need for this based on our experience with the construction of the Millbrae overpass, for these reasons move approval of the special permit by resolution with the conditions as stated in the staff report noting that the number of cars is reduced from 210 to 100, incorporate change in condition #7 to expire on January 31, 1999 and add a condition that should the applicant return in November 1998 to request an extension because the construction of the car rental facility at the airport is not completed, the staff should place the request on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: when C. Galligan was on the commission he suggested that the city consider requiring this applicant to post a bond insuring compliance as a part of this permit, dismayed that this has come to us as a code enforcement, need to require at least a $20,000 bond in order to get the Hertz Corporation's attention so that they understand that they must get permits and comply with the conditions of those permits or pay a penalty in terms of bond forfeiture if they fail to comply. CA commented that a bond is all right but only the cost of correction can be forfeited. Maker of the motion agreed to the added condition that a bond be posted. How is an appropriate amount arrived at; needs to be large enough to get someone's attention. C. Vistica the second agreed to the amendment to the motion to add posting of a $20,000. bond. Opposed to the request do not like access to the drainage easement via an -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 adjoining property, creates traffic trips not anticipated in the traffic analyzer, impacting critical intersections; conditions will be difficult to enforce particularly restrictions on moving vehicles at peak traffic hours; area is very large could store 1000 or more cars, that too is an enforcement issue. C. Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve car rental auto storage with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Boju6s, Deal and Luzuriaga dissenting). The conditions of approval were: 1) that automobile storage for the rental car facility shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning; Department and date stamped March 25, 1998, Site Plan; 2) that the rental cars shall not be moved to and from the site between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday; 3) that a line demarcating the fire lane and the words `fire lane' shall be painted on the paved surface within the parking area and `fire lane' signs shall be posted on the building; 4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's March 30, 1998 memo shall be met; 5) that the special permit for automobile storage for car rental with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on December 1, 1999; 6) that should the applicant return in November 1998 to request an extension because the construction of the car rental facility at the airport is not completed, the staff should place the request on the consent calendar; 7) that the Hertz Car Rental Corporation shall post a $20,000 bond with the City of Burlingame for the duration of the use permit (January 31, 1999) and that the costs incurred by failure to comply with the conditions of the use permit shall taken from the bonded amount and that the bond shall be acquired within 10 days of the approval of the conditional use permit or the use permit shall be void; and 8) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. APPLICATION FOR A LOT COMBINATION AT 1845-1855 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M- 1. (FREDRIC V. ALLEN, INC., APPLICANT AND F& M PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (21 NOTICED) CE Erbacher presented the staff report on the lot combination request. There were no questions from the commission. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Frederic Allan, 1777 Borel Place, San Mateo, representing the project, said he would answer any questions. There were no questions and there was no further comment from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Key moved to recommend the lot combination map to the council for their approval. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. -16- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes IX. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting of June 10, 1998. ADJOURNMENT Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. MINUTES6.22 -17- June 21 , 998 Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary