Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.12.14REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 14, 1998 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the December 14, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal None City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Sr. Civil Engineer, Syed Murtuza The minutes of the November 23, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were corrected to read; p. 2, para 4, line 4; The commission asked if a demolitnaffation permit was obtained for removal; page 4, para. 3, line 3; but need to look at calendar; page 6, para. 2, line 4; however, does not matter since 3:12 is within the range; page 11, para. 2, line 7; so he needs to be innovativeed, page 13, para. 1, last line & paga. 2, lines 1 and 2; The minutes were then approved as corrected. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved with continued items noted. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT EXCEEDING 30'-0" FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1145 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BEN BEHRAVESA, APPLICANT AND VICTOR & MARINA CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: If the applicant could provide a photo of the existing building because the photo included on the front page of the plans shows a different cut on the gable than in the drawings, which cut does the applicant want, would like a note on the plans addressing each of the design review comments; could this item be placed on the consent calendar. The item was set for public hearing on January 11, 1999, to be placed on the consent calendar. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14. 1998 could this item be placed on the consent calendar. The item was set for public hearing on January 11, 1999, to be placed on the consent calendar. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1405 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MARK J. TOPETCHER, APPLICANT AND TONY & CIRINA IPPOLITO, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: could staff calculate the square footage of the front porch, bay windows, covered archway to the garage and indicate what percentage these are of lot coverage; the applicant indicates that the basement ceiling height is 7 feet, which is less than required for habitable area, how is this area included in determining the total square footage of the structure; why did staff count only three bedrooms it appears that the area called office space and the area where the kitchen is being removed both qualify under the zoning definition for bedroom; has the applicant considered making the garage bigger to accommodate two cars because this is a 3300 SF plus house with one covered parking space; area called a basement is not really a basement by zoning code definition, all the space is developed and being used, we need a site plan which shows elevations so that we can calculate the declining height envelope, the present plans show a 16 foot drop on the site on one plan and another indicates the lot is flat, need to establish a point of departure elevation for declining height; should add the chimneys to all elevations, would like to see a roof plan; bulky addition with the family room ceiling height and big windows, is out of scale and proportion to the house, especially with the amount of square footage being added, could not follow the reasons for the variance, want to keep the architecture and scale of the house, what does this mean; also note addition is "none existent" from the street what does this mean, they do have neighbors; in finding "d" they refer to "insure", what does that mean. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, if all the information needed is submitted to the planning staff in time. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1011 TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (DEMETRIUS DINTCHO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: looked for spot elevations on the plans to see if the drawings coordinate, should be provided; setting the elevations would not help nee make decision even if site slopes slightl;1 because it is a one story addition do not need to calculate declining height envelope; it is expensive to prepare spot elevations, unnecessary exdense for a one story building; would like to see, it is a required part of an application. Chair asked CA how commission could determine what to direct applicant to do. CA Anderson advised that the chair could ask for a consensus of the commission and let that determine what to ask the applicant to provide. Consensus was that the Commissioners could make their decision without additional spot elevations because this was a one. story addition on a Iot that appeared to be virtually flat at field inspection and not subject to declining height. Could this item be placed on the consent calendar. The public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, with the item to be placed on the consent calendar. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Conunission Minutes December 14, 1998 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-l. (JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN., APPLICANT AND ROBERT KOTMEL & MAJA NELSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: applicant states in their conditional use permit request that the washer and dryer in the garage is optional, where is it now and do they want it in the garage or not; where and what is the existing utility service to the present garage; new parents why would they want the laundry facilities in the workshop area at the furthest point from the house on the lot, please explain; plans show a new 8 foot fence, will need a fence exception or to lower fence to 7 feet; conditions of approval should be explicit, no shower or toilet, no part of the garage shall can be used for living purposes or ever rented as a second unit; what services will a 2 inch line support; under the new code is a special permit needed for an accessory structure. The public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, if all the required information is submitted to the Planning staff on time. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 9 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND GLENN & ALMA GROSSMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: need a better description of the hardship on the property to expand the 7'-10"; need dimensions on the site plan and a description of existing landscaping; add the dimension between the two car garage and the new addition; is there a solid roof where they show "exiting trellis"; is there an error in the staff report on page 2, existing lot coverage; would like the dimension of the garage eave to eave and what is the proposed depth of the eave on the garage; the bay window at the rear of the house should be better integrated into the house, looks "stuck on"; the rear elevation shows a different overhang than the side elevation, which is correct; plans should be redrawn to show overhang to correct scale; plans shows house on adjoining property, is its height 25 feet. The public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, if all the required information is submitted to the Planning staff on time. 1 APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 4 STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 535 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3. (KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA, APPLICANT AND JOAN LUTZ. PROPERTY OWNER) _ and r APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FORA 4-STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 535 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3. (KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA, APPLICANT AND JOAN LUTZ, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: would like to know the dimensions of the guest parking spaces and of the storage compartments at the rear of the guest parking; developer should look into providing storage in the garage, is he going to add; one parking stall is disabled accessible, which one, what are its dimensions; would like -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 more information on the exterior materials on the building; what is the square footage of storage provided for each dwelling unit; where will the hot water heater and furnace be located for each unit (show on plans); where will the bicycle rack be located for the resident's use; where will the area for recycling be located, in the basement or on the first floor; need to be sure that there is a condition that the owners cannot store boats or automobiles in the on -site parking; need a larger detailed drawing of the common open space so can understand how big and if there is access to common open space from all units; feel that the project is oversized for the property; not enough on -site guest parking, in this area where parking is a problem; have a problem with the ramp in the garage being only 12 feet wide, how will cars going in opposite directions deal with the narrow ramp; floor -to -floor shown at 8'9", diagram how you will get the required sound insulation, plumbing and other utilities within this narrow area; some balconies are: 2.5 feet wide, are these counted in the private open space calculation; disabled accessible van parking is required which requires a higher ceiling height, where will it be located. There were no other comments and the public hearing was set for January 11, 1999, if all the required information is submitted to the Planning staff on time. APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION' TO A RETAIL BUILDING AND CONVERSION FROM AUTOMOBILE REPAIR TO RETAIL USE AT 1212 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT AND DAY FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: should show a reduced floor plan, removed mezzanine but also added to structure; when will the appeal of the Saks project be before City Council, January 20; would like commission to consider this item after the Council has acted on Saks; looking for direction from the council for requests like this; would give applicant a chance to attend the hearing on Saks and hear the issues; when are applications for signage generally made; could reduce retail and reduce the size of the parking va-riance; keep seeing parking studies that indicate that there is no parking problem, there is a parking problem, have experienced it, have a problem when don't know when they counted; when look at parking variance, 4 does not seem like much, but look at request as a percentage of the whole number required by the building and it is a lot, 44 %. CA noted that parking standards are set by the Planning and Engineering departments, your personal perception may be different, andk', your decision can be based 'on that perception. In terms of percentage the request is extreme, in terms of numbers its not so bad, if reduce the size would have a big effect; mezzanines are frequently "boot legged" would staff check to see if this area being used now was permitted when it was installed. There wer' no further comments from the Planning Commission and the item was set for January 25, 1999, povided all the information is into the Planning Department on time. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES TO ADD AN ENTRANCE PORTICO TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL/R.ESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 889 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (STEPHEN SUTRO, APPLICANT AND ANN JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report on the project and the commissioners asked: how do you explain the application of the code to this mixed use site; applicant removed this portico area -4- City of Burlingmne Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 in order to get a building permit and now adds it, what is the hardship; are they making a duplex, they are leaving the entrance on California, while creating a new one on Majilla; can they do a duplex in this zoning district; the site is being reviewed under the R-1 code because of the use, correct; the perception is that the applicant is reducing the lot coverage by removing the accessory structure, but that structure is less than 100 SF and does not need a building permit so could be reinstalled at any time; is there a problem with retaining the entrance on California and adding the entrance on Majilla for the fire department, other people would still try to use the California entrance; the design of. the new portico is out of context with the building it needs more compatible design. There were no further comments from the commission and the item was set for public hearing gn January 11, 1999, providing that all the information can be put together for the planning department on schedule. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1644 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1. (H. RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT AND BRYNA ALPINE PROPERTY OWNER) A Planning Commissioner requested the opportunity to comment on the project proposed at 1644 Coronado Avenue, he noted that he had requested the information on the dimension of the parking area in the garage and did not see it on the plans, staff noted that the applicant had written a letter indicating that the cabinets at the rear of the garage would be removed and that would Iengthen the parking area to 25' and make the parking space be 17' x 25', meeting our code requirements for one covered space; and 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) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1998, NOVEMBER 9, 1998 AND NOVEMBER 23, 1998) On 1008 Morrell a commissioner noted that he was sorry about the number of times that Mr. McCracken (the applicant) ad been back and forth with the Planning Commission, it was not the homeowners problem and ,e appreciated the applicants efforts to get the designer's corrections, there are still some minor problems with the plans but not sufficient to affect the design. C. Coffey moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners and applicants comments and the findings in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR CALENDAR December 14, 1999 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 18 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1. (KEN HALL, APPLICANT AND TOM CONDON, PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) - REQUEST TO CONTINUE - NEW INFORMATION REQUIRES CHANGE TO APPLICATION 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 NOTIC:ED) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1998 AND NOVEMBER 9, 1998) Reference staff report, 12.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the Planning Commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Alan William Coon, architect:, represented the master signage application. He noted that the commission had reviewed this request several times, since he made this application he has spent a lot of time looking at signage. He feels that this request deals with almost all the commission's concerns. He felt that there were 9 items: reduce the building identification to one sign; not have any box or rectangular signs; use one color for the tenant (fascia) signs (they chose red); have no visible neon tubing (use neon to back light free standing letters); not allow different type styles in tenant signage; reduce the tenant signs to add small window signs at ground level; reduce the mass, bulk. and sight line problem from the free standing directory sign (propose a pole sign which will be the same height as the Chevron pole sign and lower than the Wells Fargo Bank roof sign); use exterior lighting (have clone on the building "name" sign and the clock by placing numbers and markers directly on wall instead of interior illuminated clock face); took initiative and measured existing window signs of the 70 businesses on Broadway with window signs, 36 are multicolored, half are open neon tubing, 21 % incorporate the business logo, white seems to be the color which reads the best; on Burlingame Avenue the average length of sign is 14'-3"; there are eight font styles on the Crosby Commons building. Ca Deal noted that he had met with Mr. Coon and their discussion covered the facts that he has just presented. Commissioners asked the �a plicant and applicant responded: what type of tenants do you expect, don't know, expect a variet. of retail sales; will the shops be open at night, yes, probably the same as on Broadway closing at 10 p.m.; agree about the face of the clock being mounted on the wall instead of interiorly lit, this is more like other clocks in this transportation corridor; would altering the clock face and indirect lighting be a change, the clock is presented both ways in the staff report, personally prefer the wall mounted face, owner likes the interior lite face; the clock face would be "up-Iit", yes lights project 2 inches from the wall and are directed at the face, similar lighting to that proposed for address sign, the Hillsborough Plaza sign is "halo" lit; would prefer all signs on the upper portion of the structure to have the same type of lighting, can be different from tenant fascia"signs; how will tenant fascia signs be lit, by translucent plastic in front of neon, �ll City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 will be a common color and uniform illumination, not too bright; window signs could be improved with some color will add interest; will the pole sign look like a bright beacon in the sky -there is no sign like that on California Drive and sets up a competition with the clock tower- it is over the allowable square footage and appears to be a grant of special permission, need the pole sign for visibility of all the tenants when traveling on California Drive, building is at such an angle cannot see all the tenants, it will not be 40 SF of bright light, 50 to 60 percent of the sign will be opaque, plastic inserts with letters with fluorescent tubing in side the box to illuminate, will be same height as Chevron sign to give, uniformity; hard to visualize what you are talking about without a picture concerned about brightness and size; what is the difference between neon tubing and fluorescent lighting for the directory sign, use neon to light script because it can follow the letters, fluorescent in box to shine through plastic letters, will not be bright; how tall was the directory sign before this redesign, 13' wide and 16' tall; this pole sign is higher and more visible, do not like the idea of a pole sign; how many tenants will there be, maximum is 8 could be as few as 3 or 4; problem with tenant signs on fascia including 2 SF of logo -resulting multicolor could cause a lot of confusion: CA Anderson noted that recent case law indicates that requiring a standard color without standard font can interfere with copyrights of logos so if you allow different scripts you probably must allow small logos as well, but city can limit to one script and a single color so long as it is the same for all tenant fascia signs in order to strike a balance between the need to attract attention and meet the aesthetic standards of the city. Commissioner questions continued: like to have things spelled out uncomfortable in this case because legal observation is new information although the application has been discussed before; seems as if one type face is set and one color picked then can regulate so long as it applies to all tenant fascia signs, yes. There were no additional comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission continents on the application: feel that on the tenant fascia signs the font should be uniform and one color, and logo should not be allowed; clock face should be mounted on the wall and indirectly lit; window signs can be multicolored and include logos do not have to be white; have a problem with the pole sign, it is not necessary with other signage; concerned about neon, it is gaudy, prefer indirect lighting; signs are too large; goal is to have a signage program which does not make this building look like a strip mall, fluorescent reminds me of strip malls; not in favor of the pole sign there will be a'competition for dominance with Chevron and other pole signs; do not like clock tower; favor uniformity in signage font and color, told in past that this would be a center of art galleries and similar dommercial uses, do not see the need for logo display for such retailers; area known for its charm, Feel that use of neon lighting will take away from that, would like to see simple uniformity brass letters, no logo signs, 20' pole is more than should be allowed, might reconsider if lowered a lot; pole sign sets up a visual competition, too many tenant signs on fascia, some variety works well because of the long line of light that will be visible on fascia; like to see all the signs at the top of the building lit in the same way to create some uniformity on the upper part of the structure; key objective in signage is that the commercial center be successful, have to know it is there, that is the role of signage; this is one of the few commercial developments which could have a real effect on the Broadway corridor, if successful the effect will be positive; if reduce signage in,relationship to the neighboring environment it will inhibit the success of the project; a color logo of 2 SF for each of 8 retailers will have no effect, it is important for the -7- City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 retailers to use their logo; pole sign is a standard sign, so no problem and placement of the monument signs would affect sight lines on California for traffic Ieaving both the Chevron station and the commercial site; lost in the written description of the project, prefer a picture, would like to request a rendering; no problem with neon, have seen a lot, would not see tubing just illumination. Do not want project to look like the gas station; prefer to see tenant fascia signs with exterior illumination; prefer clock face on wall with exterior illumination; no problem with multicolor signs on windows of businesses; pole sign is contrary to design of project, this is a little plaza, did not like the design -of the monument sign before but did tie to the building; if the letters are small enough will not see them from the intersection just get a general idea of what is offered; in most. cases cannot see a business until one is on top of it. Consensus: Suggested that the commission look at the groups of signage and arrive at some consensus about what is appropriate: (1) there was general agreement on the building identification signage at the top of the structure (clock, building ID, address), black letters affixed to the wall, same font, externally lit; (2) the tenant signs (on fascia) same font,. same color, no logos, externally lit in same manner as building identification signs; and (3) the tenant window signs, multi -color with logo 1 SF of 2.25 SF, indirectly lit. There was no clear consensus on the requirement for the pole sign, concepts discussed were change design to become a monument sign with 3' clear from grade at the bottom to insure clear.sight lines at driveways, sign area 5' in width/8' in height double faced with eight 12 inch sign slots on each facie, maximum tenant signage lettering height of 6 inches, allow logo with uniform type font and color for business name, externally lit. Some commissioners felt the pole sign was not necessary at all. Discussion focused on the pole Sign with commissioners noting that if the pole sign was eliminated and the project does not work without the pole sign, the applicant could come back and request an amendment to add one; look at store K, without directory pole sign won't know its there, could be done tastefully; how would signage on directory pole sign work if there were only three tenants in center, CA noted that this sign program applies to the entire building so the tenants could have multiple directory slots, tenant fascia signs, and tenant window signs if they leased multiple tenant spaces. If sign lettering on directory sign is only 6 inches tall for each slot, small enough could allow any color and logo since it would identify destination only. Chairman Deal reopened the public hearing. The applicant noted that in the access easement with Chevron it states that no signage can be closer than 3 feet to the ground in order to provide for needed sight lines for cars at the driveway. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. y Commissioner discussion continued: think all lighting should be 'external including the directory sign; agree with multicolor signage with logo on directory sign, but prefer a signage program like Crosby Commons which is clean, elegant and simple. Prefer that the signage on the directory sign be uniform like the tenant fascia signs so it does not take away from the; appearance of the building; which way will the directory sign face, perpendicular to California, in that case would like all names in same font and color with retailers logos. 91 City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 On procedure the CA noted that the commission could move to take action on the application or to continue it to allow the applicant to bring back another modified proposal to the commission for action. Chairman Deal reopened the public hearing and asked the applicant his preference. The applicant noted that he would like to return to the commission with a revised proposal. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Deal moved to continue the action to the Commission meeting of January 11, 1999, with the direction provided in. the 'consensus taken at this meeting noting that the resubmitted application shall include illustrations to scale of the signage by elevation and .include photographs of similar signs indicating the "brightness" and appearance and the applicant should bring samples of sign materials. The motion was seconded by C. Key. On the motion: It should be noted that in all this discussion the number of signs requested with this revision has not been an issue. Chairman Deal called for a vote on the motion to continue the item to the meeting of January 11, 1999, providing the applicant's material are available to staff in a timely manner. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. He noted that because the action was a continuance it is not appealable to the city council. He also pointed out that the commission's next regular meeting was January 11, 1999, because of the holidays. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A 132-ROOM HOTEL AT 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (ROBERT SAUVAGEAU, RYS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND 765 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LTD. PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 12.14,98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Robert Sauvageau, architect, and Irving Chang, applicant, were present to answer questions. They noted that this project had been before the Planning Commission before, they had worked with city staff and resolved the issues and received the approvals of BCDC, Regional' Water Quality Control Board, and,the US Army Corps of Engineers, all this took time, in addition they were delayed by the availability of qualified contractors in this period of building boom; site for this project is unusual small frontage on Airport Boulevard and "dog -leg shape makes meeting apparent` width. requirements very difficult, also wide frontage on Burlingame Lagoon creates a disproportionate amount of the site within BCDC jurisdiction; provided a bar graph showing that landscaping low in some areas but over all more than required; have complied with the requirements of the Building and Fire Departments; wished to clarify conditions 9 and 21 where changes made before were not reflected. Commissioner asked why they did not ask for an extension within the required time, they noted that it was an oversight on their part. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 C. Key moved approval, by resolution, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the original review and present review, noting that the project was still consistent with its environment and the requirements of the planning department and other agencies, finding that there are no unique environmental impacts or special environmental conditions on the site which are not addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve; the motion passed 7-0. C. Coffey moved approval of the conditional use permits for the 132 room hotel by resolution with the conditions proposed by staff which include the mitigations for the Negative Declaration for the reasons stated in the staff report, that there is no view obstruction and the city's guidelines are met with revisions to condition 9 to change the word "developer" to "property owner" and to condition 21 to add that the condition applies "if gravity drainage is not possible"; the conditions on the project approved are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 12, 1998, Sheets A1..01 through A-10 and Sheets L I and L2; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's November 16, 1998 memos and the Fire Marshal's April 3, 1997 and November 16, 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 building as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 77'-4 '/z"; 6) that the landscaping as installed shall comply with the plant materials, size and form as stated in the Callendar Associates letter of April 18,1997; 7) 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 except that the hotel manager may live on the site; 8) 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 valet parking arrangements; 9) that in the future, as required, the property owner 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; 10) that the hotel shall provide on -site security services and patrol, including the portion of the public access area on the sTpest ; 11) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization acontrol, 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; 12) that the traffic allocation for a 132 room hotel 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; 13 ) that the project shall. meet the requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Lands Commission; 14) that the project shall conform to any seismic requirements of the State Architect's office; 15) that seismic -resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site -specific geotechnical investigations; 16) -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer; 17) 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 that all applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 18) that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season; and future discharge from the site shall meet the applicable Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and storm drain maintenance; 19) that an oil separator shall be installed to reduce pollutants from runoff entering the storm drain system; 20) that project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces, and the office buildings shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation 9.5 feet (+9.5 feet MSQ, or 2.5 feet above possible flood level if a levee should break; 21) that, if gravity drainage is not possible, emergency power for the storm drainage system for this site shall be provided (geologic, water); 22) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material and in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, all utilities and the site shall be repaired; 23) that tide gates shall be provided on the storm drains to keep high water from back -flowing onto the site in high flood periods; 24) that if lateral spreading of the edge of the lagoon should occur while the site is being filled, work shall stop and the project sponsor shall correct the spreading and shall take appropriate action, in compliance with the requisite regulatory agencies, to prevent further damage from occurring; 25) that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion into the adjacent lagoon will be minimal; 26) that backflow prevention for storm drainage to the lagoon shall be provided; 27) that a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at time of permit application; 28) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed; 29) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 30) that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and a BAAQMD permit shall be obtained before a building permit is issued; 31) that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection; 32) that the project sponsor shall provide an airport' shuttle service, which includes connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees during shift changes; 33) that the required parking area shall not be used for long-term parking as a part of a hotel promotion; 34) than there shall be no charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot; 35) that if the fill material or asphalts are to be removed from the site during construction, analytical testing of the removed materials for petroleum hydrocarbons or metals will be required to classify the material for appropriate disposal; 36) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 37) that interior noise levels shall be reduced to a maximum of 45 dBA; 38) that the proposed hotel project shall be required to meet the City's exterior lighting standards, as well as the tree planting provisions of the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance; 39) that if any, prehistoric or historic archeological relics as defined in the Negative Declaration are discovered 'during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as -11- Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14. 1998 determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant, can be implemented; project personnel shall not collect cultural resources; any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similar forms; and 40) that BCDC approval shall be obtained for the proposed development within BCDC jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to construction activities. Chairman Deal advised the appeal procedures. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A 15-STORY, 98-ROOM ADDITION TO THE CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (PAUL SALISBUR.Y, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND HARBOR VIEW HOTELS INC., PROPERTY OWNER) NOTICED) Reference staff report, 12.14.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, Blunk-Dernattei Architects, 1650 Airport Boulevard, represented the applicant; handed out a revised visual analysis showing previous addition and new proposed (redesign) addition; commissioners asked why did building change from previous approval, drawings saw before were conceptual when structural engineer reviewed identified significant seismic issues, problems with posts in below grade parking area, problem of the way the two structures were attached made the proposed design not work. There were no other questions from the commission and no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C: Coffey moved approval of the mitigated negative declaration.by resolution, noting that there were, as stated in the staff report, no changes to the project which would have an additional environmental effect so the previous document and findings stand. The motion was seconged by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the mitigated negative declaration; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. ' C. Coffey moved approval of the revised project amending the conditional use permits including an increased floor area ratio ofa1.84, he noted that the proposed project reduced the number of guest rooms to be added, kept thI parking the same, and would add a 24,000 SF ballroom area, he found that the revised project sits within the confines of the existing hotel and the findings previously made, including traffic allocation still apply, the changes being made are so that the project can comply with strict seismic and exiting requirements which are necessary, the motion includes the following 30 'conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 2, 1998, Sheet DA.I through DA.14, 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 Marshal's January 5, 1998, -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 February 9, 1998 and November 30, 1998 memos, the City Engineer's .January 14, 1998, March 13, 1998 and November 30, 1998 memos and the Chief Building Official's November 30, 1998 memo 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 (73'-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 except that the hotel manager may live on the site; 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 135-room addition to an existing 404-room hotel (114.6 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 Developrrient 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 Y 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 requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 19) that the site shall be -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14. 1998 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) 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 conditional use permit shall be required, and the conditional use 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 seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use permits; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNERS REPORTS REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1998. - CP Monroe revie Wed briefly the Council actions at their last meeting r DISCUSS NEW REVISIONS TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE REGULATIONS. Commission discussed a recently discovered problem with the: wording in two of the exceptions to the declining height regulations, felt that correction should be made; also directed staff to add to the introductory language of the declining height section the method of determining the point of departure and measurement for declining height without an exception. Staff noted that they would try to bring this back for hearing to the Planning Commission in January. It would need to go to City Council for adoption. -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1998 - Special Meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked if they could have a special luncheon meeting on Tuesday, December 29, 1998, at noon. The commissioners agreed and directed staff to prepare the public notice and agenda for the meeting. C. Key indicated that she would arrange the location. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. MINUTES12.14 -15- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary 1