Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.07.10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 1 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA JULY 10, 2000 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the July 10, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES The minutes of the June 26, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with one correction: Page 5; third paragraph, correction to the vote, should read: The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Karen Stone, 127 Loma Vista, requested that item 8; 131 Loma Vista be called off the consent calendar and a public hearing held. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that item 8 would be taken off the consent calendar and would be put on the action calendar. STUDY ITEMS 833 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (PATRICK MATTOS, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; DESIGNER, JOHN CURRY) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: justifications for hardship for exceptions to the zoning code need to be based on hardships which exist on the property, it is unclear in this application what those hardships are, the applicant needs to justify each of his 8 requests in terms of the hardships on the property itself; did staff make it clear that this is an unusual number of exceptions for a single structure and that the exceptional circumstances relating to the property need to be very clear; the applicant should explain why he needs a full bathroom and a fireplace in the garage; difficult to consider so many exceptions when even with the proposed program four or five exceptions could be eliminated by reconfiguring and relocating the proposed structure; without hardships driven by the property itself this is unlikely to be approved; does design review apply to this project. There were no further questions and the applicant was set for hearing on July 24, 2000, if the applicant submits all the information in time for staff to prepare the staff report. This item ended at 7:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 2 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A AND 303/305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA A - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE SEATING AREA IN AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND TO EXPAND THE EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INTO AN ADJACENT BUILDING (FANNY & ALEXANDER, APPLICANT; LORENZ KAO AND LOUISA ZEE KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: if parking were required, how many parking spaces would be required for this food establishment as currently approved and with the proposed addition; how does the size of the proposed restaurant compare to other restaurants in Subarea A; include the Burlingame Station brew pub in the size comparison; there is a contradiction in the application, in the July 5 memo it states that the additional interior space will not be used during the day, elsewhere it states that the area would be available 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., will this new space be available for lunch; the applicant projects 550 people on site on a week end, why so many at one location; where will this number of customers park, the application implies that one half of the customers and employees will take the train, this seems unlikely; see this as a second restaurant, applicant should justify why this proposed use of this retail space will not hurt the retail mix in the downtown area, especially when we have a recent code amendment which protects retail diversity by limiting the number of food establishments in this area; would staff find out the number of customers per hour who visited the frame shop, their hours of operation and how they arrived and departed and compare that to the proposed restaurant. This item was set for action on July 24, 2000, if the required information is provided to staff in time to prepare the staff report. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. 1208 DONNELLY ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B - APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING WALL SIGN (BEVERLY J. FOSTER, APPLICANT; DAY FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: could the applicant provide a better justification why so big a sign is needed; could they provide a color palette; there needs to be a clarification that this is an existing sign; C. Keighran suggested that this item be placed on the consent calendar. Discussion on the suggestion: if this sign is approved at 48 SF can it be changed from a wall sign to a can sign without coming before the commission again, yes; there is a difference between a painted wall sign and a can sign the same size, would prefer a condition that limits this size at this location to a painted wall sign; would be a good idea that if there were any change to the signage program and wall sign this item should come back to the Planning Commission for review. Chairman Luzuriaga placed this item on the consent calendar for July 24, 2000, with the constraints proposed by the commission. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. 340 LORTON #203, ZONED C- 2, SUBAREA B - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING PHYSIOTHERAPY OFFICE (GINA LAROCCA, APPLICANT; DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that the commission had reviewed a similar item for his applicant recently but that there had been a clarification, the applicant is now requesting a conditional use permit amendment to add a second therapist to the existing 374 SF office space. Commissioners asked: the applicant needs to be clearer about how frequently both of the therapists would be on site at the same time, time of day and day of the week, its a lot of people in a small office; think its important that both therapists space their clients 15 minutes apart to help address parking impacts of this use, a condition should be considered. Chairman Luzuriaga placed this item with the suggested additional conditions on the consent calendar on July 24, 2000, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 3 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW - STUDY OF ORDINANCE CHANGES OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the recommendation for commercial design review proposed by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. She noted that the proposal includes criteria for the review and suggests using the same process that is now used for single family residential design review with the modification that there would be two design reviewers selected just to do commercial design review. Commissioners discussed: why should these provisions be limited to only the C-1 and C-2 zones, what about C-3, C-4, O-M and M-1? Subcommittee members noted that they wanted to begin in a limited area to learn from the activity, the bayfront design guidelines provide an opportunity to do design review in the C-4 and O-M districts, most of the sites the commission is interested in are in the C-1 and C-2 zones because they are the core commercial areas and need to be dealt with more sensitively because of their proximity to other land uses; the C -3 zone is very limited and about built out. Staff pointed out that they had looked at 2 2 years of plan check logs and it appeared that enacting this ordinance would increase the commission=s work load by about 20-30 items a year. It was noted that this code work was nicely done and there is a need to move quickly on this ordinance. The group discussed time frame and suggested that the draft be brought back for public hearing and recommendation to Council on July 24. It could then go to Council for introduction on August 7. The proposed ordinance was set for public hearing and action on the July 24, 2000, commission agenda. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that item 8; 131 Loma Vista Avenue would be removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular action calendar. He then asked if anyone in the audience or any commissioner wished to take any other items off the consent calendar. Commissioners requested that item 6, 1470 Alvarado Avenue, and item 10, 2504 Hayward Drive, be removed for clarification. 1341 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WINDOW WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE IN THE DETACHED GARAGE. (RON GROVE, PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) 1420 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (TODD AND CHRISTINE DOW, PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK THOMAS, HOOD THOMAS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) and 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP TO CREATE TWO LOTS (MICHAEL PIETRO, PIETRO PARTNERS, APPLICANT; CHRISTOPHER VEITCH, BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Bojués moved approval of the three items remaining on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each of the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 4 REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1470 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A HOUSE RESULTING IN THE EMERGENCE OF TWO NONCONFORMING SUBSTANDARD LOTS, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGES, AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR THE NEW HOUSE ON LOT B (MICHAEL MORAN AND JOYCE MARTIN, ET AL, OWNERS, JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 7.10.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the staff report. The commissioners had no questions. Chairman Lurzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, architect, and Michael Moran, property owner, represented the project. Commissioner asked at last meeting about adding more storage to the project since this is a three bedroom house with one covered parking space, very small closets and little other storage space. Applicant noted that they did not want to excavate more under the house which would require adding retaining walls, felt that the owners could use the crawl space because it has a ceiling clearance of 6 feet in some places. Concerned that someone in need of additional storage space in the future will dig out illegally under the house. CA noted that a condition could be added that the garage cannot be used for storage. Commissioners asked how this could be enforced; CA noted that it would be done on complaint by the neighbors. Commissioners asked if the area below the house would be rat proofed; applicant noted that it would have a rat slab; commission suggested that they might want to add an access door. Have seen other projects which lack storage, wonder if storage should be added to the design guidelines. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak on this item. Isaac Grise, next door neighbor, commented that he did not know how familiar the commission was with Alvarado and the fact that it is the main access to Mercy High School. Neighbors are concerned about on-street parking because it blocks views of on-coming traffic, would like the applicant to have incentive to use the garage for parking not storage. The applicant responded that this project has a 35 to 36 foot long driveway with a maximum slope of 15%, so it is not as steep as many on the block, and is easily useable for off-street parking. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Dreiling moved to approve the two houses, A and B, one each on the two lots at 1470 Alvarado Avenue with the added condition that the on-site garage not be used for storage which excludes the parking of a car in the garage. This action is taken by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 15, 2000, sheets A1, A4 and L1 and date stamped June, 29, 2000, sheets A2 and A3 (Lot A), and date stamped June 15, 2000, sheets A1, A2, A4 and L1 and date stamped June, 29, 2000, sheet A3 (Lot B), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the on-site covered parking garage shall not be used for any storage which excludes the parking of a car wholly within the garage; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that all existing trees in the rear yards of both lots shall not be removed except for diseased trees which may be detrimental to public safety as determined by the City of Burlingame Senior Landscape Inspector; 5) that during demolition, site preparation and construction of both new houses, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Burlingame=s Storm Water Ordinance by implementing appropriate >best management practices= to ensure the site is well protected and managed to prevent sediment and erosion of storm water runoff. If construction activities take place during the rainy season (April 15 - October 15) the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 5 applicant shall submit a winterization plan for review and approval by the Planning Department to permit construction during the rainy season; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: Need to be careful when we say no storage in the garage we mean storage which precludes a car from parking wholly within the structure. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed 7- 0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 8:03 p.m. 131 LOMA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE (VINCENT AND DOREEN CAUCHI, PROPERTY OWNERS; KEN IBARRA, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 7.10.00, with attachments. There were no questions of staff from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ken Iberra, architect, 44 Milton Avenue, San Bruno, noted that they had provided all the information on the project the commission requested; that Building Department regulations gate the length of time to complete construction in this case it would probably be about 18 months; do not know the construction timing limitations on accessory structures; applicant does not want an additional condition regarding construction timing, they want it done right away, they don=t live in the pool house so the timing there was less critical. Chairman Lurzuriaga asked if anyone from the floor wished to speak on this item. Karen Stern, 127 Loma Vista Drive, June 8, 2000; she noted that this is a street of modest houses with a few two story houses and no Mediterranean, to build a structure with such large bulk is out of character with what is existing; preserve the character of the area; this property owner got a building permit in 1992 to work on his accessory structure and he is still working on it; partially built it has been visible from her house and yard for 8 years, as of May 8 it still had scaffolding on it; need to put a condition limiting the construction time for this house she cited several in the city that had been under construction for years; does not have a problem with a second story if it is appropriate and does not change the neighborhood. CA explained the limitations on the city regarding the building code requirements, the code allows extensions pending regular inspections and penalty fees, city can abate nuisances but not lack of progress. Neighbor noted her concern about the second floor terrace or balcony wrapping around this house, felt it would limit her enjoyment of her back yard. Vincent Cauchi and Ken Iberra representing the project responded. The scaffolding was put on the accessory structure when the stucco was being put on, had an architect who did not know Burlingame rules, has dragged out with a problem with a city tree needing a root block and pool plumbing; if this project is granted it will be completed quickly because they will be living in the house; submitted a petition from 14 homeowners on the block in support; noted that the neighbors are anxious to see the neighborhood be up graded, there is no particular architectural style or character on this block. Commissioner asked how much of the present project was built. Applicant responded none, the pool house is what is under construction and its completion was affected by a root problem that needed to be resolved. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: was not present at previous meeting where this project was discussed but do not see anything in this application which distinguishes this house from the monster house which is the problem which created design review, cannot support this design; saw this on May 8, thought it was close to a good design, worked out details to bring to realization looking good with mass articulated, roof planes, entry not large or bold, agree that there is no prevailing style on Loma Vista; this house will be substantially larger than the houses there but it is within what is allowable in the code, the Mediterranean style is OK; support made modifications asked for, unfair to ask for more City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 6 changes now; also support behind this one 51% because it is approaching an oversized house but there is no massive entry or moldings; notice that the landscaping with the fountain at the front is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, no one has such a feature, much simpler fronts would request that the fountain be removed. C. Bojués moved that the project be approved by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: given discussion will support the motion to approve 50.5%; since the fountain is not consistent with what is in the area would like to see it removed; hope that this house goes up in a timely manner; makers of the motion were asked if they would agree to add a condition to require removal of the fountain from the landscaping at the front, the maker of the motion and second agreed to the added condition. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 15, 2000, sheets A.1, A.2, A.3 and Landscape Plan; 2) that the fountain shown in the front yard on the landscape plan shall be removed and no fountain shall be placed in any portion of the front yard visible from the street; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the residence, which would include changing the size or location of windows, or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s April 10, 2000 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a five minute break. The commission reconvened at 8:30 p.m. 2504 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION (STEVE AND LISA WILLET, OWNERS; BRUCE MCLEOD, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 7.10.00, with attachments. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Bruce McLoud, 1110 Burlingame Avenue, represented the project and indicated he would answer questions. Commission asked on the ground floor at the side of the garage there is a room with an entrance through the garage and an entrance to the outside, but no access directly into the house; applilcant noted intended for a recreation room for the children and to be used as a guest room; given the configuration and the full bath room it would be possible to rent this area, can the tub and shower be removed, applicant noted intend to use the area as a guest room and the full bathrooms in the house are too far away to be convenient; cannot sleep in a room that has direct access into a garage, if you remove that door as the building department will require, you have no direct connection to the house from this room and will not be able to make the addition, architect noted could add a hallway with direct access to the house between the room at the side and the garage; would the garage still be 20 feet deep for parking a car, yes; a hall way from the room to the stair into the house would eliminate the sense of this room standing as a separate unit. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve this application by resolution with the added condition that a vestibule wall be extended across the rear of the garage to the stairway to create an interior access from the room at the side of the garage to the house and that this room shall never be modified or rented as a second unit. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 7 Comment on the motion: CA noted that the condition prohibiting the room at the side of the garage from being leased as a second unit will call attention of future owners to the commission=s concern; a commissioner also noted than that a condition should also be added that there should be no opening between the room at the side of the garage and the garage. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to add such conditions. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report and the three additional conditions of approval: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2000, sheets A1 through A6, and date stamped June 30, 2000, sheet L1, landscape plan, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that a vestibule wall with appropriate fire rating be extended across the rear of the garage to the stairway into the house in order to create an interior connection between the room at the side of the garage and the house in a contained hallway without entering the garage; 4) that there shall never be a direct connection between the room at the side of the garage and the garage; 5) that the room at the side of the garage shall never contain a cooking element or be leased as a separate dwelling unit; 6) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official=s April 3, 2000 memo and the City Engineer=s April 3, 2000 memo shall be met; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m. 1516 CAROL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (TERRI S. LINENBACH AND PAMELA LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS; RAY BRAYER, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 7.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Terri S. Linenbach, property owner, and Ray Brayer, applicant and designer, represented the project. Mr. Linenbach noted that the project was initially submitted in February, the design has been improved, and the neighbors like the proposal. He also thanked the Commission for their help in designing a house which is beneficial to his family and the neighborhood. The applicant submitted a petition signed by several neighbors in support of the project. Commissioners discussed the proposed addition: Commission noted that this project has dramatically changed since the initial submittal and suggested that 6" x 6" wood members be used for the outriggers, as drawn on the plans, the outriggers are too thin and need to be larger. Applicant agreed and noted that there are several good examples in the neighborhood to study. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Dreiling moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 12, 2000, sheets A0 through A7, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the two skylights shall be tinted; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official=s December 13, 2000 memo and the City Engineer’s December 13, 2000 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 8 requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: Commission commented that the design has come a long way and that the design is more cohesive. The front porch works well with the house and supports the request for the front setback variance. This is a learning process for some. The Commission reviews approximately 200 design review projects in one year, and project demonstrates that design review sees things that individual may not see, is pleased with the project. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:52 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 141 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (LARRY MORSELLO, PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT) City Planner presented the staff report. Noted letter from Sue O=Connell, 144 Occidental Avenue, is concerned with the proposed height of the new house. Commission asked staff to require applicants to denote the 30' maximum height limit on plans for future projects. There were no further questions about the project from the Commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, architect, and Larry Morsello, property owner, represented the project. Commission noted that the stairway window on the right elevation should contain decorative wrought iron similar to the windows on the front elevation. Commission asked what portion of the roof extends above the 30' height limit; applicant noted a 10' x 10' area extends above the height limit. Subtleties in the construction will make the project work. For example, a small scale fascia is used for the dormer on the right elevation, if a greater scale fascia were proposed it would not work, suggested using O-G style gutters. Design needs to be carried throughout the house; fascia, gutter and eave details are all important to the design. Commission noted that when the project is resubmitted for review, would like to see eave details, window type and gutter details. Adding the details to the drawings will make a complete submittal. Commission noted that in general a lean set of drawings should be submitted for Commission review so that changes can be made if needed. Suzan Cvitkovic, 144 Costa Rica Avenue, noted that she lives across the street from the proposed project, listened to Commissions= comments this evening for all design review projects, appreciates comments about architectural details, is pleased with the design and use of a detached garage, using quality windows makes the house look nice and fits in with the neighborhood, staying within the same footprint of the existing house. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the design is nice and made a motion to place the project at 141 Costa Rica Avenue on the consent calendar at the next meeting with the direction that the applicant revise the stairway window by adding decorative wrought iron similar to the windows on the front elevation and to provide eave, gutter, and window details which apply to the entire structure. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Commission=s action is advisory and is not subject to appeal. The item ended at 9:05 p.m. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED O-M - STUDY OF AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FOUR-STORY, 77-ROOM HOTEL (SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; LEE GAGE AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 9 Planner Hurin briefly presented the staff report. Staff noted that this project would return as a study item with a revised environmental document. Commission asked if this would be an appropriate time to ask questions regarding the environmental document and a one-way parking lot. Concerned with on-site circulation, hotel customers will have to drive out onto Bayshore Highway and loop around if no parking is available. Traffic study will address on-site circulation. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Anoop Patel, applicant, and Lee Gage, Lee Gage and Associates, architect, represented the project. Architect noted that they had tried to eliminate the front setback variance by reducing the new tower at the front to 49'. The depth of the setback, understood that the front setback was determined by drawing a 451 towards the building, peak of tower at front of building is 49' in height and the building 50', could set tower back to 50'. Commissioner noted that there is a concern with the orientation of the hotel. This area is getting more street life and buildings need to be accessed by people. People will want to access other uses nearby with in walking distance. Would like to see a greater presence of the building on the street, not worried about front setback variance. It is important to have the entrance at the front of the building facing the street. Asked applicant to explain why the entrance is on the side of the building; architect noted that several designs were studied, need to keep in mind the needs of the hotel franchise and owner, felt this was the best solution for the site. Architect also noted that they tried to keep 77 rooms to make the project feasible. Further Discussion: Commission noted that the key to interior design is the location of the elevator and recommended relocating the elevator to a more accessible location; applicant agreed that it should be located closer to the front counter. Commission highly recommends that the building have a greater presence on the street and expressed a concern with the blank wall now facing the street. The lobby and breakfast area are located at the front of the hotel, but also need public function at front door, would like to see front doors from the street, would like to see people from breakfast area. Need to solve traffic circulation problem, if no parking is available customers will have to drive out onto Bayshore Highway and make u-turns at intersections to get back to the parking. The applicant noted that several parking layouts were studied, could reverse circulation so that if parking spaces are not available, customers could drive a short distance southbound on Bayshore Highway and back into the driveway, feels this won’t happen often. Doesn’t mind looking at different orientations, studied L shape building but ran into a problem with the parking layout. CE noted that the current traffic study did not indicate a problem with having two driveways, but suggested not adding more driveways. Commission also suggested creating a driveway loop entirely on-site, with vehicles driving through the porte cochere at the front of the building. This driveway layout would allow vehicles to circle around on-site and not impact Bayshore Highway. CE recommended that Bayshore Highway not be used for circulation. Applicant asked if the Commission would consider a variance for front setback landscaping so that there would be more flexibility to bring the entrance and building closer to the street; noted that the tower was added to break up the surface of the wall, could add more windows to the front of the building in the suites facing east. Commissioner noted the plans show a pedestrian walkway leading to the back door of the building, would like to see pedestrian access to the main entrance at the front not a narrow sidewalk. Commission noted that it is not so important to hide the building behind landscaping. Could do more to the front of the building to engage people. Applicant asked the Commission if they would consider a reduction in the number of parking spaces so that more can be done at the front of the site; Commission commented that they don=t see a need to reduce the number of parking spaces, but could consider increasing the number of compact parking stalls only if serious amenities were added to the project which benefit Burlingame. Staff noted that there is a practical limit to the number of compact parking spaces which can be allowed. Staff also noted that the requirement of one parking space per room took into consideration providing airport shuttle service. Applicant noted that relocating the porte cochere to the front might eliminate several parking spaces; would look into providing 901 parking stalls at the rear when move the building since they are easier to maneuver into. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 10 Commission noted that bringing the porte cochere to the front of the building is important, need to consider people coming to the hotel. The approach here is focusing on vehicles and rooms only, should be on people, street, and users approaching the site. Landscaping around the building is minimal, there is 3'-4' inbetween the building and driveway, encouraged the applicant to look at the environment around the building. Applicant noted that there is saw-toothed shaped landscaping along the side and rear property lines, could shift parking spaces closer to the street and provided more landscaping around the building. Further Discussion: Commission suggested special treatment be given to the fenestration in the dining area, possibly use different windows. Not too concerned with the height of the building, there are other tall buildings in the area. Commission asked the applicant if he considered adding a fifth floor if it would help to reduce the footprint of the building. Applicant responded that the footprint could be reduced by as much as 25% and the landscape area would increase. He also noted that a fifth floor would require the building to be constructed of metal, would dramatically increase the cost of construction, and would not be feasible for the owners. Commission noted that if the porte cochere is relocated to the front and the front setback reduced, this would provide a better pedestrian access, provide a street oriented entry, and improve the circulation at the rear of the lot. Would like to see the public sidewalk in front of the property widened to 12'; could count a portion of the area towards front setback landscaping. The widened sidewalk could then tie into a substantial pedestrian access walkway to the hotel entrance; soft landscaping should still be maintained at the front of the lot. Commission asked staff to contact rental car agencies and provide the number of compact cars rented monthly, should also check the number of compact spaces in other hotels. Feel that the concerns can be solved with the elements of the current project. Applicant noted that the west end of the building could support several 901 compact spaces. Commission commented that this building needs a face, not just painted on, needs real windows and function. Commission directed the applicant to make the revisions as discussed. When the revisions are complete, the environmental document should be amended to include the revisions and brought back to the Commission as a study item. The applicant noted that he appreciated this process which gave him and the architect an opportunity to discuss the project; feels that Commission=s direction is clear. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. This item concluded at 9:46 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS -REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 5, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed the actions taken at the regular Council meeting of July 5, 2000. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. -STATUS OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL INITIATED PLANNING PROJECTS. Reviewed staff report which listed a number of Planning projects initiated by either the City Council or Commission. Discussed priority among them. Consensus was that should proceed this summer on the second dwelling unit amnesty program in order to complete a major work program in the Housing Element; should complete work on the residential design guidelines, including getting them approve d by City Council; should continue work in a timely fashion on instituting commercial design review, the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee will meet to develop a counter handout to illustrate the commercial criteria before the Commission public hearing on the text on July 24, 2000; staff has had the General Plan documents scanned, will reformat them and Commission agreed to review each element with staff to determine its adequacy. This process should begin in late August. The commission subcommittee appointed to discuss how basements should be address in FAR measurements will meet next week and then report to the commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 11 -DISCUSS PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY REGARDING FAR AND NON-CONFORMING GARAGES. There was a brief discussion about how the garage bonus is dealt with in calculating FAR. The consensus was that staff should continue to apply the bonus as they have. In addition staff should make it clear to applicants that new or remodeled houses be careful to allow enough square footage for a two car garage on the site in the future, especially in circumstances where the existing garage is nonconforming in dimension. Planning Commissioners agreed that they would assist staff in implementing this policy. This item and the one above concluded at 11:07 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:07 p.m. Minutes7.10