Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.06.11 -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 11, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Keighran called the June 11, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran and Osterling Absent: Commissioners Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 11, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were amended to read: “ Item #9, 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE; paragraph 2; Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, architect, present the project and explained that he took over the previous project and tried to preserve the privacy of the neighbor to the north, reduced the second floor from four to two three bedrooms and increased reduced the size and location of the garage.” The minutes were then approved. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Items 4, 2000 Carmelita Avenue, and 11, 1373 Vancouver Avenue, were continued to the meeting of June 25, 2001, because the properties were located within 500 feet of property owned by one of the four commissioners seated for this meeting. If a member of the commission is required to abstain from a vote and must step down from the dais, he cannot be counted as a part of the commission quorum for that vote. Items 4 and 11 were continued because there was not a quorum for these actions. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1860 EL CAMINO REAL #100 – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (LINDA WHITE, UNITED HEALTH CREDIT UNION, APPLICANT; ROBERT G. SARNOFF, ARCHITECT; MARCO CHAVEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: would the ATM machine be open to people who were not members of the Credit Union; the report notes that the present five employees would increase to 8 in five years, but they show 11 offices on the plans presently with the potential of adding one more in the future, why do 5-8 employees need 11 – 12 offices; how did the applicant arrive at the 30 customers a day number; will the lobby of the office building where the ATM is be open during hours the credit union is closed; who was the tenant in this space before, and what did they do, how many employees did they have, is this an intensifying of the use of Suite 100; near my office in San Mateo there are two credit unions, one almost as big as this one and one about the size of four closets, how would this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 2 use and activity compare to those, could staff try to find out. Commission had no further comments on the project. Chair Keighran set the public hearing for June 25, 2001, when all the information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. 2. 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY – ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO OPERATE A “PARK AND FLY” PROGRAM FROM AN EXISTING HOTEL (LARRY BUILTA, APPLICANT; HOST MARRIOTT CORP., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: what times during the day does the hotel expect the shuttle to be run from Thrifty Rent-a-Car to the Hyatt; how long does the hotel expect to offer this park and fly program; does this application depend on permits from the City of Millbrae to allow this long term airport parking use at the Thrifty Rent-a-Car site. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Keighran set the public hearing for June 25, 2001, provided all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. VII. 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. Acting Chair Keighran noted that there were two letters regarding the project at 1320 Skyview Drive at the Commissioner’s desks this evening. She asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. However commission asked the CE if it was within City guidelines to relocate the driveway for this corner property onto Skyview, the CE responded yes. The CA asked if provisions had been made to preserve the trees noted in the letter. Staff noted that a condition could be added to require an arborist's report to establish the condition of the trees, requirements for pruning them safely to allow for the new addition and requirements for protecting them during construction. 3. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Bojués moved to approve the proposed project with an amendment to the conditions of approval to require the applicant to submit an Arborist’s report to evaluate the existing trees on site, determine the pruning needed and now it should be done and to set out the requirements for protecting the trees during construction, to be approved by the City arborist before a building permit is issued. The conditions approved are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 9, 2001, sheets A-1 through A-6, and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s March 26, 2001, memo shall be met; 4) that a licensed arborist shall prepare a report which evaluates all the existing trees on the site and sets out the required protections to be provided during grading and construction, including appropriate City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 3 pruning where it is required for trees adjacent to new portions of the structure, this report shall be submitted to and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of any building or demolition permit for the project, and failure to comply with the protections described in the report during construction shall result in stopping construction and further review of the project by the Planning Commission;and 5) 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. C. Osterling seconded the motion. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions of approval. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 2000 CARMELITA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NADINE LEWANDOWSKI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) This item was continued to the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. 5. 1423 BALBOA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. James Chu, applicant, was present to answer questions. John Gatt, 1421 Balboa Avenue, and Karen Delee-Simpson, 1429 Balboa Avenue, noted that there is a difference in height between the driveway, which the applicant proposes to repave, and the existing fence along the property line shared 1421 Balboa Avenue. Will there be a retaining wall in the 1'-0" side setback to the driveway, none is shown on the plans. Commission needs to consider that speculators can afford to out bid families for these properties and thus increase the cost of housing as well as change neighborhoods with new houses. James Chu, applicant commented that all final building permits will comply with any Public Works requirements regarding a retaining wall. CE Murtuza noted that the need for a retaining wall woul d be evaluated in depth when the applicant applies for a building permit. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted applicant made changes to plans requested by Planning Commission is a good design. Commission has no control over who purchases a property. He then moved to approve the application, 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 1, 2001, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L-1, 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 basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 4 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 conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s and Recycling Specialist’s May 14, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that if required by the Public Works Department, a retaining wall shall be constructed along the east property line within the 1'-0" setback from the left side property line to the proposed driveway; and 5) 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. Auran. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. 6. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SIDNEY HOOVER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BERMAN AND BETSY HAUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Sidney Hoover, designer and applicant, and Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh, owners, were present to answer questions. Mr. Berman spoke addressing the letter from Mr. Cho at 1540 Los Montes Drive concerning a blocked view. He noted that 1540 Los Montes Drive was separated from the subject property by three residences; the bay views from the residence at 1540 Los Montes Drive face east and the subject property is located to the north of 1540 Los Montes Drive; and the subject property has residences on either side that extend at least 8'-0" beyond the proposed addition, so the proposed work will not be visible to 1540 Los Montes Drive. Mr. Berman noted that Mr. Cho is an absentee landlord and that the family renting the residence at 1540 Los Montes Drive did not register any complaints about a blocked view. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission Discussion: at the design review study session the Commission noted that there must be extraordinary circumstances or a physical hardship on a property to justify a variance, on the variance form the answer to this question states "there are no extraordinary circumstances", cannot approve a variance where no justification has been given; the plans are well and done and the design will complement the neighborhood; however, there is no physical hardship to the property to justify a variance; the design of the house is enhanced by extending the side wall into the required setback; the hardship on the property is that the house was built with a side setback that does not comply with current code requirements; the integrity of the design is dependent on the variance; the owner has demonstrated that the proposed addition does not block any views. C. Keighran moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report. C. Auran seconded the motion. Acting Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 2-2-3 (Cers. Osterling and Bojués dissenting and Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 5 Commission comment: there is no problem with a blocked view, the issue is the side setback variance. The declining height exception is all right, fits the design. The applicant should resolve the side setback issue and return to the next meeting. C. Osterling moved to suspend the previous motion and continue the project for two weeks so the applicant can address hardship on the property and justification for the side setback variance. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Discussion on the motion: do not want to see this project prolonged; asked of the CA, if the applicant wishes to appeal the decision, what are his options? CA Anderson noted that if the motion to continue passes, the applicant cannot appeal to City Council, the Commission must act on the project, if the motion to continue fails, and there are no other motions, the previous action stands which was a denial because of the split vote. The applicant can appeal the denial to the to City Council. Acting Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue. The motion failed 2-2-3 (Cers. Keighran and Auran dissenting and Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). The project was denied based on the failure of the motion to continue to pass and the split vote on the previous motion. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 7. 1228 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES DELIA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Michelle Delia, owner, was present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the modification to the porch results in a better over-all design so moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Building Department date stamped January 30, 2001, sheets 3, 3.1, 5 and L1, and on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 15, 2000, sheet G and on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 16, 2001, sheets 1, 2 and 4; with the proposed ceiling height of 12’-0” in bedroom # 1; with the proposed detached garage with an eave extending 1'-6" at the west elevation and a barge rafter extending 1'-6" at the east elevation, an overhang at the front of the garage which measures 1’-6”, and a side setback of 1’-6”; and with the proposed porch showing four full columns extended to a 3'-0" wood shingle wall enclosing the porch and with a 19'-8" front setback; 2) that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to the permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, 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 the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s September 5, 2000, memos 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 was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 6 Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 8. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI AND YOLANDA YEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Johnny Darosa, designer and applicant, was present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the project has improved; the construction materials are more consistent; the cement block has been eliminated from the design; the entrance design issue has been resolved. Acting Chair Keighran moved to approve the application, 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 May 8, 2001, sheets 1 through 5, and sheet T-1, 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 conditions of the December 18, 2000, memos from the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer shall be met; and 4) 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 was seconded by C. Bojués. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 9. 1433 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (WING M. TAM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JASON CHAN, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Wing Tam, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there have been great improvements to this project; nice design. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, 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 May 22, 2001, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 7 sheets A1 through A3 , and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 conditions of the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s March 19, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council ;and 5) 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. Auran. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MIKE WILSON, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public comment. James Chu, designer and applicant, and Mike Wilson, property owner, Cathy Posey, 1208 Cabrillo, commented. Mr. Chu noted that the design was the owner's choice and the height was kept within the 30 foot code requirements, like the trill work but open to commission suggestion. Neighbor Cathy Posey, 1208 Cabrillo Avenue, noted a concern about the height of the proposed residence and the fact it would cut off the light to her property on the south side of the new project. There were no further comments from the floor.. Commission's comments regarding the design were: • The roof massing is too large; • Can the plate height be increased slightly and the roof pitch decreased to 10:12? explore this option and it may reduce the roof massing and the overall height; • the landscaping shown is foundation landscaping and is located against the house, consider planting an evergreen tree closer to the curb, on the opposite side of the Sweetgum tree, and that may help reduce the massive appearance of the roof. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: applicant should know that this project can be pulled off of the consent calendar at the next meeting if there are additional comments based on the revisions and the fact that there is a full Commission. Acting Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 8 have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cmsrs. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 11. 1373 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NENAD VUKIC, PROPERTY OWNER) This item was continued to the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. 12. 715 CONCORD WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENNETH AND TINA CHURICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Ken Churich, owner, was present to answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this project is well-integrated into the neighborhood; the plans and design show excellent detail and are consistent. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Acting Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cmsrs. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 13. 1419 MONTERO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public comment. The applicant was not present. Acting Chair Keighran recommend the project be continued to a time when the applicant is present; CA noted applicant cannot benefit from a discussion on design if he is not at the meeting; applicant should provide the height for four houses, two on either side of the subject property including 1423 Montero Avenue because it is at the apex of the slope. Acting Chair Keighran made a motion to continue this project for two weeks so that the applicant can be present at the meeting and provided that the height information has been submitted. The item was continued to the next available agenda, provided the requested information was submitted. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2001 9 This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council regular meeting of June 4, 2001 and the Council’s special meeting on June 5, 2001, to review the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget. XI. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES6.11