Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.09.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 24, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the September 24, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. SEATING NEW COMMISSIONERS Chairman Vistica welcomed Cers. Key and Mink. He noted that both Commissioners have served previously on the Commission, for 8 and 25 years respectively, and thanked them for being willing to serve on an interim basis to December 31, 2001. III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Keighran, Key, Mink, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Bojués (arrived at 7:07 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon; City Attorney, Larry Anderson IV. MINUTES The minutes of the September 10, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. V.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item # 3, 1819 Montecito Way, was continued to the October 9, 2001, meeting at the request of the applicant. The agenda was then approved as amended. C. Bojués arrived. (at 7:07 p.m.) V1. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI1. STUDY ITEMS 1. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE (JAN HASEMAN, APPLICANT; BASIM AND LINDA AZAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. C. Auran recused himself because he was the leasing agent for the property. C. Key noted that she knew the property owner and had eaten in his restaurant for years, he had told her in July that this item was going to the Commission but they had not discussed it so she did not feel it was necessary for her to recuse herself from this action. Commission questions: how are the regulations different for this site and use compared to the architects office over Cheese Please or the office use in the Federal Auto Parts building; could staff fill in the missing square footage numbers on page 2; if an in lieu fee is assigned which party is responsible for paying it, the property owner or the tenant; when discussed determination applicant indicated that they would have a one space parking variance, how did it become3; could the applicant discuss the pattern of use of the site, how many employees come and go during the day and how often, how many come and stay all day, how many are part time and what are their schedules, and how would this pattern of movement affect the parking usage; what is the typical length of stay by a client and how many clients are expected to visit each day; how much would the office area need to be reduced to have the on-site parking requirement match that of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 2 the previous retail use. The applicant s attorney noted that he would be unable to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. There were no further questions by the commission. Chairman Vistica set this item for the regular action calendar at the October 22, 2001, meeting providing the information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. V111. 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 Vistica asked if any member of the commission or audience wanted to remove any item from the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2. 1424 BERNAL AVENUE ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JON AND KELLY MC GOVERN, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, staff and commission comments, the findings in the staff report and with the recommended conditions in the staff report by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1819 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (BINEY SAGOO, RYS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN PATEL, PROPERTY OWNERS)CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This item is continued at the request of the applicant. 4. 131 LOMA VISTA AVENUE ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (VINCENT AND DOREEN CAUCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; IBARRA ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) . Reference staff report, 9.24.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Vincent Cauchi, property owner, represented the project. He apologized for the incomplete plans and explained that he looked at various ways to alter the plans but a 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 3 sided turret that is over engineered, there did not seem to be many choices. Not intent to make turret higher, but at present state is 29 6 , has talked with most of the neighbors and they are very supportive of the added height. Always planned to have 2 X 6 tongue in groove pine ceiling inside the turret, insulation is required on top and was left off of the plans, it will add 10 to height, the tile roof will add another 6 . There are solutions to the height problem but they are very expensive. Commission asked: how did this happen when you have an architect and engineer. Owner explained that original plans showed the turret 6 lower than it should be, plans were not drawn correctly, and the over engineering of the seismic support system added more to the height, did not realize this problem until the City Inspector called it to his attention. Commission asked why not lower the beams? Owner stated that the beams are bolted into columns and if you reduce the beams, the steel columns will stick out through the roof. Commission asked if the beams were installed correctly, why didn t you see this mistake before the concrete was poured into the columns. Owner stated that there are options, but at a tremendous cost to his budget. If kept as is, the only area that would be impacted would be the roof line of the turret and the windows at the front of the house; the house could lower the turret 2 feet but would take until December to do and would need a crane to do that. The framing problem was not detected until the inspector came, that was when he researched the fastest way to resolve the problem since he is still living in the house with his family during this construction. Commission asked how the applicant didn t notice a 2 foot difference in the post heights. Owners stated that right now it is only 4 taller than shown on plan. Commission stated that they do not understand how this mistake was not caught earlier when nothing was fitting together, should have noticed. What is out there now is actually going to be 1 -8 taller. Can t you use rigid-R30 insulation, may be more expensive, but will save you 6 . Karen Stern, neighbor at 127 Loma Vista stated that she is not opposed to the new height request project, but does have a problem with the construction; there is no sideyard fence between the properties only a wing of fence; contractor attached gate to her fence pole to enclose construction props the gate open on her property where it bangs in the wind and leaves construction debris in her side yard; would like applicant to put in a fence along the side property lines and to move the gate so it does not hit her fence or house; she asked that a condition be added to this action. Doreen Cauchi, home owner of 131 Loma Vista Drive, stated that Karen Stern was opposed to their project from the start and the police have been involved; as far as the project goes, the height difference was an honest mistake, they have nothing to gain from the increase in height, no view or added floor area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: There seems to be a miscommunication between the engineer and the architect, need to have a better set of plans to understand the changes prop osed for this project, applicant needs to look at alternatives to lower the height of the turret, do not like window changes proposed at the front of the turret, new windows are too big, changes to the side elevation windows are not consistent with the ot her windows shown; surprised that this mistake was not caught earlier, there are options that should be used, need to follow the plans, what is approved should be built as shown, don t want to set a precedent by making exceptions after the project is under construction, especially when there are other options to resolve the problem available, should be done right- this is the reason professionals are hired to prepare the plans, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 4 could look at a different type of insulation to lower the height; need to come back with better alternatives, have architect and engineer present at that time or a letter from them explaining the various alternatives and resolutions. Commission continued: ask CA action options; CA Anderson noted that there are two ways to go tonight; continue item and allow applicant to come back with better alternatives, or take denial without prejudice action which would cause a three week delay to the City Council and may result in a return to Commission anyway. C. Osterling moved to continue action on the project and have the applicant respond to the direction given, returning with another to solution to address the height of the turret and the window configurations. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment of the motion: need better drawings of construction, facades and site plan, need letter of explanation addressing alternatives from architect and engineer, or have them at the next hearing; problem is the project was not built according to the plans submitted and the professionals involved with this project did not do their job, let applicant come back with solution. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 7-0. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. This action is not appealable. 5. 1532 HOWARD AVENUE ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DENIZ SALON, APPLICANT, MATTHEW BOLAK DESIGNER; TIMOTHY FAY AND CAPPIE ALVERSON PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.24.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Keys asked if the redwood doors proposed on the detached garage swing outwards? CP Monroe referred the question to the applicant. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Matthew Bolak, 1505 Cypress Avenue, San Mateo, designer, represented the project. The design of the project was approved several months ago, it is Dutch Colonial. Owners just moved out from the East Cost, and suggested change to the entry to create a focal point, stone at the entry would wrap around the building. After the 1850 s the Dutch Colonials in the Hudson River area had gambrel roof garages, so the roof changes proposed will be more consistent with this style architecture. Redwood garage doors will swing out, and will have automatic opener, this is a common design on the East Coast. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. 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 March 30, 2001, sheets A.1 through A.7, and as amended by sheet A.1, date stamped September 14, 2001, 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 Chief Building Official s March 5, 2001, and the City Engineer's September 17, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 5 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. Bojués. Comment on the motion: thanked the applicant for positive changes, this is a nice design, will enhance the neighborhood, has a lot of personality. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7 -0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 6. 340 LORTON AVENUE #214 ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A HEALTH SERVICE, (ELIZABETH GRAHAM, APPLICANT; DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 9.24.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Auran recused himself from this item because of a recent business transaction with the building owner. C. Vistica stated that he wanted to know how the parking situation (deficiency) got to where it is today. CP Monroe stated that there are two other health service uses that were granted in this building, and with this proposed use there would be a cumulative .66 parking space deficiency, which according to code rounds up to one space. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Liz Graham, 340 Lorton Avenue #214, business owner, represented the projected. Has been in business for two years at this location. Applicant stated that when she applied for her business license she was not told that she needed a conditional use permit or variance. Applicant recently called Planning Department to find out if someone could work for her when she was absent from the office, this triggered questions by the Planning Department and has resulted in a Code Enforcement case. Applicant stated that there would be a maximum of 6 clients per day, and that it is actually unlikely to have that many, but wanted to cover herself should the business increase. Many of the clients are local members of the community and about 50% walk to their appointments. They are Burlingame merchants and/or residents. There is only one person per appointment. Applicant noted that she also goes off-site to serve businesses for appointments, and is usually out of the office at lunch time. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the health service office use shall be limited to 150 SF at 340 Lorton Avenue, Suite 214, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 30, 2000, floor plan; 2) that the health service office shall have regular business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday; 3) that the maximum number of clients in Suite 214 at one time shall not exceed one person; 4) that the maximum number of employees, including the business owner, in Suite 214 shall be limited to one person; 5) that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 6) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Key. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 6 Comment on the motion: not much of an intensification of the site since the 1980 s, business would only have the owner and one client on-site at one time with a maximum of 6 clients per day, deficit of only of a parking space per day, would like to see enhancement of business in the area. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RAMIN AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, ARCHITECT) Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. C. Mink stated that he had a conversation with the attorney representing this project. Chairman Vistica stated that he spoke with the applicant about the project. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, attorney for the applicants, represented the project; noted that this is an unusual lot; this is the third time this project has been before the Planning Commission. Mr. Diebel, architect, listened to the Planning Commissions comments and the owners have made concessions, hope that the new plans address the concerns. The original location of the garage (attached, under living space) added bulk and mass, made the house look large. Revised project has garage moved to the rear of the lot. Proposal requires a special permit for height due to the slope of the lot. The 34 -10 height is measured from the average top of curb, and this lot slopes steeply up from the street, so the actual height of the house from adjacent grade is not 34 -10 . Plate height shown is exactly what the Commission requested, landscape plan included that screens the house from the neighbors. Gary Diebel, project architect, stated that there are 1920 s and 1930 s homes in the neighborhood, tried to match new house to those homes, and to recently approved houses in the neighborhood. Because there is a driveway easement between the subject property and the adjacent property to the west, need to retain turnaround for neighbors. There is a flag lot at the rear of the subject property that wraps around the subject property on the east side, the garage for this property abuts and looks down on the subject property at the rear; the living space for the flag lot at the rear is located behind the neighbor to the west, so height of the proposed structure would not affect development on the flag lot. Commission asked why the garage was not put on the side of the property with the easement to give more space to the neighbor. Architect stated that the maximum driveway slope is 15%, and the slope on the east side was flater than on the easement side. Commission noted that kitchen roof is flat and does not match the rest of the architecture, can t a pitched roof be added with some tile to match the rest of the house? The architect stated that there is a parapet wall on the kitchen roof that picks up on the Spanish style. If a pitched roof were to be added it would require the windows on the floor above to be smaller, and they would not be uniform with the rest of the windows on the elevation. Didn t feel that a sloped roof would look as good. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments on design: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 7 ❑ Great job on re-design, big improvement; ❑ Appreciate that applicant listened to commission comments; ❑ Special permit for height is justified due to the slope of the lot and integrity of the design; ❑ Flat roof is okay, understand why designed as flat roof, window integrity is more important; ❑ Nice articulation on the elevations; and ❑ Massing is good on this lot, long deep house, not too bulky. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 8. 2849 RIVERA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE (VAN LY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STAN MUI, PROPERTY OWNER) Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Van Ly, applicant and architect, was available for questions. Commission comments on the design: ❑ Doesn t blend with the neighborhood; ❑ Entrance is too grandiose, staircase is out of character and takes over facade with double doors, scale down entrance, should be one door; ❑ Reduce plate heights to 9 feet for first floor and 8 feet for second floor, now they are both 10 feet; ❑ Inconsistency in use of windows, front is Spanish style, rear is 70 s floor to ceiling glass, need consistent window type; ❑ Right elevation glass block is not consistent, out of place, appears to be trying to create interior privacy, but that privacy can be accomplished with landscaping; ❑ Left side elevation is too busy, need to simplify; ❑ O.K. to maximize view potential on left side of house, just simplify and make it fit architectural style; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 8 ❑ Look at houses in the neighborhood, this house doesn t fit, it is out of scale with regard to height and mass, it is quite different, need to make house fit into the neighborhood; ❑ Reduce bulk at the front of the house, reducing plate heights will help reduce the bulk; ❑ Note trees that were removed on plan and existing trees that are out of range of construction and will not be affected; and ❑ Do not use down hill neighbor as example approach it is a poor example of the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 9. 333 LORTON AVENUE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B1 APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, (NIKO LONGMORE, APPLICANT; ROGER BENSON, ARCHITECT; DIANE KOWALSKI, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. C. Auran noted that he had leased this property at one time, but it was over a year ago so he did not feel he needed to recuse himself. Chairman Vistica noted that he had had a brief conversation with the applicant. CP Monroe explained this project comes to the commission because with the removal of a false façade on the front of the building, the work qualifies for commercial design review. Since commerical design review is a new process, the applicant has asked about whether he could begin the interior remodel while the Commission was processing the exterior; in this case we understood no windows or doors in the existing building would be affected by the work done on the interior. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Niko Longmore, the applicant 333 Lorton, and Roger Benson, 4156 Vineyard Avenue Pleasanton, the contractor, represented the project. The contractor noted that at staff s request he had measured the existing basement area and it is about 810 SF not 1350 SF as noted in the staff report. He also noted that it was their intention to patch and repair the revealed façade not restore it; they will in-fill the missing tiles with ones that look as close as possible to the originals, match the profiles and materials as closely as possible, and repaint. The side elevation of the building will stay as it is so that it does not compete with the front, they will add planter boxes and plants along the long side wall of the building to break it up, as well as an awning over the entrance on the side. Commissioners asked a number of clarifying questions and the public comment was closed. Commissioners discussed and noted the following: ❑ applicant should consider how to soften the hard edge between this site and the office building next door; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 9 ❑ applicant can proceed with interior improvements (demolition and remodel) pending action by the Planning Commission , understanding that the Planning Commission does not have to accommodate any effects on the outside created by changes made on the inside; ❑ trust that the applicant will set aside some money to plants trees along the property edge between the project site and office building next door in the driveway/parking area, but will not make this a condition of approval. C. Keighran moved to put this item on the consent calendar for action at the next meeting. C. Key seconded the motion. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next meeting or when any required information had been submitted to the Planning Department. The motion to place the item on the consent calendar passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Commission s action is advisory and is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. X1. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 19, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed with the Commission the actions taken at the last City Council meeting. The Council s request to have a representative committee of Planning Commissioners, Beautification Commissioners and Public Works staff get together to discuss the beautification of Bayshore Highway was discussed. Cers. Bojués, Osterling, and Vistica volunteered. Staff indicated that they would follow up with coordination with the Beautification Commission and Public Works staff. Issues regarding how in lieu parking fee payments are resolved among tenants and property owners were also directed to the City Attorney. CP Monroe noted that the Municipal Code on the City s Web Page is now fully updated; Commissioners might want to spot check their Chapters 22 and 25 to be sure that they are current. XI1. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES9.24