Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.10.09 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday, October 9, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the October 9, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Key, Mink, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 24, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1562 CYPRESS AVENUE B ZONED R-1B APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (LILIANA VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO GALDAMEZ, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission questions: could the applicant revise the project to reduce the number of code exceptions required, would like to see a shed that does not: exceed maximum allowable height and square footage for accessory structures; like to see the length reduced so a special permit is not required; what will be stored in the shed; check to make sure the eave detail at the rear property line meets code requirements, no overhang is allowed. Commission gave the following direction to staff: confirm that the odd shape of the lot is what is shown in the assessor's records; does the project require a condition about bringing roof drainage to the street; a condition should be added that requires a property line survey because the new accessory structure is within 1'-0" of a property line. This item was set for the regular action calendar at the October 22, 2001, meeting provided all the information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 2. 1838 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 111 B ZONED C-1B APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (MARY J. WONG, APPLICANT; NOLAN WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 2 CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission questions: the number of clients predicted to visit the site seems low; can staff provide a survey of the intensity of use for other real estate uses in the city both employees and the number of daily clients visiting the real estate location; survey should include current use and use a year, or so, ago when real estate market was more active; can staff also clarify what was the prior use in Suite 111 and what was intensity of use; two Commissioners visited the site during a week day and encountered a full parking lot and full on street parking, feel a parking study is necessary; applicant should provide a new answer for the second question asked on the conditional use permit application because the current answer provided does not address the question. This item was set for the regular action calendar at the October 22, 2001, meeting provided all the information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 3. 1408 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 3 B ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 B APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (MICHAEL NILMEYER AND MCGUIRE REAL ESTATE, APPLICANTS; AC VENTURES ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked where the employees and clients of the real estate use intend to park? Commission directed staff to investigate what year th e house was converted from a residence to an office, how many on-site parking spaces were required and provided at the time of the conversion, and was a parking variance was required and obtained. This item was set for the consent calendar at the October 22, 2001, meeting provided all the information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 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. Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran recused himself from voting on item #4b, 1440 Chapin Avenue, Suite 250. 4A. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 B 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) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 4B. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 250 B ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B1 B APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (HOME MORTGAGE) (DOROTHY LOW, WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE INC., APPLICANT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 3 4C. 333 LORTON AVENUE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B1 B APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (NIKO LONGMORE, APPLICANT; ROGER BENSON, ARCHITECT; DIANE KOWALSKI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar by resolution and based on the facts in the staff reports; the commissioner's comments, the findings in the staff reports and with the recommended conditions in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 1219 Vancouver Avenue and 333 Lorton Avenue and the motion passed 7-0. The motion to approve 1440 Chapin Avenue, Suite 250 passed 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 131 LOMA VISTA AVENUE B ZONED R-1 B 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) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 10.09.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission clarified with staff that the applicant provided no revised plans for the Commission to act upon; staff noted that was the case so the staff reverted to the originally approved plans which had no revisions on them, the conditions address the proposed changes. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Vincent Cauchi, applicant, was present to answer questions. He noted that unsuccessful attempts were made to contact both his architect and his engineer in the past two weeks. Commission asked the applicant: why is there a ditch on the property; have any remedial measures been taken to protect the landscaping next to the ditch along the property line; has the applicant taken any measures to address the concerns of Karen Stern, the neighbor who spoke at the last meeting regarding construction and trespassing issues; is the architect still retained by the applicant; who modified the original plans that were submitted for Commission review and did that person have permission from the architect to modify the plans; the proposed changes will also require modification of the chimney height and this change has not been indicated on the plans; will any other changes to the plans be proposed. The applicant responded that the ditch on the property is to install drainage to the street and will remain open for approximately 3 more weeks; no remedial measures have been taken to protect the landscaping on his property and he is not concerned for the health of the plants because they have not been affected by other construction next to them; he is mindful of his neighbors concerns and attempts to clean the site at the end of each day; the architect is no longer retained, he was paid for the project when the plans were approved almost one year ago; the applicant modified the plans himself because he was not able to reach the architect and he needed to provide something for the Planning Commission review when the height and windows changed; although he change is not shown on the plans the applicant realizes the chimney height will have to be adjusted and plans to install a copper top on the chimney to give it the necessary height, he is working with the building department; applicant has no intention of proposing any other changes to the project. Karen Stern, neighbor at 127 Loma Vista stated that no measures have been taken by the applicant to protect her property from the construction and she is still experiencing problems with the gate swinging onto her City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 4 property, trespassing and debris on her property. She requested that the Commission make it a condition of approval for any action that the applicant shall be made to erect a construction fence to separate her property from 131 Loma Vista. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: don't like to see construction project causing neighbor difficulties and Ms. Stern's concerns need to be addressed by the erection of a construction fence; the applicant's parting comments at the last meeting were not taken well and he has shown little respect for the Commission, the design review process, and the neighborhood; applicant has taken some steps taken to solve the problem, such as neighbor signatures and a slight reduction in the proposed height, but still don't feel that the applicant has shown the proper respect for the regulations of the city; would like to see a construction fence between the neighbors, feel the story poles represent accurately what will happen with the project and have no problem with the new windows, but would like to have a condition of approval stating that the chimney height will be reviewed for Building Department requirements; need to see complete plans showing all changes to scale in order to act on this project; am not comfortable acting on a project without a set of plans accurately documenting all aspects of the project, particularly amendments to a design review action, plans that have not been reviewed by either an architect or engineer; applicant should get a letter from the architect to release the plans to the applicant so that they may be modified; the proposed window changes are not consistent with the house design and draw the focus away from the entrance to the turret; feel the comments and concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting were not adequately addressed; not comfortable with voting on a project that does not have complete plans to document action; would still like to know how such a large error occurred on a project that involved professionals; a temporary construction fence should be required; can approve a special permit for the minor increase of 0'-7" over the allowed height; the applicant has shown no respect for the community by disregarding planning regulations and Planning Commission requests; the applicant has not shown the Commission that an effort was made to investigate all means of reducing the proposed height; and the Commission believe there are additional alternatives to reduce the height to 30'-0", such as installing less insulation with a revised Title 24 Report and changing the roof material from Spanish tile to standing seam metal. C. Bojués moved to continue the application so that the applicant can return with complete plans and a letter of explanation from the architect. C. Key seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: the City Attorney suggested that the Commission deny the project without prejudice in order to give the applicant the option of returning to the Commission with the information or appealing the decision to the City Council. He noted that the project is currently under construction. This application was continued at the last meeting and if the item is continued again the Commission needs to set a date to take action on the project. It was noted that if the project is continued to the next meeting on October 22, 2001, the applicant will have only two days to get information to the Planning Department. C. Bojués amended the motion to continue the project until the November 13, 2001 meeting so the applicant can provide complete plans and a letter of explanation from the architect. C. Key agreed to the amended motion. Discussion on the motion: suggest that the motion require the applicant to pursue a 30'-0" height maximum and direct the Chairman to write a letter to the architect requesting that he comment on the project. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 5 C. Bojués amended the motion to continue the project to November 13, 2001 so the applicant can provide complete plans to scale documenting all the required changes, with direction to the applicant to reduce the height to a 30'-0" maximum and a request for the Chairman to send a letter to the architect requesting an explanation. C. Key agreed to the amended motion. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion directing the applicant regarding the required submission and to continue to a date certain. The motion passed on a 7 -0 vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 6. 2627 EASTON DRIVE B ZONED R-1 B APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARTIN DREILING, CSS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TRICIA GODOWSKI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 10.09.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the area added to the lot reduced both the FAR and lot coverage of the original application. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Richard Terronas, CSS Architecture, was present to answer questions about the project. The Commission commented that the proposed changes blended well with the original design. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 February 14, 2001, Sheets A1.1 through A4.4; except for the revisions documented on the plans date stamped September 10, 2001 reflecting the following changes: addition of bedroom window below existing bay and enlargement of existing bedroom windows on ground floor, enlargement of kitchen windows on second floor and relocation and enlargement of kitchen nook window on second floor; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 18, 2000, January 11, 2001, February 5, 2001 and September 27, 2001, and the Chief Building Official’s February 5, 2001, and September 12, 2001 memos shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating window(s), adding a dormer(s), or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that doors shall never be added in the master bedroom on the first floor to form a hall between the master bedroom and the office and/or door shall never be placed at the entrance to the office area so that two separate bedrooms are created; 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. 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 8:14 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 451 CHATHAM ROAD B ZONED R-1 B APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (NANCY SCHEINHOLTZ, SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FORD AND CINDY SIBLEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 6 Reference staff report, 10.09.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Nancy Scheinholtz, architect, and Ford Sibley, owner, were present to answer questions. Commission comments on the application: The design of the house is excellent; addition matches existing; Concerned about the proposed variance for 8’ wide driveway; a bad situation is being made worse by extending the existing non-conformity 7’; The proposed design with a narrow driveway width leading to the existing garage so close to the house gives a cramped impression and it will be difficult to maneuver an automobile in and out of the garage becomes impractical to use the garage; and The window on the second floor at the rear elevation should be moved to the left so the walls on either side are more proportional. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: a bad driveway situation is being made worse by the proposed design; there are alternatives to adding space to the back of the house on the left side. Chairman Vistica made a motion to send the project to a design review consultant. C. Bojués seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: only one car is required for the four bedroom house and the design is well done, willing to support the variance based on the design; 8'-0" driveway is an existing condition and there is no point to changing an excellent design to accommodate a wider driveway, would support the project on the consent calendar. The public comment was re-opened. The architect noted that the applicants had explored relocating the existing garage back 10 feet to the rear corner of the lot, although they did not want to incur the additional cost. This would increase the space between the face of the garage and the new 7 feet of house along the driveway. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: relocating the garage to the rear corner is a very good solution because it opens up the space between the house and the garage and provides for additional space to maneuver an automobile; agree that moving the garage will make it easier to get a single car in and out of the garage. Chairman Vistica amended the motion to place the item on the regular action calendar with direction to the applicant to relocate the garage to the rear corner of the lot and address the window at the rear of the house. C. Bojués seconded the motion. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2001 7 Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action 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 8:47 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of October 1, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed with the Commission the actions taken at the last City Council meeting. Commission and staff also discussed the council’s desire to have a joint meeting to discuss the future configuration of the planning commission, two dates were mentioned; November 7 or 8. Staff will check and notify the commissioners. The possibility of a special Planning Commission Study meeting to complete the public review of the initial draft of the Housing Element was also discussed. The Commission was agreeable. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Bojués, Secretary MINUTES10.9