HomeMy WebLinkAbout2304 Easton Dr - Staff ReportMEMO
Planner's Report
DATE: January 7, 2003 Meeting Date: 1/13/d2
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: City Planner
RE: FYI — REVISION TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT
2304 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: On May 13, 2002, the Planning Commission approved by regular action calendar a design review for a
first and second story addition at 2304 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (May 13, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes). A
building permit has been issued for this project.
The applicant is proposing to change the approved plans by moving the fireplace from the middle of the family room
wall to the corner. This change is necessary in order to make the family room furniture layout worlc for an
entertainment center since two walls have windows, one wall is the stairs to the second floor and one has the
fireplace. The change would result in the elimination of the 1'-6" x 5'-10" pop-out of the fireplace and one 2' x 4'
window along the first floor, right side elevation toward the rear. Revised plans reflecting these changes are
attached for reference along with the originally approved elevation and first floor plan.
The design of the house, other than the first floor right elevation, remains the same. Planning staff would note that
because of the minor revision, it was determined that it could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. If the
Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item inay be placed on an action calendar for a second review
and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Catherine Barber
Planner
ATTACHMENTS :
May 13, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Comparison of Approved and Proposed Plans
�M City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 13, 2002
C. Osterling noted he did not want to call off item 4c asked for clarification on the garage situation at
1337 Paloina Avenue. CP Monroe explained th condition has Ueen added that a new garage shall be
Uuilt with the house.
C. Auran moved approval of the coi .. '° calendar based on the facts in the staff re o. , onunissioners
cointnents and the findings in tl�_ •� aff reports with recorrunended conditions � e staff re�ort and by
resolution. The motion was�s�conded by C. Osterling. Chair Keighran�`led for a voice vote on the
motion and it passed 7-0. ��i�ppeal procedures were advised. This item��ncluded at 7:30 p.m.
IX. REGULAR
5. AIVIEND
ITEMS
TIONS TO EXTEND TIME
SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGI2AD'I
staff report, 05.13.02, with attachi�zents. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria.
�hair Keigliran opened the public hea��ig. There were no comments fi-om the floor and the
was closed. v,�j ��
Commission discussion: wa ld like to see program extended 2 years unti12004.,x.;'�
C. Vistica moved to�commend to City Council the ordinance extending tl�e�cond tmit anulesty program
far two years un ��' 2004 and giving applicants one year following tll���pproval to inal�e nay required
.��e� ,��;�
improvement�
a-- ¢�,
The mo ' n was seconded by C. Auran. �-�
a��
Chair Keigl7ran called for a voice vote oiz the inotion�;Yd recommend to City Cotmcil that second unit
amnesty program be extended for two years to 2004 and'�requiring any iinprovements within one year. The
inotion was passed on a 7-0 vote. .��.�
6. 2304 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPI,�ATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOSE L. AND MARIA R. REALYVASQUEZ, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
C. Osterling noted that he lived within 500 feet of this site and recused lumself. He stepped down froin the
dias. Reference staffreport, 05.13.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and Staff cominents. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, and Lou Realyvasquez, property owner,
were available for questions. Comtnission asked if the roof pitch was the same, it just continues up. John
Stewart noted yes, that at the front there is still a flat roof at the rear of the house. There were no fiirther
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojues noted that the applicant had addressed the design issues discussed by the Coinmission. The
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 13, 2002
design is good and fits in the neighborhood, so he moved to approve the application, by resolution, with
the following conditions
1) that the project shall Ue built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped Apri126,2002, Sheets A1 through A7, site plan, floor plans and building elevations;
2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, fu st or second floors, which would include
adding or enlarging a doimer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features ar
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subj ect to design review;
3) that the project shall coinply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or filll demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition pennit;
4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's March 20, 2002 and the City Engineer's and Chief
Building Official's March 25, 2002 inemos shall be inet; and
5) that the project shall ineet all the requirements of the Califonua Building and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingaine.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Cormllent on the motion: applicant made suggested changes; design has improved; cormnend arclutect for
work on this project.
Chair KeigYuan called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote
(C. Osterling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
C. Osterling took his seat on the dias.
7. 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED C-1 - ICATION FOR MITIGATED TIVE
DECLARATION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN " W, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1'ARKING
VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF ,,•: = XISTING CIIURCH FACILITY (S'����ATHERIl�rE OF
SIENNA CIlURCH, APPLICAN�-� KODAMA DISENO ARCHITECTS, �Z�'CHITECT; ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCES� OF SAN FRANCISCO, PROPERTY OW�]ER) (125 NOTICED)
Reference st��f report, 05.13.02, with attaclunents. P1ann�r=Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria
and �€aff comments. Twenty-one conditions were suggested for consideration.
Sta£�'noted that a condition has been added rec�ttiring the church to have valet service for large church
,.$�:y ;.
fimctions, they have also arranged to use.pa"rking on nearbyproperties. Commission aslced far claiification
on FAR calculations for areas in the 1�uilcling with 12-foot height or greater, is all of the FAR area counted
toward the parking requirement,�`sliould financial limitations be considered for variauce findings, and could
a conditions Ue added that<tlie"parlcing will be evaluated on an amzual basis. Staffexplained that areas over
�