The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1219 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report`� .� y MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 25, 2002 Planning Commission City Planner Planner's Report Meeting Date: 3/25/02 FYI — REVISION TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: On October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission approved by consent calendar a design review and special permit for height application for a new, two story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 (October 9, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes). A building permit has not been issued at this time. The property owners are now proposing a minor revision to the interior which will affect the roof configuration on the east and south elevations. In a letter, dated March 8, 2002, the designer notes that the proposed revision occurs in the area above the foyer. In studying the interior space, the property owners felt that the low ceiling adjacent to the interior balcony above the foyer is awkward and crowded. In order to open the space up adjacent to the interior balcony, the roof configuration will change on the east and south elevations. The design of the addition, other than changes to the roof configuration, remains unchanged. There is no increase in floor area since this area was already calculated as floor area with the original design. A copy of the approved and proposed floor plans and building elevations (date stamped March 8, 2002) has been included for your review. Planning staff would note that because of the minor revision to the roof configuration, 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 may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Ruben Hurin Planner ATTACHMENTS: October 9, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2002 Letter from Gary Diebel, architect Comparison of Approved and Proposed Plans City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 2. PERM T FO��A�REAL E T�ATETE E(MARYJr WON 1 A PLICANTONOLOAN ` October 9, 2001 �P"I'IONAL USE G,PROPERTY CP nroe presented a s ary of the staff repo . Cornmission questions: the ber of clients predicted to 'sit the site seems lo , can staffprovide a rvey of the intensity of use f other real estate uses in the c' y both employees a the number of dail clients visiting the real estate cation; survey should include current use and use year, or so, ago wh real estate market was more ctive; can staff also clarify what was the prior use ' Suite 111 and wh was intensity of use; two Co issioners visited the site during a week day and e countered a full p ing lot and full on street par 'ng, feel a parking study is necessary; applicant sho d provide a new swer for the second questi asked on the conditional us e �rmit application ecause the current swer provided does not addr ss the question. � T�� it was set for the infb ation requested ha� 7:1 f�p.m. ular action calendar at th October 22, 2001, meeting pr ided all the submitted and reviewed b the Planning Department. This i m concluded at 3. �408 CHAPIN ENiTE, SUITE 3 B ZO D C-1, SUBAREA B1 B PPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL SE PERMIT FOR A REAL TATE USE (MICHAEL NIL YER AND MCGUIRE REAL ESTAT , APPLICANTS; AC VENTU S ET AL, PROPERTY O R) PROJECT PLANNER: CP Monr presented a summary of the s ff report. Commission asked here the employees and clien of the real estate use intend to park? mmission directed staff to i vestigate what year the hou was conve ed from a residence to an offi , how many on-site parking s aces were required and provi d at the tim of the conversion, and was a king variance was required d obtained. This item was set for the cons t calendar at the October 22 001, meeting provided all e information requested has been submitted d reviewed by the Planning epartment. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE ACTED ONSIMULTANEOZISLY UNLESSSEPARATE DISC(1SS10NAND/ORACTIONISREQUESTED BYTHEAPPLICANT, 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-5TORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RAM1N AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2 C'ity of'Bu�/in�,�me Plwrtilrg Cornmissioll Miflutes O�tober .�I 2001 4B. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 250 B ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B1 B APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL 1NSTITUTION (HOME MORTGAGE) (DOROTHY LOW, WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE INC., APPLICANT; CORTINA 1NVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 27, 2001 PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING) _ _ 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 staffreports. 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 AC ON ITEM 5. 131 LO VISTA AVEr AMEN ENT AND SPEC] AD ION (VINCENT ANI�I � ZONED R-1 , PERMIT FOR HEI REEN CAUCHI, APP: B AP CATION FOR DESI JH OR A FIRST AND SEC� , ANTS AND PROPERTY O� REVIEW ) STORY ; IBARRA Reference staff rep , 10.09.01, with attachme . CP Monroe presented the port, reviewed criteria and Planning Depart ent comments. Six condit' ns were suggested for consid ation. Commission clarified with staff that e applicant provided no re sed plans for the Commissio o act upon; staff noted that was the case so e staff reverted to the origi lly approved plans which ha o revisions on them, the conditions address e proposed changes. / Ch 'rman Vistica opened the p lic hearing. Vincent Cauchi pplicant, was present to answer qu tions. noted that unsuccessful a empts were made to contact b his architect and his engineer in t past two weeks. Commission aske the applicant: why is there a d' ch on the property; have any reme ' 1 measures been taken to protect landscaping next to the ditch ong the property line; has the appl' ant taken any measures to address e concerns of Karen Stern, t neighbor who spoke at the last eeting regarding construction and spassing issues; is the architect till retained by the applicant; who odified the original plans that were bmitted for Commission revie and did that person have permissi from the architect to modify the pl s; the proposed changes will o require modification of the chi ey height and this change has not be indicated on the plans; will other changes to the plans be pr osed. The a�licant responded that the ditch the property is to install d for �proximately 3 more weeks; no emedial measures have been property and he is not concerned f r the health of the plants beca constniction next to them; he is mdful of his neighbors concerns each day; the azchitect is no nger retained, he was paid for e rainag o the street and will remai pen tak to protect the landscapi on his us they have not been affect by other d attempts to clean the si at the end of project when the plans ere approved 3 D2 �n Hurin urlingame rose Road me, CA 94oio ien, po oox 1U44 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t.� 650.558.8885 f.) 650.558.8886 The owners of i2i9 Vancouver Avenue, Ramin and Natalie Forood want to make a minor change to the approved design of their new house. This proposat changes the second story area above the Foyer. Although the balcony headroom is adequate and meets code, the low ceiling adjacent to it feels awkward and crowded to our clients. We discovered this condition when studying the interior in detail. The roof refinement shown will have a minimal impact on the exterior but significantly improve the interior and give relief to this condition. SinceV� Diebel and Company Gary R Diebel, AIA � � �.s� � � � � C.J' � MAR - g 7_002 CITY OF BURLINUAME PLAIVNING DEPT. e.) gdiebel@diebelandcompany.com