HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.05.12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
May 12, 2014 - 7:00 p.m.
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the May 12, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Bill Meeker; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior
Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini to approve the minutes of the April
14, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 1, Roll Call, Commissioner Yie’s name is misspelled;
Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), second bullet under Commissioner Terrones
comments should indicate the building in Option A;
Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), third bullet under Commissioner Terrones
comments should indicate the parking in Option C;
Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), second bullet under Commissioner DeMartini
comments should indicate the parking in Option C;
Page 3, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), first bullet under “unknown speaker” should
indicate “environmentally sensitive”;
Page 5, Item 2 (Historic Preservation Ordinance), fifth bullet should read “would prefer”;
Page 9, Item 5 (74 Loma Vista Drive), ninth bullet should replace “don’t need the additional attic
space” with “the eaves on the front and side do not line up”;
Page 14, Item 7 (2532 Hayward Drive), additional Commissioner comments/questions should
read “warrant a more significant variance;”
Page 15, Item 8 (1709 Ray Drive), last bullet under Mr. Besozzi comments should delete “to
determine if story poles are required”;
Page 17, Item 9 (1514 Forest View Avenue) should indicate the motion was to place the item on
the Action Calendar;
Motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie abstaining).
Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2014
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 3, Item 3 (1709 Ray Drive), last bullet under Commission comments should replace “but not
appears undersized” with “now appears undersized”;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
2
Page 12, Item 6 (2747 Burlingview Drive), commission comments should add a bullet “the transom
windows are not a primary viewing area”;
Page 16, Item 7 (4 La Mesa Court) should move reference to closing public hearing to the end of
discussion on page 17.
Page 18, Item 8 (1139 Eastmoor Road), second bullet under Commission comments should read
“the existing stoop has a nice character”;
Page 18, Item 8 (1139 Eastmoor Road), last bullet under Commission comments should read “too
much like an addition”;
Page 20, Item 10 (2020 Hillside Drive), first bullet under Commission comments should add “despite
the attic being walled shut”;
Page 23, Item 12 (325 Chapin Lane), additional Commission comments should add a bullet reading
“approval would be based on the analysis of the Page and Turnbull historical evaluation”;
Page 24, Item 13 (1545 Los Montes Drive), second bullet under Commission comments should
indicate a 9-foot plate height;
Page 24, Item 13 (1545 Los Montes Drive), seventh bullet under Commission comments should
indicate horizontal rather than vertical;
Page 25, Item 14 (1600 Trousdale Drive), Commission comments should add a bullet indicating
commissioners would like to see balconies opening onto the courtyard.
Motion passed 7-0-0-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2714 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE TO CREATE
NEW HABITABLE AREA IN AN EXISTING CRAWL SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (BILL CUNNINGHAM-CORSO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DIEBEL AND
COMPANY ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the
brother of the property owner and had received a tour of the property. There were no other ex-parte
communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Commission comments:
Is it 6 feet for a crawl space to be included in the FAR? (Hurin: Yes)
The 4 foot overhangs are not contributing to the FAR. But are they included in lot coverage (Hurin:
Yes , however the overhang at the front of the house is not added to the lot coverage since the
existing landing underneath the overhang is already counted towards lot coverage.)
Revise Variance application to remove references to new 4 foot overhangs since they are not being
included in the FAR calculation.
Revise Variance application to include discussion that mass and bulk is existing and already
contributing to the FAR; could strengthen the argument for Variance.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
3
Since entire lower floor has a ceiling height of 7’-7”, is it considered habitable? (Hurin: In calculating
FAR, any area with a ceiling height greater than 6 feet is included, whether or not it is conditioned.)
Is there a minimum ceiling height for a bedroom? (Hurin: Needs to check, thinks it is 7 feet.)
Laundry room is large, looks like it could be used for something else. (Hurin: In cases where it is a
laundry room, it is not counted as a bedroom for parking purposes. However, there are enough
parking spaces on the property for it to be a bedroom.)
Can we comment on front elevation? (Hurin: This application is not subject to Design Review).
Design could be refined, has a roof overhang and attached trellis; seems awkward.
What was the pre-existing condition? Was the ceiling height between 5’-0” and 5’-6”? (Hurin: Plan
shows 5’-0”; applicant provided history of use of space in letter.) Applicant focused on whether it
was conditioned space or not, but real issue is ceiling height.
Applicant used real estate document to show this area was existing, however it shows a difference
in the FAR square footages; please explain difference.
Skeptical whether this can be approved. Understands the bulk is there, but if the application had
come before and requested to dig out 2 feet not sure it could be approved.
Letter says space is legally grandfathered in.
Applicant has written that the FAR should not apply to pre-existing space. Not saying that all pre-
existing space should not have a right to a Variance, but should be clear for the record that it is not
the case, we review each application on its own merits, this is not a precedence for future reference.
It would be different if the ceiling height was already greater than 6 feet.
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
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.
2. 1312 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; MARK BARRALOZA, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Sargent moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Bandrapalli called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:29 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE – STAFF CONTACT: BILL MEEKER
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Bill Meeker
presented the report.
Commission questions:
What does it mean “consider adoption by title only”? (Meeker: To adopt, the Commission does not
need to read the entire resolution. Just the title needs to be included in the public record.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
4
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Pfaff spoke on this item:
Ordinance has been a long time coming. Three significant properties had disappeared previously –
the Donnelly Home, torn down in 1964 for parking; the Peninsula Theater (later Fox Theater)
demolished in 1978; and the Old City Hall on Park Road 1970 for parking. This ordinance provides a
process for preservation that was not in place before.
The use of the Mills Act varies significantly by community. Don’t expect it to be very popular in the
commercial district. In San Francisco believes there are only 4 or 5 Mills Act properties in the entire
city. However, in San Diego’s residential areas believes there are 800. Depends how it is advertised.
Not confident the 25% reduction in permit fee will be a draw, but it’s a place to start.
Question: Ordinance defines applicable properties to those in the Downtown Specific Plan area, but
what if a significant resource is moved outside of the boundaries? Is there a policy or process for the
mover doing the restoration so they would also be eligible even if it is moved outside the area?
The Historic Society is a resource with lots of photos and materials, particularly for seeing what
some buildings may have looked like prior to remodeling.
Cathy Baylock spoke on this item:
Originally ran for City Council to get historic preservation ordinance passed.
Started in 1996 when four historical houses were going to be demolished. As the neighborhood
gathered to try to save the buildings, found that Burlingame had nothing in place to protect its
historic buildings.
Found that 14 of 20 cities in San Mateo County had historic property lists, many protected buildings
from demolition, and several had Mills Act contracts.
Burlingame Downtown inventory adopted in 2010. Final step is to allow incentives for people who
want to restore and preserve their buildings.
Amount of participation depends on how good the program is. The proposed Burlingame program is
very straightforward and simplified. Hoping the simplicity should attract people.
Buildings that could benefit include the Gate structure that was subjected to fire and could be
eligible for all sorts of tax incentives, as well as the post office building which has been indicated to
be potentially eligible for the National Register.
At joint Planning Commission/City Council for many years an historic ordinance was an agenda
item. 2004 was last year where there was a packet.
Already treating Burlingame Park as a historic district due to documentation provided to the City in
2009. Homes would not necessarily be incentivized because of property taxes and credits, but
renovation projects would benefit from being able to use the alternative building code for historic
buildings.
Hope it will be so successful and easy to use so it can be extended to Burlingame Park and other
neighborhoods that would like to take advantage of the benefits available. Good to have a financial
incentive in restoring a historic home.
Robert Bachrach spoke on this item:
Important not to be too prolific with this historic program.
Given the growth the community will be seeing and the need for changes, has to have a planning
process that builds a better community. Can’t just call anything that is old historic.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
5
Staff comment:
Meeker: Believes if there is a property in the area that is identified as a potential historic resource
and is eligible for either national, state or local registry, as a mitigation for an impact to a historic
resource it could be moved outside of the district but it could still retain its historic significance
because it originated within the district in which it was designated.
Commission questions/comments:
Is intent to expand these programs to other areas? (Meeker: Up to the City Council as the
policymakers. This is a first step. If there is success, perhaps the Council will consider expanding it
further. Expect that once the program is implemented, will review in the annual joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting the success of the program to date. That could be an
opportunity for the Council and Commission to engage in a discussion whether to expand further.
Right now intent is to start with small step where an inventory is already in place and see how
effective it is.)
Approval of applications sections – appears there are two sections that are at odds with each other:
21.040.060 Item 6, and 21.040.080 Item 1d (Meeker: 21.040.060 relates to requests for certificates
of appropriateness for modifications to designated resources; 21.040.080 speaks to actual
designation process itself.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to forward to the City Council a recommendation to adopt the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council to adopt the
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
4. 808 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LENGTH AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STORAGE FOR A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (TORIN
KNORR, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; ROBERT BOSSCHART, PROPERTY OW NER) STAFF CONTACT:
ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum had spoken with the next door neighbor.
There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with
attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission questions:
Though this is not subject to design review, there were comments about the windows. Would a
comment about tinted glass be subject to review or comment? (Gardiner: No, the Commission is
only reviewing a Conditional Use Permit and a Special Permit, and would be making those findings.
The findings tend to be broader and more related to neighborhood compatibility, and not so much
the design details.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
6
Did not see a public notice sign posted on the property. (Gardiner: Signs are posted for Design
Review applications only, not for use permits or special permits alone.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Torin Knorr represented the applicant:
Intent is to use the building to store a modest car collection.
Had a conversation with neighbors and had a survey done, and it turns out fences were not aligned
to property lines. It was a benefit to both property owners to have it surveyed. The neighbors are fine
with the location of the structure.
Commission questions:
None
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
Spoke with the neighbor to the right and he said he was fine with the project. He would be the most
impacted.
Proposed use is consistent with the existing use, and is similar to other uses in the neighborhood, it
is consistent with the General Plan.
The addition to the length to the structure is consistent with the existing mass, scale and dominant
characteristics of the existing house and existing structure.
Commissioner Terrones 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 Division date stamped
May 1, 2014, Sheets A1 through A3, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory
structure shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the existing attached garage that is
part of the main dwelling shall remain accessible for parking vehicles;
2. that the detached accessory structure shall only be used for storage uses and shall not be used for
accessory living or sleeping purposes;
3. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional
Use Permit and Special Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will
become void;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division's March 11 and April 14, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division's March 13, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division's April 1, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's
March 6, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division's March 6, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
7
6. that the project shall comply 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 full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; and
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m.
Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (4
La Mesa Court) for non-statutory reasons, and Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself
because he has a quasi-business relationship with one of the neighbors. They both left the City Council
Chambers.
5. 4 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN
REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-
HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTOPHER AWOYINKA AND SUZANNE MCGOVERN, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 28, 2014 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Yie noted that she had met with applicant and
visited 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Gum noted he visited the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane.
Commissioner DeMartini noted he met with the applicant, the designer, and the neighbors at 6 La Mesa
Court and 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Loftis noted he met with the applicant and the neighbor at
1510 La Mesa Lane. Chair Bandrapalli noted she met with the applicant and with the neighbor at 1510 La
Mesa Lane. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. He further noted that in response to a commissioner
inquiry regarding the Grecian laurel trees proposed near the oak trees, staff checked with the City Arborist
and project landscape designer, and the proposal is to use Catalina cherry trees instead. The City Arborist
noted that the change would be acceptable in place of the Grecian laurels in his opinion. Forty-one (41)
conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Did not have a chance to review new drawings. Is there an issue with taking action on drawings that
have just been received, and that the public has not had a chance to review? (Kane: It is in the
Planning Commission’s discretion whether it is able to take action on the item. While the plans were
submitted late, if the determination is that the changes would not worsen any of the conditions that
the neighbors were concerned about, it would not be unlike the Commission approving plans with
amended Conditions of Approval with FYI review. If the Commission is concerned about the
proposed changes it could continue the item.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
8
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant:
Last-minute changes were made in response to the letter from the Forrests.
Tree retained for the neighbors across the canyon to protect their natural view.
Reducing the width of the house by 6 inches, to get to the 2 feet objective.
Library study window smaller, about half the size. Neighbor had said 30 inches would be acceptable.
Last-minute changes are in favor of the neighbors.
Addressed comments plus other concerns of the Forrests.
Commission questions:
Concern at 1510 La Mesa Lane about light and amount of glass. Do you meet Title 24 by
prescription or performance? (Raduenz: Performance). Do you know the proportion of glass to wall?
(Raduenz: Does not know exact number, but can have it calculated if it is a Condition of Approval.)
By performance, that means it has been analyzed by computer to ensure it will meet Title 24?
(Raduenz: Correct. The Burlingame standard requires exceeding the Title 24 minimum by 15
percent).
Have you viewed the site from 1510 La Mesa Lane? (Raduenz: Viewed from road, not from the
house. Keeping every tree except one that is in the house.)
The panoramic view photo submitted by the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane shows story poles, but
part of it is obscured by a tree. Is that the tree that will be retained? It looks like you can only see
about half of the house since it is blocked by the tree. (Raduenz: Are keeping two out of the three
oak trees.)
Are there plans to have black-out shades on the rear windows? (Raduenz: Yes.)
The applicant said he could plant new trees to provide cover, and talk about retaining the bay tree.
(Raduenz: Depends on what kind of tree is being requested. Would be up for considering it. If the
bay tree needs to be removed, could plant some fast-growing cover trees, though it will take some
time.)
Is tree #9 remaining? (Raduenz: Yes. #9 is the bay tree.)
Result of the letters back and forth regarding the level of the patio? (Raduenz: Sunk it by 2 feet on
the last submittal.)
Could come down to issue of glazing and light. If that is a go or no-go, would there be agreement to
change amount of square footage of glass? (Raduenz: Would rather not. Submitted an anti-glare
specification sheet, to be used as part of an approval.)
Would the window shades be black-out shades or a high-density micro shade? (Raduenz: A micro
shade. Header height has been lowered so there will be room for an architectural soffit for the
shades.)
Occupancy sensors in the main areas? (Raduenz: Yes.)
For reducing glazing, in the Living Room window could be raised. (Raduenz: Could be up to 2 feet,
but would lose some of the architectural design. It is low to be able to see the living roof.)
Can there be a condition that specifies that neighbors cannot appeal? (Kane: City cannot do
anything to change the appeal procedures – they are in the Municipal Code. Individuals may enter
into private agreements that make sense to them, but the City cannot impose that as a condition.)
Public comments:
Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Plans submitted one hour before the meeting. Not a thoughtful way to do things. Not respectful to
the neighbors who have spent dozens of hours trying to make it better.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
9
Had reached out to applicant right after last meeting so something like this would not happen.
This home must adhere to the Municipal Code and to the design guidelines – both, not just one.
The design guidelines clearly state that the Neighborhood Design Guidebook is equal in importance
to building code research and zoning ordinance research.
Inadequate representation of how the house was moved. It was moved 4 feet closer from the
original story poles. In revised plans the front of the house most critical to the impact to privacy and
light was moved only 1 foot – only the back of the house was moved 1½ feet. Asking for 4 feet.
There is still such a blockage of sunlight, will be looking at a wall from the kitchen. The design
guidelines say to include sensitive placement and height of buildings to avoid substantial blockage
of existing sunlight patterns.
Has had an enlargement and addition of windows. Window across from kitchen keeps increasing in
size; would like it eliminated. If it is returned to its original size (which could be an option) would like
it fully frosted at a level 10.
Window placement should avoid direct views. When built their home they respected their neighbors.
Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Back yard retaining wall is 10 feet above the pool elevation. With the railing it is 13½ feet above, and
8 feet away from property line. Elevated back yard is about 1300 square feet.
Not maintaining the natural grade at property line as outlined in the design guidelines.
The design guidelines say to avoid using retaining walls to increase height above neighbors.
The design guidelines say outdoor spaces should not loom over neighboring properties.
Will be looking 13 feet into the air, will lose privacy.
Would like it lowered by 4 feet so it is below fence line. Currently railing is 3 feet above the fence.
Tim Raduenz, project designer, spoke on this item:
The oak trees will be retained.
The railing is the barbeque area at the other side of the property. The pool is 2 feet lower, in
response to comments.
The side window is the size expressed in the letter (3’ x 9’). It is completely glazed 100% in frosted
glass.
8 to 9 feet away from setbacks to the chimney overhang.
Pushed everything forward. It is a sloping site and the house is as far forward as can be, consistent
with neighboring houses.
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Glazing on the rear elevation is extreme and does not fit with a residential neighborhood.
According to Title 24, typical new single family residential construction has a conditioned floor
area/glazing percentage within a 13-23% range, 17% average.
Did a study of a modern house on Margarita Avenue, and based on plans calculated ratio of 23%.
Calculated 51% for the proposed structure, about 2½ times the glazing of the house on Margarita
Avenue.
If calculated 23% glazing (same as Margarita Avenue example) and applied it to the proposed
structure, would calculate at 984 square feet of glazing for the entire structure; proposed structure
has 1,285 square feet of glass on the rear. The proposed structure has more glass on the rear than
one house has on all sides.
Margarita Avenue house has 29% glass on the rear wall; the current project has average of 70%. It
is more than twice the glazing as found on what appears to be a typical contemporary house.
Even on top level of the Margarita house (with most windows) the wall-to-window ratio is 38%; the
upper level of the proposed structure is 73%.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
10
Glazing is extreme for any residential structure and is inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood.
Appreciate the occupancy lighting sensors on the lower levels.
Christopher Awoyinka, 4 La Mesa Court, spoke as the applicant:
Fourth visit to Planning Commission.
At last meeting concluded there were three main concerns to be addressed. Updated plans reflect
the recommendations that were made at the last meeting.
Proposing to retain a bay tree to help provide the screen for 1510 La Mesa Lane.
Have reduced the overall width of the house by 2 feet, have dropped the lower terrace by 2 feet, and
will keep the oak tree on the left corner and the bay tree.
Not thrilled with concessions but feels have spent enough time going back and forth on the project.
Have given all that could possibly be given.
The Forrests at 6 La Mesa Court sold the vacant lot approximately a year ago. The marketing
literature advertised property as an ideal opportunity to build a home with panoramic views. The
property had been on market for one year already, so expect during that time neighbors would have
had time to digest the changes that were to come.
Has done everything to meet neighbors half way. Has asked for the Commission to be fair and
equitable.
Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Have written two letters to the Commission.
Not opposed to having a house on the lot. 4 La Mesa Court currently looks like a missing tooth.
Welcomes contemporary design – that is not an issue.
Bronze siding is a step forward rather than the white stucco first proposed.
The problems are mass and glass. This is the wrong house for this site.
Applicants have never proposed more than marginal changes to the original proposal, as far as the
mass and glass are concerned.
Glass on rear face is 70%, but the top two floors will have the most impact, and those measure
about 90%.
The house is intrusive and the amount of glass is problem for reflection and light source.
Alex Kilgo, 1530 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
In the last meeting one of the commissioners said “something is wrong since there is nothing but
negatives.” This is not the case.
Have talked with the applicants and there have been concessions.
Other neighbors may not be able to come to the Planning Commission because they have small
kids and it is not an opportune time to come to a meeting.
Supports project and believes there are a lot of other people in the neighborhood who are not in
attendance to protest, because they are not against it.
Jesse Zimmer, 1541 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
Would be nice to have other kids in the neighborhood.
When there is an empty lot next door or nearby there is always a chance it will be built on.
Would be great to have home that would increase property values, that is modern and different from
what else is already there in the neighborhood.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
11
Commission comments:
Disturbing to hear that both parties have tried to have a conversation, but it seems to never have
happened. We would hope that issues could get sorted out by neighbors, because the proposed
project appears to be legal in terms of the regulations including performing 15 percent better than
Title 24.
There is plenty of evidence of concessions on the part of the applicant.
The pool had been further out, but was brought back in. Trees have been retained that were
originally proposed to be removed; they still need to have room to build the house.
Initially the design was very bulky, but it was revised to step down the slope more.
Materials have been changed to blend into the environment more.
The remaining issue seems to be the amount of glazing. Not as much of an issue on the second
level with the bedrooms since the shades will be drawn at night.
Some neighbors have sliding doors and balconies as well.
Feels close – it is a good project. Perhaps reduce some of the glazing on the back.
To expect there to be no change in the type of architecture over time seems unrealistic.
Topic of guidelines. Direction has been, if there is a place for contemporary architecture it will be in
the hills. If not here, where?
Guidelines and code are not a science. Relies on interpretation. Everyone will not get what they
want.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Commission questions to the designer:
Confusion with front of the house: has said it has been pulled it back 2 feet, but neighbor mentioned
it was only one foot at the front and 1’-6” at the back. Has it been pulled back 2 feet, or is it 2 feet in
the back and 1’-6” in the front? (Raduenz: The overhang of the Living Room and bedroom below in
the rear portion went 6 inches in, and the house was reduced in width by 1 foot. Then took another
6 inches out of the garage and kitchen. So the front corner of the house is set back an additional 1’-
6” and the portion of the library is set back 2’-0”. Were concerned about the Living Room and the
light source so was pushed back.)
What should the neighbors expect on the three stories of windows in terms of glazing and shades?
(Raduenz: Anti-glare film used on apartment buildings in the region. It does not give a green or
bronze tint, it is clear. Can share the specifications with the neighbors. Have provided sample of the
frosted glass for the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court.)
Comments about the amount of glazing in the back? (Raduenz: It is a modern house with a view.
Neighbors have glass as well. Only concession would be to bring the Living Room windows up 18
inches – unfortunate because of the green roof. With the trees retained the only part of the house
that will be seen across the canyon will be the kitchen bump-out.) (Awoyinka: Neighbors across the
canyon are not facing the property head-on. Retaining the trees will provide screening.)
Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Have not had a chance to review the plans.
Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer:
Neighbors should have time to review the plans. Assumed they would have until the next meeting to
review the plans.
Have responded to the requests in the letter with the revised set of plans.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
12
Commission questions:
Is there an architectural motif that could break up the expanse of glazing, combining with other
materials to reduce the amount of glazing? (Awoyinka: Everyone appreciates a good view. The
neighbors have glass top levels for the view too.)
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Window areas are not comparable. Patio window area at 1510 La Mesa is 3 windows totaling 180
square feet. Proposed house has 1,285 square feet on the rear, and 414 square feet on the top
elevation.
Not accurate to say 1510 La Mesa is all glass.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
It is a beautiful house, but the standard is whether it fits into the neighborhood. This effects glazing,
finish surfaces, envelope, etc. Though envelope needs to be stretched over time, is it by evolution or
revolution?
Criteria are the design guidelines, which suggest a house that seems to fit into the existing
neighborhood.
Applicant appears to be suggesting more time.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer:
Was thinking there could be approval, and neighbors could review drawings.
Have done everything requested.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
There is a need for applicant and neighbors to meet face-to-face to discuss remaining issues.
Can review and discuss the changes that have been proposed.
Not sufficient to look at view from 1510 La Mesa from the driveway; needs to be from inside the
house. (Kane: Commission cannot require people to meet or provide access to their private homes.
It is the hope of the Commission that the parties will have a productive conversation but it cannot be
required of anyone.)
It is in the interest of both sides to meet.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to a date certain (May 27, 2014), by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
13
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2-0.
(Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This
item concluded at 9:12 p.m.
Commissioners Terrones and Sargent returned to the dais.
6. 1139 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(UNA KINSELLA, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MARC AND SUE WORRALL, PROPERTY OWNERS)
STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEW IT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference
staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were
no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Una Kinsella represented the applicant:
Appreciated the comments from the design study session. Provided opportunity to coordinate with
neighbors, and review details of the exterior. Resulted in positive changes.
Pulling porch details forward, making the columns more of a statement, and creating a covered entry
had not been considered before.
Change to materials came about by wanting to have a more defined transition to help the materials
to blend. Clients decided they liked the shingles better than the siding, and adding shingles and
brackets to the rear elevation made the addition feel less elongated.
Wanted to make sure the profile of the rear elevation stayed as low as possible so that the
neighbors on the other side of the creek would not be as impacted. Keeping the trees helps to
define the privacy more.
Commission comments:
Intention for the shingles to be natural, or stained? Homogeneous? (Kinsella: Homogeneous, similar
color, though will look different on a shingle versus stucco. It will be a hardy cement board that will
be painted.)
Changes are good. Changes to the front entry give it more presence.
Appreciate meeting with the neighbors.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
Great looking project.
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the design review application, by resolution, with the following
conditions:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
14
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
May 1, 2014, Sheets A0 through A3, CS and L1, and including a note on the site plan and
landscape plan to show that the protected-size Oak Tree in the backyard shall remain;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's February 24, 2014 memo, the Building Division's
February 14 and March 25, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 14, 2014 memo, the Fire
Division's February 18, 2014, and the Stormwater Division's February 26, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Side Setback
Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
10. that the project shall comply 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 full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
15
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the Variance application, by resolution, with the following
findings:
The addition is an extension of existing condition;
The garage will be substantially further back from the minimum setback.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:31 p.m.
7. 2501 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NIMA AND ELLE
PARIVAR, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GRANT LEE, MARTINKOVIC MILFORD
ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Commissioner
Sargent noted that he was not at the design review meeting for this item but watched the video, and also
noted that he had previously owned property within 500 feet of the subject property but had sold it.
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Grant Lee represented the applicant:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
16
Reduced the footprint of the entry stair, making it an L with a switch-back that terminates in an entry
porch.
Engaged a landscape architect. Has a mix of low and higher shrubbery and plants, as well as trees.
Commission comments:
Likes the house and the corner entry. It is very welcoming the way it is now. Understands the
reasoning of why wanting to fill in to gain some more floor area and move the entrance, but from a
design perspective it feels like the siding area with the big window is too busy. It’s repeated in the
back and looks like an addition.
Hillside Drive is a grand boulevard for Burlingame, so even though the entrance is being changed to
Castillo it’s still important what it looks like on the Hillside side. That elevation is prominent and
needs more consideration.
Lots of railing on the new stairs. Railing looks very contemporary, seems out of step with the
neighborhood. (Lee: Flat metal railing with a rectangular profile. Wanted to create something that
was as minimal as possible. Not cable railing – it is a metal flat bar, about 3 inches x half-inch in
profile.) Horizontal rail looks out of place for the character of the house. The code may also consider
this rail a ladder, and the code does not allow building a rail that could become a ladder for people to
climb on.
Board and batten is unusual for the area, seems “cabin-like.” Could be very nice, depends how it’s
executed, does not want it to look like T1-11 siding. (Lee: Board and batten is part of the history of
Burlingame. W anted to break up the monotony of just having stucco; having the other forms and
modules provides human scale, as referenced in the design guidelines.)
Landing seems too small at the top of stair, does not look functional. (Lee: Stair is per code. Landing
has to to be at minimum the width of the stair.)
Does not have issue with board and batten. Would it be homogenous color – just a change of
material, but a similar color palette? (Lee: Boards and batten will be the same color, but not the
same color as the stucco. Will be using earth tones, with light khaki on the body of house, and a
greenish color for the board and batten.) Should look like it is intentional with just a change of
material to break down the massing, as opposed to being like a cabin where there was a stucco
building and then a shed was added to the side. Colors will be critical to keeping it harmonious.
Existing stair is part of the main character of the corner lot. Does not need to be retained
necessarily, but in replacing it something that adds a lot of character and charm to the corner is
being replaced with something utilitarian with minimum width. The proposed stair has metal guard
rails, whereas the existing stair has seat walls. A configuration with seat walls would allow a simple
hand rail, more grand and open to the corner. Wouldn’t replicate existing stair but would retain the
character and charm.
Why the gap between the stair and the bump out of the Dining Room? (Lee: Extending the top
landing would create something too massive. Also adding seat walls to the stair would create
something that is more massive. Intent is to make something that is not about a massive stair. Have
also added landscaping including new trees.)
Having gap between landing and Dining Room creates a tall wall with guard rail, but if the landing
just ran to wall of Dining Room, would not need to have the guard rail. Proposed configuration is
very tight. (Lee: Could share design studies that had been done.)
The metal rail and the board and batten will give it a more contemporary feel. Not sure how it will
blend in with the existing house and neighborhood.
Railing feels industrial.
Stair takes away from the neighborhood. Landscaping is good, but existing stair is a great element
and is being replaced with something that is not equal.
Public comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
17
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie moved to refer the application to a design review consultant, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the application to a design review consultant.
The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at
9:49 p.m.
8. 1512 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DION
HEFFRAN, APPLICANT; GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP., PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL
MOYER, CONSULTING ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum noted that he had spoken to the
neighbor across the street at 1515 Ralston Avenue and he said he had no issues. There were no ex-parte
communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for
consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Dion Heffran represented the applicant:
Wrote letter, hoped people read it.
Commission questions:
Is there a reason why did not want to meet with the design review consultant? (Heffran: Did not think
anything would be gained by it. Felt confident the house would be harmonious.)
Issues with massing – it is a “straight-up” building. Helps to have brought down the height.
Details that were submitted – 506 Warren Road in San Mateo example is a good-looking building.
Can some of the details of that house be employed here? (Heffran: That is a more “ethnic” styled
house; the proposal here is a more European-inspired design. The house on Warren Road has too
much detail.)
Why does this house need to have the added foam trim under the gutter? (Heffran: Because the
gutter is square. The gutter has a shadow line, and the step molding underneath the gutter makes it
look nicer.)
The Warren Road house had a nice rake detail with the turned/rolled tiles versus the detail for this
house. (Heffran: Can turn the tile in the front.)
Trying to figure out what’s lacking in front elevation. Possibly small windows on the second floor
gable, round-tile vents on the lower gable, timbers over the windows. These are the types of details
could have been vetted with a design review consultant.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
18
Does not see the love and care in the drawings for this project that are on the other houses that
were shown as examples. (Heffran: It is an evolution, leans towards minimalism. Too many houses
in Burlingame are excessively adorned.)
Looks like a multi-family building rather than a single-family home. Could be from lack of detail.
Would be good to see some additional drawings with the types of details comparable to the other
houses presented. (Heffran: Dislike overly adorned houses. Willing to make some adjustments but
not going to have a dandy. The house on Warren Road is heavily adorned, the house on Jackling
Drive is modestly adorned.)
Side elevation has no relief in the massing, looks like a layer cake. (Heffran: That is the elevation
next to the parking lot. Can’t see it from the parking lot.)
Other side that is visible from the neighboring property is also all one plane. Even with trellis, the
massing is a uniform plane, not broken up. (Heffran: There is a two-foot cantilever, casting shadow
during the day. Creeping fig will cut the color of the house in half.)
Trellises should be placed in reference to the windows. Looks like they are placed haphazardly; they
should be placed the same distance from the windows so it has balance. (Heffran: Can adjust.)
Needs more windows on the second floor. (Heffran: Doesn’t like the windows either, but needs to
get ventilation outside the noise corridor of El Camino Real.)
Side façade with the brackets works best; front looks too bare. Even if it does not get more
adornment, looks very utilitarian. Windows on second floor pushed to corners don’t help the façade,
looks too much like a multifamily apartment. (Heffran: Had considered putting a balcony on the
second floor corner with balustrades.)
Does the Living Room have a vaulted ceiling? (Heffran: No, the gable is a false front.)
Portion of the lower roof pitch that flattens out seems odd.
This conversation would be great to have with a design review consultant. Not fair to the other
applicants waiting to have their projects heard, and cannot spend this amount of time on every
project. Encourage meeting with the design review consultant – would be a great sounding board for
discussing a minimalist design that still meets the guidelines and could be approved.
Think about the long side façade with no windows. If exposed in the future it would not look good.
Understands the security concerns, but not sure how eliminating windows on one side will be
effective when there are windows just around the corner on the front. (Heffran: Daughter has been
broken into twice – security is an issue. Perception of security is as important as reality. House is
next to an unattended parking lot. There is a 6-foot fence and the foliage will remain.)
Revisions are baby steps, but it is so far away from where it needs to be to be approved. Point of the
design review consultant is to assist in designing a project that can get approved, not to punish.
Otherwise there will be a vote where the project gets denied.
Public comments:
Dave Lombardi, 1521 Ralston Avenue:
Lives across the street.
No security problem. Has lived there for 47 years. It’s a wonderful neighborhood.
Need charm and character for the neighborhood.
The resident who expressed support is a short-term tenant; should talk to the owner.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Not clear whether the applicant will meet with the design review consultant. (Kane: Staff seeks to
have a cooperative relationship between the applicant and design review consultant. However under
Code Section 25.57.030(c), whether to refer to a design review consultant is solely within the
discretion of the Planning Commission and does not require the participation of the applicant. This
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
19
becomes a moot point if the applicant does not support the analysis, and ultimately the applicant is
in control of his application.)
The discussion here is the type that would be had with a design review consultant. This is not the
forum for that level of discussion.
The changes from last time were small and incremental. If he does not meet with design review
consultant, there would probably be multiple meetings.
Issue is whether applicant would agree with what design review consultant recommends, or what
Planning Commission would want to see in order to approve the project.
If continued, would have an opportunity to go to design review consultant.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application, with direction to the applicant to seek the advice of a
design review consultant and for staff to identify a compatible consultant to serve as a resource.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
Is just a repeat from the last meeting.
Applicant has seen that what has been submitted is not approvable.
Would like to avoid having multiple meetings to review design.
Unclear whether applicant is willing to make changes sufficient for approval and still stay true to his
goals.
If alternative is denial without prejudice, would not be too different from continuing. Would still allow
applicant to bring back a project with changes.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-2-0-0
(Commissioners DeMartini and Sargent dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:36 p.m.
9. 1521 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER AND
APPLICANT; ROBERT AND JESSICA LAWSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant:
Has addressed the comments regarding the rear of the house. Have added a bay window and
enlarged a window to break up the massing.
French doors and windows have been matched.
Trim on front of house is inspired by a Maybeck house (photo submitted as an exhibit). Original
design was by a Maybeck apprentice, so trying to work with the Maybeck vocabulary. Finds design
as submitted to be beautiful and in harmony with the overall house; not wanting to change it much.
Commission questions/comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
20
Commission made 10 comments on the project before. Five were in regards to the trim, with
concerns that the trim looked “spindly” but there have been no changes. Still has problem with the
trim. Not an issue of the size, since 8” x 8” is big, but where this occurs elsewhere on the house is in
areas less than 8 feet tall. Concern is it is a prominent piece of the front elevation, and it is more
than twice the height. It is not an issue of the bulk or trim itself, it is how it is applied to the elevation
that makes it look “spindly.” (Robertson: It is unusual and not a common motif, but love how it looks.
It is complementary, harmonious and dramatic – aesthetically pleasing.)
Likes the big window, but not convinced by the trim.
Are timbers embedded in the stucco? (Robertson: Will be surface-mounted, bolted from the back,
embedded with stucco. It is not bolted to the surface; it is put on first and the stucco is applied
around it. Will be applied as shown on Page 2.)
The trim looks like stilts.
Likes the picture submitted with the deep overhang and the horizontal treatment, but that’s not what
is being proposed. (Robertson: Can’t do it like that. Have tried many renditions, and this stood out as
being an unusual aesthetic, balanced and harmonious.)
Changes to the doors are good.
The proportions are not harmonious. Maybe add another horizontal member below to give it a sense
of support and bring it into scale.
If the “stilts” timbering were removed the skinny windows would be more special.
Other changes are fine. It’s just this one element.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Jessica Lawson spoke as the property owner:
Tried a lot of things and didn’t like any of them. Likes this one.
Commission comments:
In the photos submitted, the posts are less than 8 feet tall. They are nicely proportioned. The trellis
and carport are great features, but all of the posts are in the 7-8 foot range. The element here is
twice as tall, but would not want to have to go to 16-inch pieces of wood just to get the same
proportions.
Intrigued with suggestion to add some horizontal members, though could end up looking like a
Tudor house (Lawson: Tried that, tried it with a balcony and with doors on the side, windows on the
side. We have tried everything.)
If referencing Maybeck could try corner windows, and replicating the vertical slot windows to help
with the proportions.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Rare to have a design feature that evokes such strong and unanimous feeling across the
Commission.
It is the proportion, and also that it looks stuck on.
It is a discreet item so does not warrant engaging a design review consultant.
Continue the item with direction to reconsider the specific design element.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
21
Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the application by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Another option would be to approve it with direction that the element be revised to frame the window
rather than extend to the ground.
Would not serve the applicant if it got pulled later, requiring another meeting. Continuing the item
would be cleaner.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:57 p.m.
10. 1300 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATION
FACILITY (PILATES AND BARRE STUDIO) IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (BRIAN
SWARTZ, APPLICANT; SETH BROOKSHIRE, DESIGNER; ERVIN EPSTEIN, JR. ET AL, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission questions:
Does the Broadway BID represent the businesses in that area? (Kane: Is defined by geographical
area, consisting of current businesses as of a date and time when an assessment is done. It is the
tenant businesses rather than the landlords who contribute. The group represents all tenants within
the geographical boundaries.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Annabelle Jones represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Closing at 5:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m. on Fridays would be helpful in terms of parking impacts. A
lot of parking at 5:00, but by 6:00 it is all taken. Concern about impact on restaurants on Friday
nights. All other conditions are fine. (Jones: Friday classes will end at 6:00, and those who are not
staying for dinner or shopping will be vacating their spaces. Also anticipate a lot of people will walk
there. Classes end at 10 minutes before the top of the hour.)
Hope people walk to the studio, as well as the restaurants.
Public comments:
Brian Swartz represented the applicant:
When we met with the BID, they said if anything they want the business to be open more. It will be a
complementary clientele who will then go to dinner, and bring more economic activity to the area.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
22
Robert Cutler represented the property owner:
When the previous tenant moved out, put the space on the market and 90 percent of the applicants
were restaurants. Not something the owner wanted – he has a restaurant in the building already.
Prospective retailers found the premises too large.
Property owner thinks this will be a good fit.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
OK with 6:00 p.m. ending time on Fridays.
Supporting Variance: Support of neighboring businesses that would be impacted by the parking,
findings of parking study, and direction to employees to park in certain parking lots.
Supporting Conditional Use Permit: Will add benefit to the local area and neighboring businesses.
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the commercial recreation use with classes (group fitness instruction studio) shall be limited to
3,907 SF of the existing commercial building at 1300 Broadway, as shown on the plans submitted to
the Planning Division and date stamped April 7, 2014, sheets A1.1 and A2.1;
2. that the business owner shall direct employees of the group fitness instruction studio to park in
Public Parking Lot R and T;
3. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance shall apply only to a group fitness instruction
studio and shall become void if the group fitness instruction studio ceases, is replaced by a
permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for
replacement;
4. that all activities associated with the group fitness instruction studio shall occur indoor only; no
portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the group fitness
instruction studio;
5. that the group fitness instruction studio may only be open for business Monday through Thursday
from 5:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., on Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 6:30 a.m. to
3:30 p.m.; there shall be a maximum one full-time and three part-time employees on site at any
time;
6. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 27 persons, including the
employees and customers;
7. 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;
8. that the conditions of the Building Division's April 10, 2014 and March 14, 2014 memos, the Fire
Division’s March 24, 2014 memo and the Engineering Division’s March 27, 2014 memo;
9. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures on the site shall not occur until a building
permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
23
10. that the project shall comply 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 full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; and
11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
11. 515 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (ROBERT DOMENICI, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
How does the Special Permit relate to the FAR nonconformity? (Gardiner: In this instance the FAR
is a net zero change. It is above the maximum, but it is not an increase. The request on this
application is for a Special Permit, which has different findings than a Variance.)(Kane: In other
applications requesting Variances, Variances have heightened findings. The question with
nonconformity is whether changes are being made that are consistent with the district regulations.
Since the nonconformity section was enacted, provisions for Special Permits were added that have
somewhat permissive and design-based criteria. They don’t rise to the level of a
Variance.)(Gardiner: With a Variance a hardship needs to be demonstrated, whereas a Special
Permit is more focused on architectural design, particularly for purposes of being more consistent
with either the design of the house or the pattern of the neighborhood. There is not a hardship, but
there does need to be a demonstrated rationale.)(Kane: Whether the Special Permit requested fits
with the district regulations is something the Planning Commission determines.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
Rob Domenici represented the applicant.
Wanting to improve the house. Not planning to change the front, except for improving windows and
a new roof.
Commission questions/comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
24
Application says existing house encroaches 21 square feet into the declining height envelope, and
addition would encroach 16 feet. Is the 16 square feet being added to the 21 square feet?
(Domenici: The 21 feet is existing. Just trying to follow the same line on the house, and the same
roofline.)(Gardiner: The 16 square feet is in addition to the existing 21 square feet, and would be
from continuing the line of the existing wall plane.)
It’s a good project – the rear elevation is improved, and the addition is tucked in in a way that it feels
like it was there to begin with.
The Special Permit is supportable because there is no net effect from the street. There is already an
encroachment and it’s just the wall plane that is being continued and not adding mass into the
envelope.
Roof plans are inconsistent from one drawing to another. In one place the rear roof is shown as a
hip roof, in another it is a gable. There is some confusion to how the new roof hits the existing roof.
(Domenici: Has included some photos taken from the neighbor’s house showing how the roof works.
Has held off on getting structural drawing until decided if the idea will work. Will tie together once the
structural drawing is prepared.) The idea of extending the line seems like the right idea.)
Do the second floor windows look into the neighbor’s currently, and will that change with the
addition? (Domenici: Currently there is just one window facing the neighbor’s driveway. Will be
working with the next door neighbor – he submitted a letter in support of the project.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
Discussion:
Needs to come back on Regular Action to review the roof plan. It is a strange existing condition, and
may work fine but needs to look at it again.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when
plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:27 p.m.
12. 50 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, ONE-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER
AND APPLICANT; CHRISTOPHER J. KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
25
James Chu represented the applicant:
Single-story house. Rear trellis is counted towards floor area.
Commissioner questions:
Would the location of the garage in back right corner make it less likely it will be used? Will the
parking pad in the front be retained? (Chu: No, the parking pad would not be retained. The garage is
placed in the corner to buffer from noise from Interstate 280. There is a long driveway providing a lot
of parking, and there is a door from the breakfast nook/kitchen so it will be used.)
With the French doors to the porch, would that be an extension or entertaining space? (Chu:
Wanted some cover with the porch.) It is very solid with the thick walls and not as inviting as it could
be. If it was opened up it might get used more.
Single-story house with great scale.
Massing is nice, and is broken up with the wood siding and stucco.
Arches are the only things out of place, feel out of character and massive. Ranch houses
surrounding have a pattern of clean, simple posts for the porches. Could do that and still achieve the
sense of enclosure – maybe double-up some columns.
Likes the trellis in the back. Perhaps that could influence the porch.
Christopher Knightly spoke as the property owner:
Most homes in the neighborhood are single-story.
Wants the arches to break it up; everything else is square.
Covered porch is not for entertaining; entertaining will happen in the back.
Don’t wear shoes in the house, so covered porch area provides place for shoes. Not too bulky, gives
a bit more privacy.
Something other than square lines and horizontal siding.
Commission questions/comments:
It is drawn as a really thick wall. Is that the intention? (Chu: Yes, that is intentional.)
There is an odd passageway between the front porch and side porch beside the dining room. It
looks narrow.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Charming project, well done. OK with the arches.
Arches could be done well if the applicant feels strongly about them. Not opposed to the arches,
except for their lack of adornment. They are big stucco pieces, while the rest of the house is refined
with finer wood siding, shutters, finer trims, small eaves, small gutters. The arches are bulky.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
26
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 13
(1517 Chapin Avenue) because he has a business relationship with the property owner, and Agenda Item
14 (1321 Paloma Avenue) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers.
13. 1517 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW, TW O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ZERS BEAUTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
James Chu represented the applicant:
Has spoken to neighbors at 1515 Chapin Avenue. They have some concerns with views from one of
the bedrooms of the proposed house into their master bathroom. Can plant some privacy screening.
The driveway is wide (over 11 feet) so can plant directly in front of the window. Also proposing
frosted glass in the bedroom of the proposed house.
Commission questions/comments:
Cedar headers over the windows – are they painted? (Chu: They could be painted. Typos: they are
not 8xs – should be 1xs.). Should be painted to match the trim.
House is very well massed. However with French chateau architectural style it is odd to have arts
and crafts brackets.
Is shrubbery along the driveway on the subject property or neighbors’ property? (Chu: The
shrubbery is not on plan – just on the rendering. Would be a 6-foot stucco wall along the property
line, as shown on the Landscape Plan.)
Rendering is great for showing the massing of the house.
The side door to the foyer is on the right side, but the driveway is on the left. W ould the side door be
used? (Chu: The door leads to a patio area.)
Public comments:
Bob Gilligan, 1518 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item:
Has the house directly behind.
Detached garage of proposed house will back up to theirs; back yards will back up to each other too.
Proposed house has a deck on the second story looking out over the back yard.
Would make sense to flip the design on axis so that the detached garage of the new house is on the
right side of the lot, so the garages would be offset and provide a buffer. Would provide more
privacy in the yards.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
27
Very large house for the neighborhood, so this might be an improvement to the design.
Chad Altbaier, 1515 Chapin Avenue, spoke on this item:
Agrees with previous comment about changing the garage location, although the driveway as shown
has value for providing space between the houses.
Privacy is main concern: has a large bay window on the second floor with the bathtub and shower in
the window area. Has a very open view right now. Appreciates offer to add landscape screening and
frosted windows; not sure what other options are available.
Will be a spec home so the new buyer may decide to do something else.
Wants to protect mutual privacy. Bedroom #4 would look directly in line with the bay windows of the
master bath next door, separated by about 20 feet.
Concern over construction noise during the day.
Large house, takes up a lot of the lot. Might look overwhelming for the lot.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
One neighbor would like to flip house to the other side, but this would move house closer to the
other neighbor. Sometimes there is a pattern where most of the houses have the driveway on one
side.
If flipped house and put the driveway on the right side, of the four protected trees would need to take
out all four. According to the arborist report two of the trees appear to need to be removed, but
would be painful to remove all four. Would like to save the two big trees.
If the driveway and garage are kept where they are, there could be more landscaping and screening
at the back fence. There is a fair amount already.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when
plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones
recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:57
p.m.
14. 1321 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PATRICK GILSON, PROPERTY OWNER)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent reported that he had discussed the
project drawings with the project designer but did not discuss the merits of the project. There were no other
ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner
Hurin briefly presented the project description, and reported that a letter in support of the project was
received after preparation of the staff report from the property owner at 1320 Paloma Avenue. There were
no questions of staff.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
28
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
James Chu and Patrick Gilson represented the applicant.
Replacing an existing craftsman house with a new craftsman house.
Commission comments:
The existing house looks nice from the outside – is it in disrepair? In terms of the architectural
detailing, it is the one house on the block wouldn’t want to lose. Though it is small. (Gilson: Yes –
termite damage, and the back portion of the house is in disrepair. The beams under the house are
rotten. When purchased the home was not planning to tear it down, but when consulted with the
structural engineers it would not allow what wanted to achieve.)
Take pictures before tearing it down; maybe somebody will be inspired to build something like it.
(Gilson: Has neighborhood support.)
What are stone pillars sitting on the front porch sitting on? (Chu: They are sitting on a concrete
slab.) They look better on the rendering, where there is a low wall in front. (Chu: Blue stone wall in
front.) Stone wall in front helps give the stone pillars meaning in the design.
Lighthouse-style chimneys in stucco don’t fit with the rest of the house. In rendering they are shingle,
which seems better.
On the front façade above the gable on the right-hand side there is a gable over the stairway. It
looks blank – maybe a clerestory window over the stairway. (Gilson: Had considered a window there
initially but it would be difficult to clean.)
Likes the flanges at the bottom. Maybe taper stone bases under columns similarly, so they don’t look
so chunky and blocky.
It looks like part of the building encroaches into the declining height envelope. (Hurin: Dormers are
an exception.)
House seems big compared to the other homes on street. However there are some other larger
homes on the street that were approved that will be built, and it blends in well. (Chu: Has support
from both adjacent neighbors.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones
recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:08
a.m.
Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
29
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Noted that there will be a community meeting for the Housing Element Update on Tuesday, May 20th
at 7:00 pm at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue. The meeting will look at
potential opportunity sites and new housing policies.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 5, 2014:
The Sunrise Senior project at 1818 Trousdale Drive has entered into a settlement agreement with
the City, under which the building permits are extended in exchange for certain guarantees of
completion dates and construction milestones, with penalties that accrue for missed deadlines. The
contractor has been meeting with the Building Official and construction is planned to commence in
the next few weeks.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Will Loftis, Secretary