HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.05.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 11, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.April 13, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Gaul abstained because he was absent from the April 13, 2015 meeting.
>Page 4, last line should be placed before the motion to adopt the Negative Declaration for Item 8c.
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the meeting
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 -
Abstain:Gaul1 -
b.April 27, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
No changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue and 524 Oak Grove Avenue - Environmental Scoping for
proposed construction of a new five -story, 29-unit apartment building at 1128-1132
Douglas Avenue. The project includes moving the house at 1128 Douglas Avenue to
the site at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and additions to the first and second floors (the
existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue would be demolished) (Dreiling Terrones
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (101
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones recused from this item because he has a business relationship with the
applicant.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Linda Taylor, Douglas Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Currently there are residents, library patrons, dentist office customers and Burlingame Avenue
shoppers parking on Douglas Avenue. To determine impact on parking from the proposed development,
would like to know how many vehicles are likely to be owned by the residents in the proposed apartment
and how many guest vehicles there are likely to be.
>Concerned with the parking capacity on the street, so need to know the total number of parking
parking spaces and number of unoccupied parking spaces on the street on weekdays and weekends.
>Need to know if the overflow of vehicles from this development could be accommodated by street
parking on Douglas Avenue.
>Would like shadow impact to be studied based on existing conditions and from the proposed
development on different times of the day and year.
>EIR should address effect of open spaces and privacy for future residents and neighbors.
John Taylor, 1133 Douglas Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Concerned about traffic impacts from the proposed development.
>Douglas Avenue carries more traffic than the typical quiet street due to its proximity to downtown.
>See a large number of delivery trucks delivering goods to Mollie Stones in the early morning hours.
>Street has problematic intersections at both ends of Douglas Avenue; confusing intersection at
Douglas Avenue and Primrose Road and cars waiting to turn onto California Drive.
>EIR should should include the average number of vehicle trips per day on weekdays and weekends
under existing and proposed conditions.
>EIR should also look at delivery stops, see an increasing number of trucks making deliveries to
residents on this street, they block one lane of traffic and cars queue up behind the truck waiting to get
around. EIR should look at how many delivery stops there are under the existing and proposed
conditions. Suspect there would be more delivery stops under the proposed development.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>There were no comments for environmental scoping for 524 Oak Grove Avenue.
>Interested in hearing about usage of existing parking capacity in townhouses and apartments in high
density areas.
>Would like to know if compact spaces have an influence on how many spaces are used if residents
have large vehicles.
>Is the current parking requirement relevant? Parking requirement for a one -bedroom unit is one
parking space, but could be occupied by two persons with two vehicles.
>Given the concern about delivery stops on the street, should consider providing an area in the
driveway for a delivery vehicle.
>Imagine there is a study of the capacity limitations for sewage and water use for the downtown area .
Would like to know if there is a threshold indicating at what point development has to stop.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Concerned with the density and impact on the intersection at Douglas and California Drive.
>EIR should look at impacts on open spaces and parks from the proposed development.
>Geotechnical report should be included as part of EIR, impact on groundwater should be reviewed.
>Concerned with construction related effects, impacts on area during demolition and construction of
project.
>Review impact from the proposed development on the existing protected size trees at front of lot.
>Concerned about the height of the proposed building.
>Concerned about impacts on public safety.
>Concerned about the number of visitor parking spaces provided.
>Concerned about the increasing number of deliveries to the site, shopping habits have changed
which include more online shopping and deliveries to homes.
>Interested to know how the proposed five story building compares to the heights of the existing
buildings in area, not just to the immediately adjacent buildings.
>Interested to know how the proposed density compares to existing densities in the area.
>How will proposed rooftop deck impact neighbors.
>Want to know if our allocation of water is being reduced and how would it impact this project.
>Would like to understand the displacement of existing housing and where the current residents will
go.
>Include impact on schools and where will kids be going to school.
This is a study item so there is no action.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
b.1812 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story
additions to an existing single family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer;
Candace Nagare, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent
Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1528 Hoover Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for a One -Year Extension of a
previously approved design review project. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual
Designs, designer; Jacqueline and James Haggarty, property owners) (46 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Sargent pulled Agenda Item 7a (1528 Hoover Avenue) for discussion. The item was
moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Are there any issues with extending this permit for staff? (Hurin: No.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
The applicant was not in attendance. The Commission felt it could proceed with the hearing, and that
any questions would be recorded to be relayed to the applicant.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission questions/comments:
>Have no issues with extending the approval, this is a nice design and will fit into the neighborhood.
>When project was originally approved, there was a question about the existing nonconforming
setback to the garage wall. A letter was submitted by the property owner confirming that if the wall had
to be removed, an application for a variance would need to be submitted.
>Want to know if structural plans have been prepared and whether or not the existing wall can remain
or does it need to be rebuilt.
>Have two concerns; don't want to place the applicant in a position to have to come back to ask for a
variance and don't want to put the Commission in a position to consider a variance once the project is
under construction.
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Existing garage wall was to remain because it is nonconforming, project consisted of building behind
the wall so no variance would be needed.
>Interested to hear if a licensed engineer confirmed whether or not the existing wall can remain;
would like to continue application in order to receive confirmation from the applicant.
>Staff report notes there are no changes to the plans, do we need to continue this item? We can't
assume that a change will be made to the originally approved plans.
>If the application is continued, would it return on the consent calendar or regular action calendar?
(Kane: It would be up to the Commission.)
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the item
and place it on the Consent Calendar on the May 26, 2015 meeting, with the direction that the
applicant provide a response regarding whether or not the existing front wall of the garage
needs to be rebuilt as determined by a structural engineer.
Discussion of motion:
>Can't support the motion, don't see this as a sufficient reason to hold up the approval.
>Don't see the benefit of the applicant returning now to tell us they don't know if the wall
needs to be removed.
>Would like to know if the wall needs to be rebuilt now rather than half way through
construction.
Chair DeMartini asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, and Bandrapalli5 -
Nay:Terrones, and Gaul2 -
a.12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a
new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling
Terrones Architecture Inc, applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner )
(33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (This item was continued from the April 27,
2015 Planning Commission meeting.)
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Terrones recused from this item because he has a business relationship with the
applicant. Commissioner Gaul recused because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property .
Commissioner Sargent recused for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair DeMartini met with the applicant and the property
owner.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant.
>Change to project also included moving the stairwell inward to minimize the encroachment into the
declining height envelope along the left side property line.
>Reduced the depth of the garage to move the house further away from the tree.
Commission questions/comments:
>House was moved 1'-4", what was this based on? (Furlong: It was based on reducing the length of
the garage as much as possible and still meeting the parking requirement.)
>Were the story poles adjusted to reflect the revised project? (Furlong: Yes, story poles were
adjusted and certified.)
>Did you get a chance to share the plans with the neighbors? (Furlong: Yes, have met with the
adjacent neighbors.)
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Very pleased with the changes made since the last meeting, including reducing the roof height,
reconfiguring the stairway and pulling the house back from the oak tree. In favor of project.
>Made some improvements to reduce impacts on the tree.
>Question approval of the lot split, obvious then that you couldn't fit the house that was designed on
that lot without doing something to the tree. By accepting the lot split, they knew that part of the tree
would be removed. Based on the changes made to the project, removing a portion of the tree is
acceptable.
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve with the
conditions listed in the staff report. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Bandrapalli4 -
Recused:Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul3 -
b.1552 Alturas Drive, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a second story rear deck addition to an existing single family
dwelling (Eric Cox, Kembcon Engineers, engineer and applicant; Bruce and Linda
Carlton, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair DeMartini met with the applicant and neighbor at
1548 Alturas Drive.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Bruce Carlton represented the applicant.
>Apologized for missing the design review study meeting.
>In addition to the neighborhood outreach summarized in the staff report, also met with the property
owners to the rear of the site. They indicated that they had no concerns with the proposed project.
Commission questions/comments:
>Thanked the applicant for contacting the neighbors about the project.
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>There was ample outreach to the neighbors.
>Deck is in keeping with the decks on adjacent houses.
>There are no objections from neighbors.
>Have a tough time requiring story poles since the adjacent neighbor does not have an objection to
the project.
>See no impacts to distant views.
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve with the
conditions listed in the staff report. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
c.1123 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Tim Raduenz, Form + 1 Design,
applicant and designer; Philippe Bachmann, property owner) (75 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
City Attorney Kane was recused from this item because she lives within 300 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair DeMartini met with the neighbor at 1124 Lincoln
Avenue before the design review study meeting. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbor to the left.
Questions of staff:
>Regarding frosting the master bathroom window, was that driven by a comment to the commission
or was there public input and concern expressed about that? (Hurin: It was a question asked by the
Commission.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Courtney Harrison represented the applicant.
>Made changes requested by the Commission.
>Reduced building height to comply.
>Owner and neighbor agreed on the location and tree to be planted in the rear yard, agreed on
planting a birch tree.
Commission questions/comments:
>Explain frosting the master bathroom window. (Harrison: It was requested by the Commission,
agreed to frost the lower half of windows.)
>Appreciate change to roof pitch, helps with the building height.
>Have you considered doing anything else to soften the vertical impact on the front elevation? It still
feels like a large monolith. (Harrison: We lowered the belly band, tightened up the detail on the lower half
of the house, and tried to give more depth and texture.)
>Landscape hedges are actually more mature and bigger than shown on the renderings. (Harrison:
Wanted Commission to see more of the building.)
>Would like to see something more mature in the front yard, perhaps a japanese maple at the side of
the porch to help ground the building and bring down the height.)
>Did you specifically decide to keep the wider spacing on the batten on the porch gable end? Was
that intentional? (Harrison: Showed owner several options and they preferred the wider spacing.)
>Details will be critical on this project, muntin patterns on windows are critical in making this project
successful. (Harrison: Making sure the details are implemented will not be an issue, owner and designer
are detailed focused and will ensure that project will be built as shown.)
>Front elevation is least appealing because it is the flattest. Design guidelines talk about breaking up
the mass and it appears that it has not been broken up.
>Feel fireplaces should have chimneys, looks like something is missing. It is an architectural element
that helps break up the massing. (Harrison: The chimney is hard to see from the street.)
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Feel a little uncomfortable with this project, several concerns expressed about front facade.
>Perhaps we should have sent it to a design reviewer, don't want to hold the project up, but also want
to have a project that meets the design guidelines.
>Not comfortable with adding a condition of approval to frost the master bathroom window, it was not
a privacy concern shared by a specific neighbor.
>Concerned with eliminating the chimney, looks like it's been chopped off and looks awkward.
>Feel it would look better to push the belly band down further, proportions are still a little odd.
>Like various treatments on gable ends and siding chosen for house.
>Project could be better, but not looking for perfection.
>Applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns.
>Applicant has met with the neighbors to address their concerns regarding privacy screening in the
rear yard.
>Impressed by changes made to project, including reducing the overall height of the building and
narrowing the battens.
>Concerned with the roof element along the right side of the house, perhaps adding a chimney on the
left side would help to balance the design.
>Roof element along right side of house is above a bay window which helps to compose the right
elevation.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>There are a lot of large houses on Lincoln Avenue, street appears to be wider than other streets in
neighborhood, the street can handle the presence of this house.
>Project is acceptable if the landscaping in the front yard were revised to include some more
presence and if the chimney was added back.
Chair Terrones made a motion to approve the project amending the condition of approval to not
require the master bathroom window to be permanently stained or obscured and with the added
condition that the application be brought back as an FYI item to show 1) a revised landscape
plan with more substantial landscaping along the front of the house, 2) the chimney added back
along the left elevation towards the front of the house, and 3) a birch tree added in the rear yard
as shown in the email and attachment between the property owner and neighbor. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Commission discussion:
>Should the location of the belly band be included as an FYI item?
>When shrubs are shown correctly at the right height, it will reduce the exposed wall height.
Therefore, don't think belly band location needs to be included in the FYI.
Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli6 -
Nay:Gaul1 -
d.1700 Devereux Drive, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Parking Variance
for a major renovation including a first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling with an attached garage (Wehmeyer Design, applicant and architect;
Stephen and Kimarie Matthews, property owners) (43 noticed) Staff Contact:
Catherine Barber
Chair DeMartini was recused because he has a business relationship with the applicant.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Robert Wehmeyer represented the applicant.
>Eliminated the request for a parking variance by making modifications to the garage.
>Addressed concerns with massing by reducing the roof height and increasing the roof pitch above
the front entry.
>Reduced the size of the second floor deck at the front of the house.
>Cedar shingle siding is now on the entire house with a clapboard detail for the base.
Commission questions/comments:
>Changes are fantastic, house is harmonized and tied together with shingle siding.
>Stucco base would also work instead of clabboard siding; concerned with wood siding that close to
grade.
>Appreciate revisting the plate heights, helps attached garage fit in better.
>Concerned with construction impacts on school; would prefer not to see trucks driving on the street
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
before 8:30 a.m.
>Appreciate lowering the plate height and reducing the deck size.
>Appreciate changes made to parking area dimensions within the garage.
Public comments:
>None.
Vice-Chair Loftis closed public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve with
the conditions listed in the staff report. Vice-Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
e.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for an Amendment for changes to a
previously approved Condominium Permit, Design Review and Parking Variance for
construction of a new four -story, 10-unit residential condominium with below -grade
parking (Iris2 LLC, applicant and property owner; Levy Design Partners, architect )
(184 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Gaul recused because he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair DeMartini discussed this item with the City
Arborist.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Toby Levy and Chris Ford represented the applicant.
>Originally approved project was appealed to the City Council by the adjacent property owner.
>Subsequently, that neighbor would not give permission for temporary shoring on their property. As a
result, the below-grade garage needs to be shifted 18 inches to the right which compromises the
planting along the right side property line.
>Provided opportunity to add more landscaping visible from the right -of-way along the left side
property line.
>Proposing to plant columnar red maple trees instead of hornbeam trees, chose not to use
hornbeams since their leaves turn brown in the fall and hang onto the tree during the winter. Trees will
be planted in 48-inch containers.
>Concur with the City Arborist to change the crape myrtles in the rear yard from multi -stem to
single-stem.
>Neighbor adjacent to right side property submitted a letter of support. (Hurin: Have not received
letter, but may have been submitted after 5 p.m.)
Commission questions/comments:
>Existing oak trees along right side property line are being removed. Was the reason for their
removal due to the underground garage? (Levy: They are being removed because over the years the
adjacent neighbor had shaved the canopy of the trees which had left a lop -sided canopy. Project
arborist didn't think the trees would survive in their current condition and with the proposed construction.)
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Thought the reason for removing the oak trees was not due to the way they were trimmed, but
because the design of the building wouldn't allow the trees to survive.
>Sunset book indicates that podocarpus is a 20 foot tree, but that at maturity it could reach up to 60
feet in height. On rendering, is height of tree in container shown at maturity height? (Ford: In rendering
podocarpus is shown at 25 feet high, it depends on the substrate. The previously proposed podocarpus
is shown at 25 feet in height, which is based on the planter strip size and substrate shown at that time .
Am confident that the red maples in containers will reach 20 feet high).
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Have concerns with changes to landscaping, when we first reviewed the project it was noted that
from a distance the oak trees looked good, are impressive and tall.
>There was a lot of discussion on screening the air conditioning units on the roof.
>Concerned that we're moving away from goals of the city regarding protected trees. At first we had
two large oak trees, now proposing trees not being planted in the ground. Now have shorter trees than
expected, screening less of the building.
>Haven't seen a proposal that makes the garage smaller so that larger trees can be planted.
>Agree with concerns with trees and the value City places on that, but have a hard time asking
applicant to revise the garage to accommodate trees. There are limitations on this lot in terms of how
big it is, applicant is working hard to meet all of the competing demands.
>Removal of protected size trees is regrettable, but project was previously approved with removal of
the oak trees. We have to allow for the buildability of the lot.
>Architectural revisions are acceptable.
>20 foot tall trees in 48-inch containers is substantial. There are podium type projects where trees in
raised planters are acceptable.
>Want to encourage this type of project.
>Important to make sure the trees in the containers are maintained.
>In future will consider reducing the project size in order to maintain trees.
>Don't think applicant is acting precipitously in removing the trees, had an arborist report which
concluded that oak trees would not survive due to the project. Made a fair effort to save the trees.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve with
the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, and Bandrapalli5 -
Nay:DeMartini1 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1523 Willow Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
declining height envelope and Variances for side setback and parking for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Peter Suen, applicant and
designer; Kevin Lange and Betty Chen, property owners) (105 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>What is side setback requirement for the second floor? (Hurin: Based on the lot width, the minimum
side setback is 4'-0"; it must also comply with the declining height envelope.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Peter Suen and Aaron Lavine represented the applicant.
>Want to bring house more in line with scale and mass of neighboring houses.
>Property owners like the existing house, so tried to limit the demolition by limiting the addition to the
front of the house.
>Articulated the front facade by including a center courtyard and landscaping.
>Tried to respect the neighbors privacy along the right side of the house by varying the windows.
Betty Chen spoke as property owner:
>Love the existing house, but need more space to accommodate family.
>Front yard is underutilized and explains reason for addition at front of house.
>Have reached out to neighbors; they provided letters of support for the proposed design.
Commission questions/comments:
>Confused on the type of windows proposed. Building elevations indicate aluminum clad wood
windows, but the detail on sheet A 5.1 shows a section of an extruded aluminum frame. (Suen: We
haven't selected the type of windows yet, but understand that an aluminum clad wood windows is
preferred.)
>Is your intention to replace all of the windows? (Suen: All front facade windows will be new; the
existing front entry door and garage door will be resurfaced.)
>Will the garage door match the front door? (Suen: Yes.)
>Concern is that it feels like it's a mix between a modern design and an expanded rancher. Sensing
a modern design, but it hasn't gone far enough. It's lost its architectural character.
>See justification for variance due to house being built with an odd configuration on the lot.
>Concerned with south elevation, it is a tall two story wall with a mixed window pattern. Is there an
intention with the window pattern? (Suen: Trying to respect the neighbors privacy and also have a
varied window scheme. The idea is to provide clerestory windows to maintain privacy and lower
windows to allow for ventilation.)
>Concerned with minimal, high and clerestory windows on a tall, two-story flat wall.
>Difficult to add second floors to ranch houses, but it can be done gracefully and handsomely.
>Plans seem to indicate that the first floor entry wall is in line with the second floor wall above,
correct? (Suen: Envision a slight soffit above the entry, second floor wall would be furred to create this
feature.)
>Revisit second floor wall above entry, might be better for this wall to be in line with first floor wall.
>No page numbers in plan set; please correct.
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Concerned with the south elevation, would see a tall looming wall above a single story house as
viewed from Walnut Avenue. Would like to see a differential between the addition and existing building,
may maintain variance and stay within the declining height envelope.
>Can't figure out the house, the design is not clear. It needs to go further towards modern or scale
back to match the existing architecture.
>This is a good candidate for a design reviewer.
>The design is confused, don't think it can get to a modern design with this starting point.
>Strange to have a deck with a front entry behind it.
>Center courtyard gives feeling of an Eichler house.
>Lacks strong architectural style.
>Concerned with the south elevation, one option may be to fill in courtyard and move the front door
forward.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the
project to a design reviewer. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
b.1438 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Design Review for a first and second story addition
to an existing two -story single family dwelling (Alex Nie, Nie Yang Architects, applicant
and architect; Yuan Tian and Ying Ding, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact:
Catherine Barber
Chair DeMartini was recused because he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of the
subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Vice-Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Yang Nie represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
>Three 24-inch box size trees are required for this project; plans do not clearly show how this
requirement is being met. (Nie: One new tree is shown to be planted in the front yard along the left side
property line and there are several existing trees to remain in the rear yard.)
>Building elevations show that new windows in addition will be fiberglass; assume existing windows
won't be replaced. (Nie: Existing windows will not be replaced unless it is necessary during
construction. The existing windows are actually made of vinyl, but wanted to use a better window for the
addition and that is why a fiberglass material was chosen.)
>Consider using aluminum clad wood windows for the addition; this could then be the standard to
follow when the existing vinyl windows need to be replaced in the future. (Nie: Will need to discuss this
with the property owner.)
>Have you had a chance to share the proposed plans with the neighbors? (Nie: The City sent out
public hearing notices; the property owner did not discuss the project with the neighbors).
>Encourage the property owner to share the plans with the neighbors so that they are aware of the
project and can address any concerns they may have prior to the meeting.
Public comments:
>None.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Vice-Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Left side elevation handles massing better than the right side; right side appears to have two
stacked boxes. The right side needs more relief, articulation and visual interest.
>Addition made to original house was not graceful; this application appears to be extending a box
without any articulation.
>Right side elevation needs to be addressed to soften massing with some articulation.
>Important to speak to adjacent neighbor to the right since the addition extends the second story
along the right side of the house.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed.
Discussion of motion:
>Design is too bulky, right side elevation needs more articulation, design needs to be
softened so that the second floor walls are not stacked on top of the existing first floor walls.
Vice-Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
c.1644 Lassen Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing one -story house with an attached garage (John Matthews,
applicant and architect; John and Anna Fogelsong, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Barber
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors on the left
and right sides and across the street.
Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
John Lucchesi and John Fogelsong represented the applicant.
>This is straight forward project, main goal is to accommodate the needs of a growing family and
update the house.
>Have reached out to neighbors to share plans and made them aware of the proposed project.
Commission questions/comments:
>Are there windows in the garage door? Please describe the garage door. (Lucchesi: There are no
windows in the garage door; believe it is made of wood.)
>Will the second floor bathroom windows be obscure? (Lucchesi: No, not planning to obscure these
windows at this time, but we are open to suggestions.)
>Thanked the property owner for reaching out to the neighbors.
>Clarify what is proposed for the garage door. The proposed elevation indicates the existing garage
door to remain, but the design of the garage door is not shown correctly on the plans.
>It appears that all of the windows are being replaced with fiberglass windows; consider using a
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
window other than fiberglass to provide a richer look. (Lucchesi: Have chosen fiberglass because it
provides crisper detailing.)
>Will the front door be replaced? (Lucchesi: No, the existing front door and sidelight will remain since
they provide nice details).
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>This is a handsome and graceful addition to a ranch house.
>Massing is handled nicely and detailing is simple and well composed.
>This addition is what we expect to see on a ranch house in this neighborhood.
>Detailing on front porch adds nice variation.
>Like variation of wood siding on the upper level and stucco and brick on the lower level.
>In support of proposed application.
>Fiberglass windows are acceptable.
>Revise plans to clearly show design and material of garage door.
Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. Chair DeMartini called for a voice
vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
d.1405 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
changes to the front facade of an existing storefront (Jovis Hung, applicant: Matt
Bradley, Oculus Inc., designer; On The Avenue LLC, property owner) (42 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Matt Bradley represented the applicant.
>Main purpose of modification is to provide a code compliant disabled -accessible entry and to
improve visibility into the store.
Commission questions/comments:
>The new door appears to be slightly off center by just a few inches, is there a reason for this?
(Bradley: The display fixture to the right of the front door is specific to the business and must be at that
location in the storefront. The front entry and door had to be placed in such a way that this fixture is
visible. This is a make-or-break item for this project.)
>Does this fixture have a clearance requirement? (Bradley: The fixture itself does not have a
clearance requirement. There are also two other required display fixtures located at the front corners of
the storefront. Shifting the front entry door would impact the placement of these fixtures.)
>Looks like front entry door needs to move slightly to the north in order to be centered. Revisit the
floor plan to see if there is a way to center the door.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Stucco may need to be repaired once existing metal sign band is removed.
>Like that the existing stucco pilasters are being retained.
Public comments:
>None.
Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>This is a straight forward application.
>Would like applicant to revisit plans to see if the front door can be centered.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to place the
item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. Chair DeMartini called
for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
>Chair DeMartini discussed the following subcommittee appointments:
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee: Cleared previous appointments. The subcommittee needs to
figure out the Planning Commissioner's role.
Historic Preservation Subcommittee: Cleared previous appointments due to inactivity.
Commercial & Mixed-Use Sustainability Subcommittee –: Cleared previous appointments due to
inactivity.
Residential Sustainability Subcommittee: Cleared previous appointments due to inactivity.
Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee: Appointed Commissioners Gaul, Sargent and Terrones.
Neighborhood Design Guidelines - City Council /Planning Commission Subcommittee: Extended
appointments of Commissioners Sargent and Terrones.
General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee: Appointed Chair DeMartini.
Community Center Citizens Advisory Committee: Extended appointment of Commissioner Loftis.
>Commissioner DeMartini reported that the last two Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
meetings were canceled.
>Commissioner Loftis indicated that he missed the last meeting of the Community Center
Subcommittee. However, he noted that presentation slides of the conceptual design work for the
proposed Community Center were forwarded to the commission. He shared that the proposed
Community Center is approximately 35,000 square feet and located in the same general location as the
existing Parks and Recreation building at Washington Park. There are some upcoming outreach
meetings in the schedule that was forwarded to the commission.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
>Staff will ask Mills-Peninsula Medical Center representatives to lower the latch and handle on the
Albemarle Way gate so that it complies with disabled-accessible requirements.
>Staff is preparing a waiver for design professionals to sign to allow proposed development plans to
be reproduced and/or posted on the City's website.
>The City Council voted to deny without prejudice the application for a new single family dwelling and
detached garage at 1516 Howard Avenue, with the direction that the application first be reviewed by a
design reviewer before the application is submitted for Planning Commission review.
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
May 11, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on May 11, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 21, 2015, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015